hi all,
I am actually quite satisfied with the balance on RTI
at present.
Status is as follows:-
1) Filed India's first ever request for Information
under the new Act on 03-October-2005 with the
Department of Information Technology at New Delhi. I
was immediately provided the information the moment
the fees were notified by persmin, and I was allowed
full examination of all file notings etc.
2) My second RTI to the Delhi Electrictiy Regulatory
Commission on 17th Oct.2005 was promptly replied to
within 48 hours under the exceptional provision of
section 7(1). Since it concerns 3rd party information,
the matter is in first appeal filed on 24.Oct.2005.
This is also I believe India's first appeal under the
new RTI Act, and I am quite hopeful that the matter
will not require further appeal.
3) My 3rd RTI was to the Delhi Development Authority
(DDA). These PIOs at DDA are evasive buggers, so I
have filed India's first Complaint to the Chief
Central Information Commissioner on 7th November-2005.
The Rules for filing Complaints and Appeals here are
very daunting and not for the faint of heart.
4) I had also sent an email to the National Capital
Region Planning Board on 8-Nov-2005. They helpfully
treated it as an urgent request under the RTI ACT, and
I was given the full information within 40 hours
against total payment of Rs.14 only. I am happy to
learn from them (NCRPB) that several of my suggestions
have been incorporated in NCR Plan 2021 and I also
spotted a few of them.
Sarbajit Roy
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ===
> (all) please share any successes with s.6, so we can
> identify authorities inclined to take it seriously
> and
> work with them rather than join GNCTD/NGO
> shenanigans
> in name of our RTI
> ===
>
> sarabjit dear
>
> re returns from s.4 spamming (query in reply to post
> re NBSAP, DJB, etc): nothing from dmrc, sweet mails
> from dda, regd post from moef, chat invite from dept
> of commerce. no info yet, but that is no problem. I
> do
> not need the info, only want them to disclose it and
> make that healthy-habit. why use s.6 for what I do
> not
> need when there is s.4 for what I want!
>
> points-to-ponder re suggested sixers (in reply to
> poonam re DJB, NGOs, etc):
>
> * should one first s.6 DJB for info of what it knows
> of s.6 pilot-project that RTI eminences have made
> it?
> (and, btw, paani thekedari in slums is replay of
> bijli
> thekedari en-route shoddy power privatization; MoEF
> represented GoI on DUEIIP that road-mapped next-gen
> reform; water and riverbed mess is entwined; GNCTD
> has
> no jurisdiction over land/ground)
>
> * how to s.6 games? (there are no plans except
> dikshit
> family-business flexi plans, no authority except CM
> and a GoM, etc)
>
> * who how why to s.6 re sandip baba taking child-art
> to momma kitchen cabinet saying want-like-this and
> uncles promising to get from hudco or dda mall?
> (baijal uncle? he has hudco & dda and also metro
> corp
> that invited momma with baba in tow to inaugurate IT
> Park, and filed in supreme court in September
> Thames-like-Yamuna concept-plan. or Authority of
> DDA?
> it approved on 19.10.05 more land for games. or Prez
> and PM? they went gung-ho at akshardham
> inauguration.
> or Parliament? re new rules that allow/require MPs
> to
> skirt Parliament reps on DDA & urban development
> Standing Committee and stroll into momma cabinet.
> etc.
> etc.)
>
>
> my akshardham games village s.4 post of 08.11.05 cc,
> recovered, could be re-mail, in which case no
> apologies for double-spamming -- am doubly cut up:
> re
> PM that twice partied at tomb being at temple
> dedicating and re Prez dedicating temple with oath
> to
> enrich nation by commissioning 1000 Akshardham PURAs
> in 5 years under inspirational leadership of His
> Divine Holiness... Official, see:
> http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=13101
>
> nothing to s.4 about such suo motu disclosure, which
> also does not facilitate / minimise resort to s.6.
>
> could ask for suo motu disclosures not strictly
> compliant with s.4 to be declared spamming!!
> also to prevent s.6 enthusiasts from declaring my
> counter-spam efforts in support of s.4 spamming ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> on 08/11/05
> --- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Shri BN Singh
> > Director [PRE&R]
> >
> > Dear Sir,
> >
> > Kindly refer to our prior correspondence, at:
> >
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00643.shtml
> > wherein I had made, in an e-mail addressed to
> > designated PIOs/AAs, certain observations re RTI
> > administration in DDA and (alternative) request to
> > facilitate my RTI in respect of Authority meeting
> of
> > 19.10.05, which I reiterate. (Despite not being a
> > PIO/AA, you had replied to my e-mail and in
> response
> > I
> > had reiterated my requests re Authority meeting. I
> > have not heard from you since then or from
> > designated
> > PIOs/AAs).
> >
> > Meanwhile, there have been further developments on
> > matters relating to the Authority meeting of
> > 19.10.05
> > and, in context of inauguration of Akshardham
> Temple
> > and with reference to your remark about politics
> and
> > DD Act, I seek now clarification of conformity
> with
> > DD
> > Act of the expanding Games Village next to
> > Akshardham
> > Temple, for which additional land acquisition was
> > reportedly approved at Authority meeting on
> > 19.10.05.
> > In this regard, kindly refer also to:
> > (1)
> > MPISG communication dated 23.10.2004 to request,
> > inter-alia, that "responses received to IT Park
> > Public
> > Notice be considered also "doubts" about the
> > proposal
> > for locating the Games Village on riverbed,
> > requiring
> > clearing in spirit of s.11A", (wrt news item,
> > 'Manmohan, GoM get cracking with the Games', that
> > said, "Supreme Court's refusal to grant stay on
> > construction of the Akshardham temple on the
> Yamuna
> > river bed cleared all doubts about the location of
> > Games village"), at:
> >
>
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/mpisg/riverbed/041023
> > (2)
> > The common observations of the Board / Committee
> > appointed by the Authority for Public Notice for
> > proposal to change land use for commercial IT Park
> > on
> > the riverbed on all objections/suggestions (filed
> in
> > Additional Affidavit dated 18.10.2005 on behalf of
> > DDA
> > in WP 6500/2005, Gita Dewan Verma v/s DMRC & Ors)
> > that
> > proceed from: "It was informed that the building
> of
> > IT
> > Park has already been constructed by DMRC,
> therefore
> > this is a case of de-facto approval of change of
> > landuse. The SSB did not appreciate the
> construction
> > of IT Park prior to change of landuse and is of
> the
> > view that such cases of de-facto approval will not
> > be
> > considered and returned/rejected summarily in the
> > future...".
> >
> > Thanking you and looking forward to your reply,
> >
> > Yours sincerely
> > Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
> >
> > cc: for continuing information
> > * PIO/AAs (as per last mail)
> > * mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpisgmedia mailing list
> > mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com
I am actually quite satisfied with the balance on RTI
at present.
Status is as follows:-
1) Filed India's first ever request for Information
under the new Act on 03-October-2005 with the
Department of Information Technology at New Delhi. I
was immediately provided the information the moment
the fees were notified by persmin, and I was allowed
full examination of all file notings etc.
2) My second RTI to the Delhi Electrictiy Regulatory
Commission on 17th Oct.2005 was promptly replied to
within 48 hours under the exceptional provision of
section 7(1). Since it concerns 3rd party information,
the matter is in first appeal filed on 24.Oct.2005.
This is also I believe India's first appeal under the
new RTI Act, and I am quite hopeful that the matter
will not require further appeal.
3) My 3rd RTI was to the Delhi Development Authority
(DDA). These PIOs at DDA are evasive buggers, so I
have filed India's first Complaint to the Chief
Central Information Commissioner on 7th November-2005.
The Rules for filing Complaints and Appeals here are
very daunting and not for the faint of heart.
4) I had also sent an email to the National Capital
Region Planning Board on 8-Nov-2005. They helpfully
treated it as an urgent request under the RTI ACT, and
I was given the full information within 40 hours
against total payment of Rs.14 only. I am happy to
learn from them (NCRPB) that several of my suggestions
have been incorporated in NCR Plan 2021 and I also
spotted a few of them.
Sarbajit Roy
--- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ===
> (all) please share any successes with s.6, so we can
> identify authorities inclined to take it seriously
> and
> work with them rather than join GNCTD/NGO
> shenanigans
> in name of our RTI
> ===
>
> sarabjit dear
>
> re returns from s.4 spamming (query in reply to post
> re NBSAP, DJB, etc): nothing from dmrc, sweet mails
> from dda, regd post from moef, chat invite from dept
> of commerce. no info yet, but that is no problem. I
> do
> not need the info, only want them to disclose it and
> make that healthy-habit. why use s.6 for what I do
> not
> need when there is s.4 for what I want!
>
> points-to-ponder re suggested sixers (in reply to
> poonam re DJB, NGOs, etc):
>
> * should one first s.6 DJB for info of what it knows
> of s.6 pilot-project that RTI eminences have made
> it?
> (and, btw, paani thekedari in slums is replay of
> bijli
> thekedari en-route shoddy power privatization; MoEF
> represented GoI on DUEIIP that road-mapped next-gen
> reform; water and riverbed mess is entwined; GNCTD
> has
> no jurisdiction over land/ground)
>
> * how to s.6 games? (there are no plans except
> dikshit
> family-business flexi plans, no authority except CM
> and a GoM, etc)
>
> * who how why to s.6 re sandip baba taking child-art
> to momma kitchen cabinet saying want-like-this and
> uncles promising to get from hudco or dda mall?
> (baijal uncle? he has hudco & dda and also metro
> corp
> that invited momma with baba in tow to inaugurate IT
> Park, and filed in supreme court in September
> Thames-like-Yamuna concept-plan. or Authority of
> DDA?
> it approved on 19.10.05 more land for games. or Prez
> and PM? they went gung-ho at akshardham
> inauguration.
> or Parliament? re new rules that allow/require MPs
> to
> skirt Parliament reps on DDA & urban development
> Standing Committee and stroll into momma cabinet.
> etc.
> etc.)
>
>
> my akshardham games village s.4 post of 08.11.05 cc,
> recovered, could be re-mail, in which case no
> apologies for double-spamming -- am doubly cut up:
> re
> PM that twice partied at tomb being at temple
> dedicating and re Prez dedicating temple with oath
> to
> enrich nation by commissioning 1000 Akshardham PURAs
> in 5 years under inspirational leadership of His
> Divine Holiness... Official, see:
> http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=13101
>
> nothing to s.4 about such suo motu disclosure, which
> also does not facilitate / minimise resort to s.6.
>
> could ask for suo motu disclosures not strictly
> compliant with s.4 to be declared spamming!!
> also to prevent s.6 enthusiasts from declaring my
> counter-spam efforts in support of s.4 spamming ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> on 08/11/05
> --- Gita Dewan Verma <mpisgplanner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Shri BN Singh
> > Director [PRE&R]
> >
> > Dear Sir,
> >
> > Kindly refer to our prior correspondence, at:
> >
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/+/MPISG-Media/archive/msg00643.shtml
> > wherein I had made, in an e-mail addressed to
> > designated PIOs/AAs, certain observations re RTI
> > administration in DDA and (alternative) request to
> > facilitate my RTI in respect of Authority meeting
> of
> > 19.10.05, which I reiterate. (Despite not being a
> > PIO/AA, you had replied to my e-mail and in
> response
> > I
> > had reiterated my requests re Authority meeting. I
> > have not heard from you since then or from
> > designated
> > PIOs/AAs).
> >
> > Meanwhile, there have been further developments on
> > matters relating to the Authority meeting of
> > 19.10.05
> > and, in context of inauguration of Akshardham
> Temple
> > and with reference to your remark about politics
> and
> > DD Act, I seek now clarification of conformity
> with
> > DD
> > Act of the expanding Games Village next to
> > Akshardham
> > Temple, for which additional land acquisition was
> > reportedly approved at Authority meeting on
> > 19.10.05.
> > In this regard, kindly refer also to:
> > (1)
> > MPISG communication dated 23.10.2004 to request,
> > inter-alia, that "responses received to IT Park
> > Public
> > Notice be considered also "doubts" about the
> > proposal
> > for locating the Games Village on riverbed,
> > requiring
> > clearing in spirit of s.11A", (wrt news item,
> > 'Manmohan, GoM get cracking with the Games', that
> > said, "Supreme Court's refusal to grant stay on
> > construction of the Akshardham temple on the
> Yamuna
> > river bed cleared all doubts about the location of
> > Games village"), at:
> >
>
http://plan.architexturez.org/site/mpisg/riverbed/041023
> > (2)
> > The common observations of the Board / Committee
> > appointed by the Authority for Public Notice for
> > proposal to change land use for commercial IT Park
> > on
> > the riverbed on all objections/suggestions (filed
> in
> > Additional Affidavit dated 18.10.2005 on behalf of
> > DDA
> > in WP 6500/2005, Gita Dewan Verma v/s DMRC & Ors)
> > that
> > proceed from: "It was informed that the building
> of
> > IT
> > Park has already been constructed by DMRC,
> therefore
> > this is a case of de-facto approval of change of
> > landuse. The SSB did not appreciate the
> construction
> > of IT Park prior to change of landuse and is of
> the
> > view that such cases of de-facto approval will not
> > be
> > considered and returned/rejected summarily in the
> > future...".
> >
> > Thanking you and looking forward to your reply,
> >
> > Yours sincerely
> > Gita Dewan Verma, Planner
> >
> > cc: for continuing information
> > * PIO/AAs (as per last mail)
> > * mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > mpisgmedia mailing list
> > mpisgmedia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
>
http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/mpisgmedia
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com