Dear Krisharaj Rao,
I agree with u that it is now need of tha day to take inspection of
public authorities by group of activist together.
I have to share with u and HJ members,my experience of inspection of DGR
office,Malhotra House.
I had asked for inspection regarding compliane of section 4 of RTI and
other 10 points,vide my application dt.23.9.08.A copy is attached h/w.
DGR replied and I took the inspection on 15.1.08 by proir appointment.The
concerned clerk showed me one file in which all 14/15 provisions under section4
were covered.I asked Mr.Amne,PIO,regarding web publishing of such
information,so as to reduce/minimise the inflow of RTI applications.He replied
that Dept do not have enough fund for web site,computerisation and e governance.
I asked him how much it cost to construct the website?He said that he is not
knowning.
Web publishing do not cost much.Several govt dept/PSU,s have approched
NIC(National Informatics Centre) for websites,complaint management
software,intellegence softwares,business softwares,etc and accordingy NIC has
done the job.Its results are good.But co po dept is never willing to apply IT &
RTI in spirit.This is due to their vested interst.These people make the money
out of every complaint.That too from both the side.The complaint/matters are
source of income for them.
Among other points,I had asked the dept regarding infornation on fradulent
societies wherein recoveries are effected from managing commitees under section
83/88 of Mcs Act.
He has repied that they do not have such records.
The commissioner of co operation textiles has also not cared for
impementation of section 4 of the RTI.He has not replied on that that issue.
It is now high time to take the collective inspection and compel public
authrities to publish the requrements on website,update at regular intervals,e
governannce etc.
I hope u and HJ members take it seriosly.
Thanks.
Pravin M Dali.
9869415672
Krishnaraj Rao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: :-)
I am glad to hear Anil Heble's opinion on this public platform... at long
last. It is amazing how one-to-one meetings change equations and
perceptions.
This motley guy who has little better to do thanks you deeply, Anil.
Warm Regards,
Krish
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:56 AM, ANIL HEBLE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For lack of better things to do these motley group of activists have
> been
> "raiding" offices of Public Authorities more in Maharashtra and less in
> other places. Even if permitted under the Act, making this a regular habit
> is
> only helping in pushing the backs of these chosen Authority's to the wall.
>
> May make more sense in spreading power of RTI Act amongst people .
>
> Regards / Anil Heble
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 2008/11/15 sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <sroy1947%40yahoo.com>>
>
> > Recently a few misguided (or rather misinformed) RTI activists raided
> > the office of Maharashtra SIC demanding as follows:-
> >
> > "that under section section 4 read with section 2 (j)(i), every public
> > authority has an obligation to allow inspection of files without
> > appointment, prior appointment or any preconditions. We expect that
> > henceforth, your office will give inspection of all your records which
> > can be given under RTI Act, sought by any citizen of India."
> >
> > What is even more surprising is that these people claim to be RTI
> > veterans seeking information since Nov 2006 under RTI.
> >
> > If the above (novel) interpretation is true <rol> then why do we need
> > section 6, and SICs in the first place. I got this as a "PRESS
> > RELEASE" in my email box, and a few RTI Yahoo groups have published it
> > where it stands uncontradicted.
> >
> > Sarbajit
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------
Get perfect Email ID for your Resume. Get before others grab.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
