Jump to content
  • 0
victimoffraud

rti to get caw cell call records

Question

victimoffraud

Hello,

in an MC case opposite party has claimed that "we complained in the caw cell and they called the person and family members several times but they did not attend the meetings. so the caw cell gave us a note to approach the court."

However the truth being there were never any calls received. can we rti to get the calls made by caw cell to our specific numbers? are caw cell calls come under rti? if there is format would help. TIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
MANOJ B. PATEL

Yes, CAW cells are covered under RTI act. You may file RTI application to the PIO of concerned police authority under whose control CAW cell works, with a request to provide information you want.

 

For guidance in writing and submitting RTI Applications, please refer to following links.

 

HOW TO WRITE RTI APPLICATION.

 

 

CENTRAL/STATE RTI RULES- GUIDE.

 

 

HOW TO SUBMIT RTI APPLICATION.

 

 

RTI TIME SCHEDULE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

Calls may be through telephone or through letters. Before closure of the case, they should have issued a Registered notice, informing the desperate calls made for contacting you. Now 'Counseling" was made a farce, as both parties accuse each other and refuse to listen to others or understanding a fact.

Some cases conciliation may work, but even if they hear one party, they conclude whether there is any scope for conciliation or not. Not even one percent of cases stand for conciliation before going to Court.

This is general practice. Now, if you want information from them, you can seek information on dates of calls from that CAW cell, and also seek mobile incoming calls list from your service provider.

But what is the use ? Your focus will be distracted by fighting with every dept., whereas your target is some other thing. Just ignore as there is no use in dealing with such issues with Police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
victimoffraud

true that. caw cell is useless farce. but the ENTIRE case of the opposite party is false and such kinds of things helps expose the fallacy of the opposite party. only the problem is is there any trouble the police will create for filing rti of their phone calls made to us. but you have a valid point, i hadn't noticed, 'Before closure of the case, they should have issued a Registered notice, informing the desperate calls made for contacting you.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

This is normal practice, and not mandatory. Problems/difficulties invade in a group. Do not purchase further problems with Police, when you can not find any remedy/relief with that information. just ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • vashisthvivek
      By vashisthvivek
      Section 4 (1) (a) provides as under:-
      “Every Public Authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerized are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerized and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated”.
       
       
      However, there are two catches in the Section. First is ‘subject to the availability of resources’ and second is ‘reasonable time’. The Public Authorities avoids the obligation under the Section on the pretext of non-availability of resources. Further ‘reasonable time’ is also a vague expression. Therefore, S 4(1) (a) is required to amended make it obligatory for every public authority to maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information. For this specific time must be prescribed, otherwise no Public Authority is going to take action in this regard. For this, pressure is required to be build up on the Law makers.
       
       
      However, till the Act is not amended, we all the members of this great forum should file applications under the RTI Act with the different Public Authorities to intimate as to what actions have been taken by them to implement this provision of the Act. If no action has been taken, the reasons under S.4 (1) (d) should be requested. This will atleast create some pressure on the Public Authorities.
    • bahl_ajay
      By bahl_ajay
      As reported by Himanshi Dhawan of TNN in The Times of India, New Delhi, Aug 28 2009.
       
      Welcome - Times Of India ePaper
       
       
      PMO Has 28,685 Secret Files; Hasn’t Opened Even 1 To Public This Yr
       
       
      What steps does the government follow while deciding to declassify its old secret documents? You may never get to know since the manual that details the declassification process in the country is itself marked confidential. Meanwhile, the PMO has admitted it has 28,685 secret files but has not declassified any this year.
       
      The Indian government’s arbitrariness and complete lack of transparency regarding classified material is in sharp contrast to the international practice of making secret files public after 25-30 years. Some countries declassify their documents after just 10 years.
       
      While the government says it makes files public after 25 years, the policy remains largely on paper. In response to an RTI query, the
      PMO said it had declassified 37 files in 2007, 25 files in 2008 and none in 2009.
       
      However, even these declassified records cannot be accessed by a bonafide researcher, let alone an ordinary citizen, as the material continues to be housed in the PMO and has so far not been transferred to the NAI.
       
      ‘‘If the records continue to be held by PMO, there can be no access to such material. Proper and time-bound declassification is in national interest,’’ said Anuj Dhar from endthesecrecy.com. Dhar, along with Chandrachur Ghose, has been campaigning for transparency in administration through regular declassification of records.
       
      Only three files declassified by PMO in 2 years
       
      New Delhi: PMO has admitted it has 28,685 secret files but has not declassified any this year. Chandrachur Ghose campaigning for transparency in administration through regular declassification of records had filed the RTI application seeking information on the government’s declassification policy. In response, the PMO said, ‘‘Declassification of files is done as per the manual of departmental security instructions issued by the ministry of home affairs. The ministry has marked this manual as confidential and has declined to provide it.’’
      The Public Record Rules, 1997, state that records that are 25 years or more must be preserved in the NAI and that no records can be destroyed without being recorded or reviewed. On paper, it’s mandatory for each department to prepare a half-yearly report on reviewing and weeding of records and submit it to the NAI. The rules also stipulate that no public records which are more than 25 years old can be destroyed by any agency unless it is appraised.
       
      RTI activists, however, complain that these rules are rarely followed. While the PMO says the declassification process is ‘‘continuous’’, its response on the number of files that have been declassified inspires little confidence. Only one file was declassified in 2005 and two in 2006.
       
      Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative programme coordinator Venkatesh Nayak, who had also filed a RTI asking for the manual of departmental security instructions, was denied the information as well. The matter is at present before CIC.

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy