Jump to content
  • 0
anirbanlaha

Non delivery of URGENT Registered post with AD

Question

anirbanlaha

I had sent an important registered post (with AD) from kolkata to bangalore on 14th October, 2009. My registration number was 4846.

 

The post is still to reach bangalore as of 23rd Oct,2009.

 

Can anyone advise me what I need to do as it is critical that the documents in the post receive at the earliest?? Is there anyway to track the post without much delay???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 answer to this question

Recommended Posts

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

    • Shanaya Mehta
      By Shanaya Mehta
      Can anyone give me the web site for checking my balance in my PF account online.I am registered with EPFO Mumbai.
    • sidmis
      By sidmis
      New airport not open to public scrutiny: official
      As Reported By : Swathi Shivanand in The Hindu
       
      ‘Provisions of RTI Act not applicable’
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
      State promoters have 26 per cent stake in BIAL
      ‘It does not amount to substantially financing BIAL’
      ------------------------------------------------------------------
       
      BANGALORE: Soon thousands of people will start using the Bangalore International Airport at Devanahalli. Vast expanses of farmland have been acquired by the State Government to develop the greenfield airport. The State promoters have 26 per cent stake in Bangalore International Airport Limited (BIAL), the company developing the airport.
       
      Yet, the ordinary citizen cannot ask for information about the airport from its promoters apparently because the BIAL is “a company in the private sector,” is not a “public authority” and “provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005 and Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements 1999” are not applicable.
       
      This is the reply that Benson Isaac, an individual who asked for information under the RTI was told by A.R. Rajaram, head, legal, and company secretary of the BIAL. Under the RTI Act, any public authority has to suo motu declare basic information about itself.
       
      In a letter to the BIAL, Mr. Isaac argued that a public authority, as defined by the RTI Act, is any body or institution that is controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. The 26 per cent stake by State promoters in the BIAL, Mr. Isaac contends, is enough to consider the BIAL a public authority and all rules and regulations of the RTI act are applicable to it.
      Airport site
       
      “The Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation has provided the airport site to BIAL free from all encumbrances under the Land Lease Agreement. Also a State support agreement of Rs. 350 crore would be made available by the Government of Karnataka to BIAL for the purpose of this project,” Mr. Isaac said, quoting from the BIAL website.
       
      Mr. Isaac also pointed out that in a similar case against the Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL), filed by Lt. Col (Retd) Anil Hebble, the Central Information Commission had ruled that the DIAL with 26 per cent stake of the State promoters, was a public authority. The same holds good for the BIAL too, he said.
       
      Acknowledging his letter, the BIAL, in its reply on April 20, 2007, maintained that it was not a public authority and “the question of furnishing any declaration/information suo motu or otherwise does not arise and we sincerely request you to treat the matter as closed.”
       
      Mr. Isaac has approached the State Information Commission. The BIAL, in its statement of objections before the commission, has disputed Mr. Isaac’s claim. It said that the 26 per cent stake of State promoters does not amount to “substantially financing BIAL;” that the relationship between the parties is that of “a creditor and debtor;” the land has been leased out to BIAL and the company does not own these lands and that the BIAL is required to pay concession fee and is also liable to pay taxes.
       
      On the question of similarities with the case against DIAL, the Bangalore airport promoters say that “the facts to be looked into and appreciated, is totally different from the case of Lt. Col (Retd) Anil Hebble.”
       
      The Hindu : Karnataka / Bangalore News : New airport not open to public scrutiny: official

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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