Dear Sri Shah Could you kindly inform on which website could I view bare acts like the Consumer Protection Act etc. You ave indeed giving very useful info on your blogs. Best wishes, mksinghal
________________________________ From: Jitendra P. Shah <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, 23 October, 2009 8:43:47 AM Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in Karnataka Pl refer following decisions: CIC decision No.CIC/AT/A/2006/ 00134 dated 0-07-2006 and in Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/ 2007/00189 dated 14-05-2008 and judgement dated 16-07-2008 of hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in writ petition No. 7953/2007. These may be available on respective websites. J. P. Shah Junagadh-Gujarat 09924106490 MY BLOG: www.jps50.blogspot. com --- On Thu, 22/10/09, ysingh rajput <ysingh_rajput@ yahoo.com> wrote: >From: ysingh rajput <ysingh_rajput@ yahoo.com> >Subject: Re: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta >in Karnataka >To: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com >Date: Thursday, 22 October, 2009, 10:48 PM > > > >There is no personal information so far acquisition of assets is concerned. >Even a citizen has to declare with the Income Tax Authorities. Anybody could >get such information under RTI Act - at the most the IT authority may have to >serve a notice to the third pary why such information could be given to >information seeker. > >A public servant has added responsibility - he has to declare his assets >whenever acquired and in annual returns. Judges or any public >authority/servants can have no excuse in submission of these details >departmentally or to the public at large. Unless of course one has to hide >something. > >Personal information, in my view, covers only information pertaining to >person's health and moral turpitude. If a person has acquired assets by his >hard earned money - why he should hesitate in declarations? > >Y Singh N Rajput >22-10-09 > > > > ________________________________ From: cpiodelhi <cpiode...@yahoo. com> >To: rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com >Sent: Thu, 22 October, 2009 5:20:44 PM >Subject: [rti_india] Re: Voluntary Disclosure of Assets by the Lok Ayukta in >Karnataka > > >Dear Mr Nayak > >Can you kindly enlighten us concerning the specific provisions of RTI Act (as >it presently stands) which makes disclosure of assets of public servants >mandatory. > >Would you not also agree with me that RTI Act actually, and specifically, >exempts disclosure of such personal information by section 8(1). > >--- In rti_in...@yahoogrou ps.com, "Venkatesh Nayak" <venkat...@. ..> wrote: >> >> Dear friends, >> Much water has flown down the Yamuna since a single judge bench of the Delhi >> High Court gave its judgement on the case related to disclosure of judges' >> assets. In the southern parts of India including my home state of Karnataka >> entire villages were washed away by floods. But the much promised action on >> disclosure of assets has not seen the light of the day except in the case of >> a few High Court judges who declared their intent to be transparent. The >> Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided to challenge the order of the Delhi High >> Court. At least one High Court is said to have resolved not to disclose such >> information in the public domain. While these developments and the attendant >> debate hits the headlines every now and then, a public authority in >> Karnataka has publicised on its website assets decalartions of functionaries >> from the top to the bottom of the hierarchy without making any fuss. >> >> The public authority in question is the Lok Ayukta of Karnataka established >> under a 1984 law. The Lok Ayukta bears close resemblance to the institution >> of Ombudsman found in many Commonwealth and Scandinavian countries and has >> specific jurisdiction over corruption-related matters also. The declarations >> of assets and liabilities made by the Lok Ayukta, Upa Lok Ayukta, one police >> officer of Additional Director General of Police rank, two police officers >> of Superintendent of Police rank and 19 officers of Police Inspector rank >> have been disclosed. Declarations of 19 other officers associated with other >> wings of the Lok Ayukta have also been uploaded in the website. These >> decalarations may be accessed at: http://lokayukta. kar.nic.in/ assliab.htm >> (I >> thank Prof. B K Chandrashekar for alerting me about this good practice.) >> >> The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta Justice (retd.) N. Santosh Hegde has disclosed assets >> owned by his spouse as well. Details regards shares, debentures, fixed >> deposits, immovable property and loans taken from banks and relatives have >> been disclosed. To his credit Justice (retd.) Hegde has even disclosed the >> source of funds that were spent on the purchase of a residential flat in >> Bangalore. The Hon'ble Lok Ayukta has not only led by example, he has >> ensured that all officers and officials working with him comply with this >> high standard of probity. It remains to be seen whether his successors will >> carry on this noble tradition. Not one of these officers is complaining >> that they are being harassed or blackmailed on account of the size or value >> of assets they have disclosed. It must be mentioned here that there is no >> statutory requirement on the Lok Ayukta or his officers to disclose their >> assets. Instead the political executive including the Chief Minister all the >> members of the State Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council are >> duty bound to disclose details of assets and liabilities for self, spouse >> and close family members to the Lok Ayukta. Without saying anything more, >> one ought to simply stand up and applaud loudly for the institution of the >> Karnataka Lok Ayukta and hope that every public servant with the duty to >> disclose assets is doing so as required by law. Where there is a will there >> is a way (even if there is no statutory obligation). >> >> Going back to the case that has hogged the headlines we know that the assets >> disclosure related matter has not been settled as the Supreme Court has >> challenged the Delhi High Court order. We do not expect the matter to end >> with the decision of the division bench because a further appeal may be >> filed before the Surpeme Court itself. The Government of India could not >> table a Bill on assets disclosure during the last session as many MPs >> opposed its limited scope.The Honb'le Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has >> also said that judges are free to voluntarily disclose their assets-related >> information. The decision of all judges who have volunteered to disclose >> information about their assets is to be welcomed. >> >> However voluntary disclosure is the same as pious charity. Charity is >> anathema to the language of rights especialy fundamental rights guaranteed >> by our Constitution. The citizen's right to know has acquired the status of >> a fundamental right since 1975. Fudamental rights are enforceable against >> the State and its functionaries, charity is not enforceable. The voter's >> right to know the background of candidates contesting elections to >> Parliament and State Legislatures has acquired the status of a fundamental >> right and is now well-established. This right to know is enforceable in a >> court of law. What is important is- the voter's right to know is enforceable >> against private individuals many of whom do not hold public office (some may >> be sitting legislators seeking re-election) . There is no reason why a system >> ought not to be created for disclosure of assets and liabilities information >> of career public servants in all organs of the State. >> >> The purpose of assets disclosure by public functinoaries in mature >> democracies is not to provide sensational fodder to satiate voyeuristic >> appetites. It is a necessary mechanism for ensuring probity of such >> functionaries who have chosen to pursue a career in public life. Rather than >> single out the members of the judiciary for disclosure of assets, the >> Government must come up with a comprehensive assets disclosure Bill that >> will cover all public servants. Such a Bill must have an effective mechanism >> for investigating false declarations within a reasonable period of time and >> where proven there must be sanctions against the errant public servant. >> Anything lesser than this will merely be an eyewash. >> >> In order to access our previous email alerts please click on: >> <BLOCKED::blocked: :BLOCKED: :http://www.humanrig htsinitiative. >> org/programs/ ai >> /rti/india/national .htm> >> http://www.humanrig htsinitiative. org/programs/ ai/rti/india/ national. htm >> You >> will find the links at the top of this web page. If you do not wish to >> receive email alerts please send an email to this address indicating your >> refusal to receive email alerts. >> >> >> >> Thanks >> Venkatesh Nayak >> Programme Coordinator >> Access to Information Programme >> Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative >> B-117, I Floor, Sarvodaya Enclave >> New Delhi- 110 017 >> tel: 91-11- 2686 4678/ 2685 0523 >> fax: 91-11- 2686 4688 >> website: www.humanrightsinit iative.org >> alternate email: <mailto:nayak. venkatesh@ ...> >> nayak.venkatesh@ ... >> > > >________________________________ Now, send attachments up to 25MB with Yahoo! India Mail. Learn how. ________________________________ Keep up with people you care about with Yahoo! India Mail. Learn how. From cricket scores to your friends. Try the Yahoo! India Homepage! http://in.yahoo.com/trynew
