Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'notice'.
Found 28 results
karira posted a topic in Discussions on RTII am trying to collect the different formats of "Notice of Hearing" being issued by various IC's in CIC and SIC. Recently I realised that each IC has his own format / norm. In the case of one particular IC, the format varies from time to time ! This has led to a piquant situation where: PIO's and FAA's do not attend the hearings (nominate some junior clerical staff to attend) Copies of comments of PIO are not served on the appellant until the hearing actually starts "Other" types of officers attend the hearings since they need to be in Delhi or the State Capital for personal trips Third parties do not get an opportunity to participate in the hearings Orders do not mention PIO/FAA as attendees but just mention name of PA as "respondent" In one case, some one hanging around the corridor, was literally dragged into the IC's room to attend hearing as a "PIO". If any member has received a "Notice of Hearing" from any IC in the CIC or SIC, please upload them as an attachment to your post in this thread, with the following details in the post: Name of IC (or Chief IC) CIC or SIC (mention the State) Date of "Notice of Hearing" If hearing attended personally by the appellant or representative If hearing attended by the PIO/FAA If hearing attended by any other person from the PA Did the other person have a "letter of authorisation" from the PIO/FAA Did the order mention name of PIO (or other person) at the top (where name of appellant is mentioned) If a particular IC's "Notice of hearing" is already uploaded by some other member, please only upload more such notices from the same IC, if they are of a different format.
KARNATAKA Dear Sir, WHETHER THERE IS ANY FORUM TO REDRESS THE GRIEVANCIES OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS (UNDER SUSPENSION). NO RULES AND LAW APPLIES TO THEM. HON’BLE HIGH COURT APPLY ITS OWN RULES. THE OFFICERS ARE KEPT UNDER SUSPENSION FOR 4-5 YEARS. ARTICLES OF CHARGES BEING FILED AFTER 10-11 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SUSPESION. ON APPROACHING THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT THE WRIT PETITION IS DISPOSED BY A SINGLE SENTENCE WITH A LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE SAME HON’BLE HIGH COURT. CAN ANY BODY ANTICIPATE JUSTICE FROM THAT SAME HON’BLE HIGH COURT. ON THE BASIS OF DEFENCE DISCLOSED IN THE WRIT PETITION, THE DOCUMENTS ARE TAMPERED, MANUPULATED AND CREATED. MY QUESTION IS WHETHER I AM ELIGIBLE FOR FREE LEGAL ADVICE. IF NOT IS THERE ANY LAW FIRM IS DARE ENOUGH TO FILE COMPLAINT IN RESPECT OF SUCH MANUPULATIONS AND FIGHT FOR SEPERATE FORUM. IF INTERESTED GET FULL DETAILS FROM ME AT email@example.com Dated 14.11.2008
bahl_ajay posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reposted in zeenews.com http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?d=457256&sid=REG CIC pulls up MCD for not responding to notice, summons New Delhi, July 22: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has pulled up the MCD for not responding to a notice issued to it over a petition seeking details on appointments made in the civic agency on compassionate grounds. "This Commission takes an adverse view of the MCD failing to respond both to our appeal notice and summons for appearance in hearing," Central Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said. The Commission has decided to proceed with the hearing of a case without the presence of MCD officials. It's observation came while hearing a petition filed by Mahinder Kaur of Haryana seeking information on MCD employees who were appointed on the compassionate grounds. She said that the full information has not been provided to her by MCD. The Commission directed the MCD to give the petitioner information pertaining to appointments made on compassionate grounds along with the criteria adopted in the process. The CIC also ordered the MCD to upload the information sought on its website and kept it up-to-date every time such an appointment is made. It asked the MCD to complete its updation within a period of 20 days. The Commissioner ordered the Health Officer of the MCD to explain the delay in furnishing the information and asked why a penalty of Rs 8,000 should not imposed on him. Bureau Report