Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'greater noida'.
Found 3 results
I m new to this forum so sorry if it discussed earlier... EXPERT advice form the members is expected... coming to the problem, My bike was stolen from college gate on 17.04.2012 and i filled complaint at the nearest police station in GREATER NOIDA. Though i got a receiving of complaint on that day they said that their computer operator and SHO is not present so i will get my copy of FIR on very next day. That time i informed the insurance company to and got a claim no. But after that evening the Police station staff delayed my FIR for 10 days(as it common for them and i am mere student with no jack) and lodged it on 27.4.2012(after getting TIP of rs 1000). anyhow i managed the constable to fill FIR and begged in front of SHO to lodge my fir, well he agreed and asked me to collect the FIR in the evening, in evening when queried about my FIR the Constable took my complaint copy, so that he could search in the files and after few minutes he asked to come next day. On the next morning when i asked that constable he gave FIR charging rs 50 for computer print out(and i paid) but didn't returned my complaint copy and said we dnt provide that after lodging FIR.(some of them said its in court now bla bla...) after all this story now my insurance company is settling my claiim in non standard clain with deduction of money as thr is delay in fir, or otherwise asking for proof that i have informed police on 17.4.2012, but i have no such evidence now can i fill a rit asking how that FIR was lodged and whats is basis of complaint? plz help.
Hi Friends, Quite a while ago I had posted on this forum about RTI losing its teeth in UP. My case was against the CEO, PIO/ APIO at GNIDA [Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority] who were not only not willing to share but who have so far not shared correct relevant and certified information I had asked for. The case which came up for hearing seven times over a period of almost 18 months saw me shuttling between Delhi and Lucknow where UPSIC offices are located, two changes of Judges and one adjournment. The worst was when on one occassion I had to stay away from home on my daughter's birthday to attend the court , only to know that the cases had to be adjourned on that day because the Judge was on leave. I had written in one of these threads how wasted my day had felt on that day. It was quite a one sided matter with the GNIDA never bothering to defend themselves. Finally early in this month, when the case came up for hearing once again, the H'ble Judge pronounced maximum punishment permissible u/s 20 of RTI Act 2005 against the erring officials of GNIDA. Every one who heard of this had a thumbsup for me... at least the case had moved one step ahead. With the excitement over now.... :rolleyes: Punishment did I say??? How really does that matter anyway, for those officials sitting on a Goldmine? I have a few points to clarify.... when a punishment is awarded, how is it actually executed.... is it just the salaries which are deducted? Does the mention reflect into the personal records of the govt. employee? Does it affect the promotions and perks of the Govt. employee? I have been asked to appear again in December this year, which is an indication that the case is yet to be closed. The learned Judge has in his last orders in addition to pronouncing punishment, has directed the erring officials to provide the information i had asked for. I guess this means before the next hearing. What more punishment is in the cards if the PIO/ APIO and CEO do not provide me the answer before the next hearing? Govt officials in citadels of corruption are least affected by monetary fines, can I pray for Demotion and reimbursement of my TA/ DA and legal expences incurred in this regard? I guess the real success comes when all these are addressed....
karira posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported by Pragya Kaushika in expressindia.com on 11 August 2008: What happens to acquired land in Greater Noida? Authority has little to say - Express India What happens to acquired land in Greater Noida? Authority has little to say Greater NOIDA, August 10 The farmers of Greater Noida’s Bisrakh village have received fresh ammunition in their movement against the Greater Noida Authority’s decision to acquire their ancestral land. The new lead has come from the Right To Information Act: an application has revealed that the planners do not know of what is to come up on the farmers’ land. Applicant Rampal Bhati, a resident of Bisrakh, had filed the RTI on April 16, asking the Authority about its plans for his land which it had wanted to acquire. “The Authority has notified the land as illegal without knowing that this is our ancestral land. My father is literate and he used the RTI Act. We tilled our fields and this is all we had,” said Karan Singh Bhati, his son. But much to the surprise of Rampal, the reply he received was as vague as the Authority’s claim on his land. It read: “For the RTI you have filed about the land, we have to inform you that we do not have any ‘exact superimposition’ map and thus cannot make available the information you require.” According to Karan Singh, the Greater Noida Authority had wanted the land for development. “But we know they did not have any plan for opening hospitals and schools. They will sell our ancestral land to builders,” he said. Chairman, Greater Noida Authority, Lalit Srivastava, said they do have a Masterplan for the land. “Notices for land acquisition are sent only when the Masterplan is ready. There are times when the applicant does not ask for the right information,” he said. But his reply was a direct contradiction of the Authority’s reply — which clearly mentioned that it does not have the superimposition map, which is the basis for preparing a planned map. “A superimposition map is an actual revenue map of a village, which is compared to the planned map. When the boundaries of revenue and planned map do not match, we reframe the planned map for the area,” Srivastava said. With the RTI response to the Bhatis, suspicions are rife about the Authority’s decision to acquire the village land, which, according to the farmers, is their ancestral property.