Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'uttar pradesh'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Request for Community Support
  • Connect with Community
  • Learn about RTI
  • Website News & Support
  • Read RTI News & Stories
  • RTI Act Critics's RTI Act Critics Topics
  • Fans of RTI India's Fans of RTI India Topics
  • Insurance Consumer's Insurance Consumer Topics
  • Activists of Transparency and Accountability's Activists of Transparency and Accountability Topics
  • Issues with BWSSB's Issues with BWSSB Topics
  • Law+Order-Bangalore-32's Law+Order-Bangalore-32 Topics
  • Issues With Electricity Board's Issues With Electricity Board Topics
  • RTI Activists's RTI Activists Topics
  • YOGA's YOGA Topics
  • help each other's help each other Topics
  • forest and wild life's forest and wild life Topics
  • Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C.'s Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C. Topics
  • RTI Activist+Politics's RTI Activist+Politics Topics
  • hostels and lodging places's hostels and lodging places Topics
  • RTI Activists in Rajasthan.'s RTI Activists in Rajasthan. Topics
  • RTI info warriors in Haryana's RTI info warriors in Haryana Topics
  • DisABILITY Rights and RTI's DisABILITY Rights and RTI Topics
  • Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI.'s Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI. Topics
  • Eco club's Eco club Topics
  • Self Employment in Sport's Self Employment in Sport Topics
  • RTI related to land issue's RTI related to land issue Topics
  • Open SourceTechnology support to RTI's Open SourceTechnology support to RTI Topics
  • TRAP group's TRAP group Topics
  • Odisha RTI Activists's Odisha RTI Activists Topics
  • right to information activists's right to information activists Topics
  • Mumbai's Mumbai Topics
  • Chartered Accountants's Chartered Accountants Topics
  • ngosamachar's ngosamachar Topics
  • Growing INDIA's Growing INDIA Topics
  • we are all friends.'s we are all friends. Topics
  • RTI for Government employees's RTI for Government employees Topics
  • Dhanus - Pending Salaries's Dhanus - Pending Salaries Topics
  • Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors's Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Topics
  • Mahamumbai's Mahamumbai Topics
  • M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech's M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech Topics
  • Corruption's Corruption Topics
  • minority engineering colleges in maharashtra's minority engineering colleges in maharashtra Topics
  • RiGhTs's RiGhTs Topics
  • ram's ram Topics
  • anti corrupt police's anti corrupt police Topics
  • Save Girl in Punjab's Save Girl in Punjab Topics
  • Rent Apartment in US's Rent Apartment in US Topics
  • RTI Kerala's RTI Kerala Topics
  • maharashtra's maharashtra Topics
  • Right Way Of India(RTI)'s Right Way Of India(RTI) Topics
  • Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India's Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India Topics
  • Navi Mumbai's Navi Mumbai Topics
  • electricity curruption in up's electricity curruption in up Topics
  • SHARE n STOCKS trading's SHARE n STOCKS trading Topics
  • Civil Engineers-CAD's Civil Engineers-CAD Topics
  • Nitin Aggarwal's Nitin Aggarwal Topics
  • ex-serviceman activities's ex-serviceman activities Topics
  • SSCC's SSCC Topics
  • Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates's Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates Topics
  • jharkhand RTI activist group's jharkhand RTI activist group Topics
  • Suhail's Suhail Topics
  • govt.servant's govt.servant Topics
  • RTI Uttar pradesh's RTI Uttar pradesh Topics
  • anti-corruption team's anti-corruption team Topics
  • Manaism's Manaism Topics
  • Insurance's Insurance Topics
  • sonitpur datri sewa samity's sonitpur datri sewa samity Topics
  • indian youth manch's indian youth manch Topics
  • HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies's HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies Topics
  • youth's youth Topics
  • aastha's aastha Topics
  • RTI for Citizens's RTI for Citizens Topics
  • learn always's learn always Topics
  • R.T.I.'s R.T.I. Topics
  • Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana's Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana Topics
  • Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna's Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna Topics
  • MBA, business and new entrepreneur.....'s MBA, business and new entrepreneur..... Topics
  • students seeking help's students seeking help Topics
  • RTI Corporate's RTI Corporate Topics
  • Electrical group's Electrical group Topics
  • V4LRights's V4LRights Topics
  • Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool's Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool Topics
  • Gaming's Gaming Topics
  • WE Born to help's WE Born to help Topics
  • help the elderly citizen's help the elderly citizen Topics
  • Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association's Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association Topics
  • Corruption free Country's Corruption free Country Topics
  • surajyam's surajyam Topics
  • kanpurvictims's kanpurvictims Topics
  • Railway Group A Services's Railway Group A Services Topics
  • Encroachment of public property by private giants's Encroachment of public property by private giants Topics
  • Case Status - Anti Corruption's Case Status - Anti Corruption Topics
  • Aam Aadmi (The Common Man)'s Aam Aadmi (The Common Man) Topics
  • Court Marriage in Punjab's Court Marriage in Punjab Topics
  • ALL's ALL Topics
  • Youth India Social Group (YISG)'s Youth India Social Group (YISG) Topics
  • ye kya fandda h's ye kya fandda h Topics
  • mindset's mindset Topics
  • anti corruption's anti corruption Topics
  • activism's activism Topics
  • common's common Topics
  • state group's state group Topics
  • social help group's social help group Topics
  • landlords of uttar pradesh's landlords of uttar pradesh Topics
  • Concern Citizens Forum for India's Concern Citizens Forum for India Topics
  • edusystem's edusystem Topics
  • Ratna Jyoti's Ratna Jyoti Topics
  • development in indian village's development in indian village Topics
  • technovision's technovision Topics
  • Mighty India's Mighty India Topics
  • Against Corporate Fraud's Against Corporate Fraud Topics
  • Stop crime's Stop crime Topics
  • NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti's NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Topics
  • Authenticated Public Plateform's Authenticated Public Plateform Topics
  • shalin's shalin Topics
  • terminater's terminater Topics
  • RTI Wind Energy's RTI Wind Energy Topics
  • Go..................?'s Go..................? Topics
  • Co-Op Housing Society's Co-Op Housing Society Topics
  • we are equal's we are equal Topics
  • Phoenix Deals's Phoenix Deals Topics
  • Theft Cases in chandigarh's Theft Cases in chandigarh Topics
  • Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits's Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits Topics
  • Solar Systems's Solar Systems Topics
  • Get aware about ur Education and related rights's Get aware about ur Education and related rights Topics
  • Save Mumbai's Save Mumbai Topics
  • Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board's Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board Topics
  • ashayen's ashayen Topics
  • unemployment's unemployment Topics
  • Employee Solution's Employee Solution Topics
  • is kanpur university against sc/st's is kanpur university against sc/st Topics
  • prayatna's prayatna Topics
  • Parking woes's Parking woes Topics
  • Helping RTI INDIA web development's Helping RTI INDIA web development Topics


  • Uncategorized
  • Section 18 (1)
  • Section 11
  • For Common Man
  • Section 16
  • Section 2(h)
  • Section 8 (1)(j)
  • Simplified RTI
  • Government Employee and RTI
  • RTI Act 2005
  • Success Stories
  • Exempt Organisation
  • DG IT
  • Section 8 (1) (e)
  • Section 2 (h) (d) (i)
  • Supreme Court Decisions
  • Section 2 (j) (i)
  • Section 2
  • Section 8
  • Section 20
  • Section 19
  • SIC Punjab
  • High Court Decisions
  • Section 9
  • Section 24
  • DoPT
  • RTI Awareness
  • Section 6 (3)
  • Section 6
  • Section 2 (f)
  • Opinion
  • Department of Posts
  • Ministry of Railways
  • Departments
  • Ministry of Home Affairs
  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs
  • Ministry of Law & Justice
  • Government of NCT of Delhi
  • Delhi Police
  • Ministry of Human Resource Development
  • Staff Selection Commission
  • Court Decisions
  • CIC Decisions
  • Activism
  • Section 25
  • University
  • Section 7
  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Section 3
  • RTI Discussions
  • Section 19 (8) (b)
  • Section (1) (d)
  • Section 8 (1) (d)
  • DIrectorate of Education
  • Govt of NCT of Delhi
  • Cooperative Housing Society
  • RTI for School
  • Member RTI
  • Municipal Corporation
  • Ministry of Defence


  • RTI Directory
  • Important RTI Decisions
  • Other Important Court Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts & Circulars


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...

Found 34 results

  1. The UP Government has issued an advertisement for the post of CIC and one IC in the UPSIC. The notification and application format is attached to this post. UP Ad for CIC and one IC in UPSIC.pdf
  2. I want my rights

    Applied for ration card

    I applied for ration card about a month and half back in Ghaziabad (UP). That time I was told that I would get an SMS on 15 th feb and that way I would know how to get my ration card. The process I learnt from the website is that the applier is provided a no. by which it can followup. But I was given none. I recieved and SMS on 23rd Feb informing me that my ration has been sent to one ration dealer( the name was given) . Now I haven't got my ration card. There is a toll free no also (18001800150) where I was informed that the ration card is with that dealer. Now , I got no of that dealer on the website too. (fcs.up.nic.in). I called him and he told me that he has no new ration card. Before that found the shop and it was closed. How to go ahead with my case? Should I file an RTI or should I wait.
  3. I wanted to ask how do i file an rti in uttar pradesh online.I wanted to file an rti regarding the following problem-My father a retired high school principal in Uttar Pradesh recieves his pension each month.The problem is that according to the rules there is an increment of rs.3000 after crossing 80 years of age.He is now 81 and he should have got the increment but he is not getting the incremented pension.He is an old man and has gone to all govt offices like BASIC shiksha adhikari etc but to no use.He is just being asked to move from one office to another.Can you help me out.Since my father lives in UP and I am in bangalore i wanted to ask you whether i can file an rti for the above mentioned issue. Yours Faithfully
  4. Could anybody tell me who is the PIO and FAA of a Tehsil office in Uttar Pradesh. AFAIK, the Tehsildar is APIO. Please also cite the source of your info if possible.
  5. I made a query under RTI from the PIO/DM of my district in U.P. When there was no response despite the lapse of 30 days, I emailed my First Appeal under RTI to the FAA/Secy State Information Commission, Uttar Pradesh, but again there was no response whatsoever. After waiting for a month I emailed my appeal to the State Chief Information Commissioner, but i vain. The result is that I haven't got any response on my query under RTI despite the lapse of 9 whole months. Please tell me what should I do now.
  6. 8 new Information Commissioners to be appointed soon in Uttar Pradesh Reported by UNI in newkerla.com on August 23, 2012 8 new Information Commissioners to be appointed soon in Uttar Pradesh | 70977 Uttar Pradesh government today short listed eight persons from various fields for appointment on vacant posts of Information Commissioners (ICs) in UP State Information Commission (UPSIC). The list would now be sent for Governor's approval by the Chief Minister very soon. The meeting of three member panel, authorised for selection of information commissioners and chief information commissioner, was held at Chief Minister's official residence where eight names were short listed from a list of 112 persons who had applied for coveted posts. Currently only two information commissioners Khadijatul Kubra and Gyan Prakash Maurya were holding offices in UPSIC as eight posts were lying vacant hampering functioning of the commission responsible for implementation of Right to Information (RTI) Act in the state. The selection panel including Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav, minister for Health and Medical Education Ahmed Hasan and leader of opposition in state assembly Swami Prasad Maurya was constituted yesterday. According to sources, among persons selected for post of ICs were lawyers, former bureaucrats and media persons. The two members of the panel refrained from naming the persons selected and said, with approval of the Governor appointment of new information commissioners was likely to be announced very soon. Mr Maurya while coming out of the meeting, said, "the CM has been authorised for selection of Information Commissioners and I hope, with their appointment, UPSIC will work in a transparent and efficient manner." Since the appointment of chief information commissioner and information commissioners was solely depend on the ruling party, UPSIC was faced to allegations of politicisation which was denting its credibility and functioning both. Samajwadi party itself had held the appointment of present chief information commissioner R S Pankaj as political one which was aimed at serving interests of the then ruling BSP. The appointment of Khadijatul Kubra as information commissioner during previous BSP regime had invited much criticism from opposition and RTI activists. The apex court recently in an order have held political appointment responsible for over all detoriation in functioning of information commissions in the country.
  7. I need the details of the Income Tax submitted by the charity registered in the varansi (UP). I have filed an RTI to Income Tax dept. But I have not yet received any information. Please let me know the procedure. YFI: I couldn't find the details of PIO for charity related quires.. in UP official website....
  8. As reported by IANS on thaiindian.com on 9 July 2008: Uttar Pradesh chief information commissioner faces probe (Lead) - Thaindian News Uttar Pradesh chief information commissioner faces probe (Lead) Lucknow, July 9 (IANS) Uttar Pradesh chief information commissioner Justice (retd) M.A. Khan was Wednesday debarred from performing his duties as Governor T.V. Rajeswar recommended to the Supreme Court to initiate an inquiry against him, officials said. Khan has been accused of misconduct and lack of capability to perform his duties, they added. Following a complaint by a panel of social activists, he was prohibited to attend his office till the inquiry was over, the officials added.
  9. Dear Friend, I run an organization in aliganj area of Lucknow. We have witnessed that letter through post office is not delivered to our office. When we asked post man, he said, I should register my ornaization in post office through application. Is it inevitable for my organisation to register itself at post office???If not, Can I register RTI against post office of non-deliverance of mail to my office?? What question can be frame in RTI?? Plz help, I need it...
  10. The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has passed a important order in a Writ Petition, clarifying Section 18 and various other matters under the RTI Act 2005. It is a very long order and the main points are as below: 1. Applicant asked for information regarding details of recipients of UP Chief Ministers Discretionary Fund. 2. Information was denied under Sec 8(10(j). Matter went up to the UPSIC and the SIC ordered disclosure of information and imposed Penalty. 3. PIO filed a WP in the High Court asking: (1) Whether the information disclosing the names of the persons including address and amount, who have received more than Rs.1 lac from the Chief Minister Discretionary Fund, can be given to the information seeker or it is an information, which stands exempted under Section 8 (j) of the Right to Information Act. (2) Whether the Chief Information Commissioner while considering the complaints under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is competent only to award the prescribed punishment, in case of failure of information being given as per the provisions of the Act or while dealing with the said complaints, any direction can also be issued for furnishing the information which has not been provided, though it is not found to be exempted under the provisions of the Act. 4. The High Court has clearly ruled that: Although Sec 18 does not carry a specific provision that the SIC can give direction for providing information, it must be read along with Sec 20. Sec 20 clearly says that penalty can be imposed at Rs 250 per day till the information is given. So if penalty can be imposed for matters relating to Sec 18, then it implies that information must be given and the SIC has the powers to direct to provide such information. Otherwise how can one determine how much penalty, if information is never given. This part concludes with: "So far the power to issue direction for receiving the application or for supplying the information is concerned, it is for one and the same purpose, i.e., for supplying the correct information to the applicant, if it does not stand exempted under the Act. In this regard, there can be no distinction, when the Commission enquires into a complaint or hears an appeal under the aforesaid power." "Any interpretation to any of the provisions of the Act, if leads to absurdity or may lead to defeat the very purpose of the Act, has to be avoided. There is no attempt to twist the words or the phraseology used, but for correct interpretation of provision of Section 18, it cannot be read in isolation, but has to be seen in the light of the consequences of a complaint of Section 18, as given in Section 20 of the Act, besides also the purpose and object of the Act for which it has been enacted." The Judges also disagree with the interpretation of Sec 18 by the High Court of Gujarat: "We, therefore, with deep respect are unable to concur with the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court to the contrary in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. Gujarat State Information Commission and Ors., reported in AIR 2007 GUJARAT 203, with respect to the scope of Section 18." The order rejects applicability of Sec 8(1)(j) by stating: "The plea that if such an information is disclosed, it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the person who is a beneficiary is concerned, the same is wholly untenable and devoid of substance. The person who is extended the benefit of discretionary fund does not compromise with his honour and prestige nor acceptance of such a benefit belittles his status. The Chief Minister while extending the benefit of the given amount from the Chief Minister's Discretionary Fund, discharges his/her, as the case may be, social obligation, in consonance with the socio economic policy of the State to the person, who is entitled under the rules for having the said benefit. The extension of the economic assistance to the persons entitled, is a step towards discharging the functions of a welfare State by providing monetary help to the deserving under the Rules." On discretionary powers of the PIO to deny or disclose information if it pertains to any of the Section under Sec 8: The discretion, which has been given to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is to the effect that on their satisfaction that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, the same may be supplied. It means that though the information asked for is otherwise exempted from being supplied, but it can be disclosed if larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Who will decide this larger public interest? It is not the applicant or the person, against whom the information is asked for, but the information officer or the competent authority, as the case may be. Of course, while deciding the aforesaid question, the views of both the parties can be taken into account or so to say have to be taken into account by the concerned authority under the RTI Act, for the reason that the person who is asking for the information, would say it is in larger public interest to disclose the information, whereas the person against whom the information is being asked for shall dispute the aforesaid fact. On the importance and relevance of Sec 18: Section 18 thus is a provision which is a consciously introduced section, so as to exercise complete control over the functioning of the Public Information Officers, at the time of receiving application, and at the time of giving information or during the appeal under the Act. Any applicant who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under the Act, or who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable, or has been given false information, and in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under the Act, may approach the Commission, who would enquire into the complaint, and while making an enquiry, it has all the powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of the matters enumerated therein. (The above will clear all doubts about the differentiation of applicability between Sec 18 and Sec 19) On differentiation between information sought via a PIL and via the RTI Act 2005: The view expressed otherwise in respect of locus standi of a person to seek an information and also on the scope of Section 18 of the Act, requires consideration. The Gujarat High Court while dealing with the aforesaid proposition of law, took into consideration the judgement of the apex court in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of West Bengal and others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 280, for holding that care has to be taken that the information is not asked for by the persons, who seek the information with an intention to blackmail the person against whom the information is asked for and that the nature of the information asked for and the person who asked for information are the relevant considerations. In regard to the observations of the Gujarat High Court, suffice would be to mention that the Court proceeded on the assumption that the right to seek information is like filing writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation. In a public Interest litigation, care has to be taken that it is not a petition for settling the personal score or satisfying the personal vendetta or is not a publicity interest litigation or pecuniary interest litigation. The essence of the grievance raised and the bona fide of the person in bringing the issue to the Court, are such key factors, which play an important role in the public interest litigation. The Supreme Court even in a petition of PIL has held in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (98) vs. Union of India and others, (2006) 5 SCC 28 and Vishwanath Chaturvedi (3) vs. Union Of India and others, (2007) 4 SCC 380, that even if the person bringing the cause to the Court has no locus standi to pursue the matter or he is not a bona fide person or a public spirited person or may have approached the Court with political reasons but still in such a case the grievance raised can be looked into and if found genuine and worth being enquired into, the same can be entertained. Under the Right to Information Act, the locus standi of the person is of no avail. Any citizen can ask for any information, which is not protected under the relevant clauses of exemption. The Public Information Officer is under the legal duty to supply the information so asked for...... ...... The view, therefore, expressed by the Gujarat High Court in this regard without adverting to the scheme of the Act, 2005 and without noticing the provisions of Section 2(j) and Section 3 of the Act, are contrary to law. Section 2(j), says that the right to information means the right to information accessible under this Act, which is held by or under the control of any public authority and Section 3, says that subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information. We thus find that the Gujarat High Court did not take into consideration the provisions of Section 2(j) and Section 3 and also sub-clause (2) of Section 6, which specifically prohibits from making any enquiry from the applicant for giving reasons for seeking the information or any other personal details except his address, where he could be contacted. Thus, the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court in respect of the locus standi of the applicant, asking for any information cannot be said to be a binding precedent. We, therefore, with utmost regard to the learned Judge of the Gujarat High Court, are unable to subscribe to the said view. On interpretation: (any interpretation of any section of any Act has to be made keeping in view the object and purpose of the Act) Normal rule of interpretation is, to give such meaning to the provisions of the Act, which furthers the object of the Act and does not restrict its applicability so as to defeat its very object and purpose. The intention in making a provision, the principle which guided for such an enactment and the mischief which is intended to be rectified cannot be lost sight of, while discovering the true meaning and import of the provisions of the Act. While interpreting any statute, normally a literal construction of the provision has to be made and if the language is clear, unambiguous and meaningful, which forwards the cause of enactment, the Court would restrain itself from making an effort to interpret the provisions in any different manner, which would have the effect of amending the rule or rewriting the provision. The literal rule of construction is the normal rule of interpretation, which does not infringe upon the statute or the statutory provision and carries forward the intention, object and purpose of the Act. Any hardship to any person or any lacuna in the Act can also not be filled in, unless of course the provision militates against the object and purpose for which it has been enacted or leads to absurdity. The judgement then gives several quotes from previous High Court and Supreme Court judgements regarding "liberal interpretations keeping in mind the object of the main act) While dismissing the WP by the PIO, the judgement also asks the Government to consider suo-moto disclosing such information under Sec 4. The full judgement/order is uploaded to http://www.rtiindia.info
  11. As reported by TNN on timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 26 July 2008: Police still reluctant to lodge FIRs-Lucknow-Cities-The Times of India Police still reluctant to lodge FIRs LUCKNOW: At least 800 complainants in the city took legal recourse to get first information reports (FIRs) registered in 2006 and 2007. Besides, the police registered FIRs in 17% of complaints in 2006 and 4.5% in 2007. The facts and figures have been released by the office of SSP Lucknow to an applicant under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The figures are bleak not only against the backdrop of CrPC provision that calls for registration of FIR in all the complaints received at police stations but also against the government's assurances made in similar vein. At least 75 to 80 complaints are received at each police station in the district every day. In 2006, 258 aggrieved people knocked the of judiciary to get the police register an FIR on their complaint and in 2007, this number doubled up to 578. The office has also revealed the astounding number of complaints received by it regarding matters in which no FIRs were registered. In 2006, the number of such complaints was 30,356 and in 2007, it was 26,303. However, when the police took cognizance of these complaints, registered FIRs and investigated the matter, gross apathy and neglect on the part of police came to fore in 2,885 cases in 2006 and 761 cases in 2007. The complaints were received from 37 police stations of Lucknow district.
  12. simplypandey

    Gonda Dist - Uttar Pradesh

    Hi All, I am Santosh and I belong to a dist called GONDA in Uttar Pradesh. There are a lot of villages where we still do not have electricity. My question is, is there any was I can ask govt/concerned people as to when will the electricity facility be introduced in our village. We have the electricity pole at about 200 mts away from our house where electricity is active. I presume that the electricity extension is already given to our village but the lineman has not extended the line in lieu of some bribe from the villagers. Please advise how can my issue be addressed.
  13. As reported by Rajeev Dikshit at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on Dec 15, 2010 VARANASI: As amazing as it may sound, but operating 'fake' police stations is also possible in this state. Until IG (range) RP Singh took a serious note of this malpractice and ordered for the closure of 'illegal police stations', a nexus of some officials of the regional transport office, police, 'dalals' (agents or middlemen) and even politicians operated such 'stations' in Ramnagar, Varanasi, and Alinagar and Saiyyedraja in Chandauli. Talking to TOI on Wednesday, the IG admitted that he had issued an order for the closure of such places. After the orders, the fake police stations in Ramnagar and Alinagar have been closed but the police have not confirmed whether the same has happened in Saiyyedraja. A few months back, the TOI had exposed the corrupt practices being committed on highways, especially between Naubatpur check-post (Bihar border) and Varanasi, to extort money from the truck drivers. It had led to the area emerging as a black spot on the route map of the transporters of the country. Apart from initiating other measures like issuing token for overloading to extort money from the truck drivers and owners, this nexus had even created some yards. As per the law, after catching any truck for improper documents or overloading, the trucks are sent to the police stations and the documents are forwarded to the RTO for the necessary action. As the Ramnagar, Alinagar and Saiyyedraja police stations had no space for parking the seized trucks, some yards were created on the private land available along the highways. Those yards were given the name and status of police stations. When the trucks were released after completion of official formalities, the truck drivers were asked to pay yard charges at the rate of Rs 500 per day. No receipt was given to them against that payment while, before taking the truck, Rs 2,000 was also extorted from the truck driver or owner by the policemen present there. A lawyer, Vijay Shankar, who handled the cases of Motor Vehicles Act, said after noticing such malpractice for the past seven years, he decided to seek details of the provision of the 'fake' police stations under the Right to Information Act. In reply to his questions, the RTO as well as the Varanasi DIG made it very clear that their departments did not pay the rent for the premises where such police stations were operating. The replies made it clear that the practices were totally illegal. Shankar said after getting the replies, he met the IG and submitted a memorandum. After that the IG ordered the SP traffic to investigate the matter. On getting a report from the SP traffic, the IG ordered for immediate closure of the fake or illegal police stations in Ramnagar and Alinagar area. The IG's order surely ensured the closure of some fake police stations but many questions have not been answered so far. Shankar asked who would give an account of the money extorted from the truck operators in the name of yard charge? This money was being taken for the past seven years. He also wondered why did the officials not book those involved in the nexus under the anti-corruption act.
  14. Labour dept slips on RTI terrain as reported by Ms. Neha Shukla, TNN, LUCKNOW: Aug 23, 2010, Times of India A little learning is a dangerous thing. And it is the labour department of UP that has proved the adage this time. Supposedly, half-baked knowledge of the Right To Information Act (RTI) made the department's order, though issued in `good spirit' look reckless and "surprising" to the state information commission (SIC). The commission has now sought explanation from the department's who's who on legality of the order. The order in question is the one issued by labour commissioner Sitaram Mina on April 7, 2010. The order reads -- "In accordance with the GO issued on April 23, 2007, regional additional/deputy labour commissioners have been nominated as first appeals authority for their area of jurisdiction. These officials have been directed to nominate PIOs and APIOs, according to their discretion, from among the available officers." A copy of the order was forwarded to all departmental officials, principal secretary, labour department, and principal secretary, administrative reforms department. Later, an almost similar order was issued by R B Lal, deputy labour commissioner, Lucknow region, on April 13, 2010. He further informed that assistant labour commissioners in Lucknow, Hardoi, Rae Bareli, Lakhimpur Kheri, Unnao and Sitapur have been nominated as PIOs in their area of jurisdiction. The labour enforcement officers and inspectors in these districts, on the other hand, have been named as APIOs. The SIC has taken adverse view of the orders and has termed the order "surprising". The commission has sent notice to labour commissioner to explain the "legality" of his order. "It is only head of the department who can nominate first appeals authority and PIO," said information commissioner (IC), Gyanendra Sharma. The order has been questioned on the basis of the GO of April 23, 2007, which labour commissioner referred to in his order. The GO signed by the then chief secretary Shambhu Nath reads, "...in all the administrative units and in offices under them, procedure of nominating first appeals authority and PIO will be completed by public authority, as per its discretion and from among the available officials." This boils down to the fact that power to nominate first appeals authority and PIO in any government department rests with the head of the department (HoD). The power cannot be delegated to subordinate officers. The commission observed, "powers delegated by labour commissioner to first appeals authority and PIO in offices of additional/ deputy labour commissioner do not confirm to rules". On the other hand, appointment of APIOs at offices other than sub-divisional ones (or tehsil level) has also been questioned by the commission. UP government in the past has issued an order stating that appointment of APIOs be done at sub-divisional offices only, as mentioned in the RTI Act. The principal secretary, administrative reforms department, has been asked if any order has been issued from their office regarding appointment of APIOs at offices other than tehsil level. "Why should not appointment of APIOs made at other offices be cancelled," questioned the commission. Principal secretary, labour department has been asked to explain why the department did not nominate the first appeals authority till now. The next date of hearing in the case has been fixed for August 25. Source : Labour dept slips on RTI terrain - Lucknow - City - The Times of India
  15. As reported at dnaindia.com on August 16, 2010 Uttar Pradesh may be ruled by a Dalit chief minister but poor Dalits in the state's rural areas continue to suffer under the oppression of upper caste politicians. One such case is that of a 50-year old dalit,Budhai Ram of Sidhauli village in Sitapur district, 80 kilometres from Lucknow. Budhai Ram apparently made the mistake of filing a Right to Information petition at the office of the Sitapur district magistrate seeking details of sub-standard building material in the construction of government buildings in his village by contractors. He received no reply to his petition. What he did receive, he alleges, were threats from the chairman of the Sidhauli nagar panchayat, an upper-caste politician considered close to a top-leader of the ruling BSP. He says he was asked to stop his enquiries and keep his mouth shut. The leader's henchmenoffered him a "settlement" but when he approached the state Lok Ayukta with a complaint of corruption, they attacked him and his wife. "On May 15 this year, body of my five-year old daughter was found in the pool of my village. I was threatened that I will also meet the fate of my daughter but Police did not provide any protection to us. On August 8, about 15 armed goons beat me and my wife mercilessly at my home. I escaped and called the police station, the circle officer and the ASP but to no avail," Budhai told PTI. When contacted, Sitapur superintendent of police, Jyoti Narayan termed it a dispute between neighbours and denied that there had been any attack on the family of Budhai. "We have investigated his case at least thrice. On all these occasions the complaints were found to be without any basis," he said. Narayan said a new officer has been asked to re-investigate. RTI activists have been the target of violence in several cases and nine of them have been killed in different parts of the country this year forcing the Centre to consider offering protection to them under the whistleblowers category.
  16. As reported by Pervez Iqbal Siddiqui at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on Jul 28, 2010 LUCKNOW: In a first of its kind incident, a UP police home guard was done to death allegedly for daring to seek information under the RTI Act about government funds and work done by his village pradhan in Bahraich. The accused pradhan's husband and four others have been arrested in this connection. The police say the murder is fallout of a 40-year-old dispute between the two sides over a piece of land. The incident took place in Katghar village under Ranipur police station of Bahraich on Sunday afternoon. According to reports, ex-pradhan of Katghar Mohan Singh, his son Vijay Pratap (32) alias Babbu Singh, who is a home guard and had come home on a holiday, and brother Satyadeo Singh was supervising some construction work on a piece of land in the village when one Indrajeet Singh and his cohorts reached the site. Indrajeet is husband of the sitting village pradhan since the seat was reserved for the fairer sex in the last elections. "As soon as they reached us, they started abusing and eventually a free for all ensued. Since we were not expecting a showdown and they had come prepared with sticks and rods in hand, we could not do much and they beat us severely," Satyadeo said recollecting the sequence of events.
  17. He fought to bring transparency in office as reported in Hindustan Times, New Delhi, June 17, 2010 For Dr Lalit Narayan Mishra (33), the Best PIO Awards 2009 winner, bringing transparency to his office in a Uttar Pradesh district was no mean task. "Right from my student days, I always wanted to change the system. When Right to Information (RTI) came into existence, I found the required weapon for doing so," he says. Mishra won the RTI Award because he provided complete and correct information to all applications he received during 2008. When feedback was collected from people, all of them expressed satisfaction. In 2006, he launched a website to voluntarily disclose information related to the education department. The journey was not easy for Mishra, who faced opposition from various quarters. "My colleagues questioned as to why our department is taking special steps for RTI implementation and not others. They feared that their other source of income may be affected," he says. Commissioned as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Lucknow Cane Commissioner's office in 2002, Mishra says he always thought there should be better transparency in government's working. He was posted as District Commandant of Home Guards in 2005 when the RTI Act came into force. He fought to bring transparency in office- Hindustan Times
  18. Atul Patankar

    Govt ducks RTI reply on corrupt babus

    As reported by Mohd Arshi Rafique at indianexpress.com on Mar 31, 2010 Lucknow : The Uttar Pradesh government has refused to furnish a reply to an RTI query seeking information on the inquiries pending against IAS officers found involved in corruption. Refusing to entertain the plea, the government said the information is not available in the format in which the applicant had sought answers for and hence it has no relevance. Avdesh Kumar Singh Rathore, the special secretary in the Department of Appointment and Personnel, cited a Central Information Commission order, dated November 20, 2006, which said information can be provided only in the form in which it exists and cannot be “created or generated” for the information seeker. However, the Section 7 (9) of the RTI Act clearly says information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. Salim Beig, a resident of Moradabad and president of Manav Sewa Samiti, had sent an RTI application to the Chief Minister’s Office on April 13, 2009. He asked for details on three counts: (1) List of names and addresses of IAS officers against whom inquiries in corruption cases are pending, (2) Has the government fixed any time limit for completing these pending inquiries? If yes, provide with the file notings, and (3) The list of officers or agencies conducting the probe and the charges against the officers. The application was routed to the office of principal secretary, Department of Appointment and Personnel, on April 24, 2009. Beig, who has now filed an appeal at the State Information Commission, said his application was first rejected on May 20, 2009 by Ashok Kumar Srivastava, the PIO of the Department of Personnel, on the ground that the information seeker is an organisation and not a “natural person” and therefore he cannot be provided with any information. In an appeal filed before the appeal officer, Beig has submitted he sought information as a person and the name of the organisation was mentioned as part of his address. Source: Govt ducks RTI reply on corrupt babus
  19. As reported by Neha Shukla at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 13 December 2009 LUCKNOW: In a rare instance where a government organ has taken considerate view of an observation made by the UP State Information Commission (UPSIC), the state urban development department (UDD) has directed its officials to act speedily on inquiry reports/complaints concerning local bodies like nagar nigams and nagar palika parishads to ensure transparency in governance. Acting on the SIC observation, the department, by way of an order issued by its principal secretary Alok Ranjan, has also fixed a timeframe within which it has been made mandatory for the departmental officials to act on inquiry reports and complaints or else face disciplinary action. The principal secretary, in response to an UPSIC observation on a RTI complaint pertaining a local body of the UDD in February, ordered that ‘‘action on complaints of irregularities, anomalies and corruption against anyone in the local bodies and the department be ensured and inquiry reports be disposed off within a month’s time’’. The copy of the order has been forwarded to the commission. Information commissioner (IC) Gyanedndra Sharma had observed in a judgement that ‘‘there is hardly a timely action coming from the government on inquiry reports or complaints of corruption and anomalies concerning local bodies. More so because there is no timeframe fixed for disposal of such complaints and inquiry reports’’. Source: UDD acts on SIC order, tells babus to act on complaints - Lucknow - City - The Times of India
  20. As reported at topnews.in on October 22, 2009 One man's Right to Information (RTI) application has led to the Uttar Pradesh land consolidation department admitting Thursday that living people were declared dead in its records due to irregularities. The matter came to light when Lal Bihari, a man who had been declared dead, sought the records through the RTI Act. "I was declared dead in the records and all my land was grabbed by the influential people of my village using forged documents," Bihari, a native of Hardoi district, said here. "After making numerous efforts to prove myself alive, I decided to file an RTI application to expose the scam." However, Bihari was provided details of only 20 such 'dead' people. "I had asked for the details of all such living 'dead' people in the state, but the department only provided me the details of 20 people in 10 districts," Bihari said. "There are thousands of such cases across the state and the department has just completed its formality by providing me the details of only 10 districts," Bihari claimed. Ashok Chandra, deputy director of the Chakbandi department told IANS: "We have provided Bihari with the details of Unnao, Hardoi,Lucknow, Azamgarh, Muzaffarnagar, Siddharthanagar, Kannauj, Barabanki, Faizabad and Rampur districts. "There may be more such cases and we are looking into the matter."(IANS) Source: Living people declared dead in Uttar Pradesh, reveals RTI | Top News
  21. fspl

    RTI in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar

    Since last two years, I have been bidding for Govt. tenders (e-Govt projects) in Bihar, Jharkhand and UP. No one communicates any reason for rejection and detailsabout the winners. In spite of repeated request no one answers. I need to know the process to use RTI to get Information. (Anjani Kumar Singh) Ph (Posting of mob. no. is against RTI India - Forum Rules - hence deleted)
  22. As reported at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 31 May 2009 LUCKNOW: It is mostly lack of information on part of Public Information Officers (PIOs) that lands them in trouble. State Information Commission (SIC) slaps a fine on erring PIOs when they fail to meet the deadline of providing the required information. But, PIOs had a common question, whom to turn to for help when they face a problem understanding RTI Act or when they fail to decide what to do with RTI applications. There problem, however, met with an instant solution when chief information commissioner Gyanendra Sharma said that PIOs caught in confusion could call up the information commissioners for help. But, in no way they should delay release of information beyond 30 days. Many PIOs complained that most of the times they were not in possession of the information sought by the applicant. The information concerns the officials higher to them or is with them. If PIOs do not want the fine to be imposed on them in such a situation they should mention that information was with higher official who would then be treated as deemed PIO for the case and further responsibility would rest on him. Imposing of a fine does not relieve information officer of the responsibility of providing the information. Repeated failures to provide information sought to the applicant even after slapping of the fine can invite disciplinary action against the errant PIO. But, PIOs need not answer the PIAs (Perennial Information Applicants). If an applicant seeks same information over and over again through separate applications, PIOs have all the right to refuse providing the information again but not without stating that when and through what document they had provided the information to the applicant earlier. All the information present in government records is accessible by the public. The PIOs have to provide all except what is prohibited under Section 8(j) of the Act. In cases, where information demanded has been weeded out, PIOs will have to state that in the reply issued to the applicant(s). Whatever be the reason behind not providing the information has to be given to the applicant in writing if the concerned PIO does not want a fine to be imposed on him. The PIOs from many government departments had gathered to get tips on the Act and disposal of applications filed under it at a training workshop organised by Lucknow Management Association (LMA) and Common Wealth Human Rights Initiative on Saturday. The programme was attended by Gyanendra Sharma, chief information commissioner, UP, KK Sinha, principal secretary, administrative reforms department and Justice SC Verma. Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/PIOs-asked-to-consult-ICs-in-case-of-doubts-regarding-RTI/articleshow/4599338.cms
  23. Atul Patankar

    SIC gets on with the job well

    As reported at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 30 May 2009 LUCKNOW: When it comes to disposal of cases State Information Commission (SIC) has done a better job than Central Information Commission (CIC). According to the information provided by SIC, CIC got 10,274 cases in 2007. Out of which it disposed off 6,979 cases. On the other hand, SIC got 14,565 cases in 2008 and it disposed off 10,285 cases in the year. The percentage of disposal at CIC was 68 whereas for SIC it was 70.61. The number of cases filed at State Information Commission is going up with each passing year. The cases coming to the commission are mostly complaints that are filed under section 18 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The reason behind the increase in number of complaints is two fold. There is an increase in awareness among people regarding the RTI Act. Secondly, the appeals filed with the appellate authorities of government departments are not getting due hearing and attention. As a result, complainants are approaching the commission. The commission has released the total number of cases filed up at the commission for three years separately. The commission was set up on March 22, 2006. Maximum number of cases per month, 2,669 have been filed in 2008. But maximum per cent (87%) of cases were disposed off in 2007 Source: SIC gets on with the job well - Lucknow - Cities - The Times of India
  24. As reported by Neha Shukla , TNN at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 15 March 2009 LUCKNOW: RTI is apparently the `road to infinite' wait for common man before he gets in the know of not-so-common knowledge. Meant to assure a peep into the forbidden corridors of power within 30-days time, the Right to Information Act is far from achieving its motive in the state especially when even half-a-dozen hearings held by information commission fail to help the cause. The case of an applicant, Naresh Dikshit firmly meets the aforesaid. He had sought information about the allocations made from the chief minister's discretionary fund every year over a period between January 1991 and July 2007, people and organisations who had been the beneficiaries and also about the rule book, if any, followed while disbursing money from the fund over the said period. "After two years, the information that I have got is wrong and incomplete", rued Dikshit. The case has already been heard five times in the state information commission on April 21, July 10, October 20, December 11, 2008, and March 13. The latest hearing has been fixed for May 27, 2009 after the applicant complained that he has been provided with wrong information. "I had asked for the certified copy but all I have got is a simple paper and I do not know how far to trust the figures printed on it", he added. Though the official figures show the annual budget allocation for the discretionary fund ranging between Rs 20 lakh and Rs 25 crore from 1991-92 till 2007-08, there is no information on the beneficiaries. The application requesting a five-point information was made to the Public Information Officer (PIO), chief minister's office, on August 24, 2007. But, information to the applicant has been constantly denied since then. Three months later on November 30, 2007, an appeal was filed with the first appeal authority but even that did not help. The half-baked information could reach him only on December 8 last year. The PIO has mentioned that there has been no complaint received regarding the misuse of the money disbursed from the discretionary fund. And about the audit of the fund, as was questioned by the applicant, the PIO stated that it is conducted every year by the auditor general, Allahabad. To get the copy of the same, the applicant was told to contact the said official. On the `rule-book' for disbursement of funds, the information was provided only about November 2006 rule-book. "I have asked them to clarify if it was the common rule-book all through", said the applicant. The next hearing at the commission is the only hope he has. It is worth mentioning that Lucknow bench of the High Court in its verdict dated July 2008 held that information regarding disbursement and utilisation of CM's discretionary fund can be sought under the RTI Act by people on lawful demand. Being a public fund it comes within the ambit of the Act. Source: Despite RTI, information remains forbidden-Lucknow-Cities-The Times of India
  25. sunaabhsarkar

    Success hmmm... ???

    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[1] 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....
  • Create New...

Important Information

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