1. OFFENCES RELATED TO DOCUMENTS
1.1 Driving without a Valid License - Rs. 500/- and /or imprisonment ( 3 months) 3 r/w 181 MVA
1.2 Allowing vehicle to be driven by a person who does not possess a Valid License. - Rs. 1000/- and/or imprisonment ( 3 months) 5 r/w 180 MVA
1.3 Not carrying documents as required. - Rs. 100/- 130(3) r/w 177 MVA
1.4 Driving without Valid Insurance. - Rs. 1000/- and/or imprisonment ( 3 months) 130 r/w 177 MVA
1.5 Driving without Valid Permit. - Rs. 5000/- ( not less than Rs. 2000/-) 130 r/w 177 MVA
1.6 Driving without Valid Fitness. - Rs. 5000/- ( not less than Rs. 2000/-) 130 r/w 177 MVA
1.7 Vehicle without R.C. - Rs 2000/- 39 r/w192 MVA
Not carrying documents as required - Sec 177 MVA - Rs. 100/-
OFFENCES RELATED TO DRIVING
2.1.1 Driving by Minor . - Rs. 500/- 4 r/w 181 MVA
2.1.2 Allowing Unauthorized person to drive . - Rs. 1000/- 5 r/w 180 MVA
2.1.3 Driving without Helmet. - Rs. 100/- 129 r/w177 MVA
2.1.4 Seat Belts not fastened. - Rs. 100/- 138(3) CMVR 177 MVA
2.1.5 Rough/Rash/Negligent Driving . - Rs. 1000/- 184 MVA
2.1.6 Dangerous or hasty Driving. - Rs.1000/-and/or imprisonment ( 6 months) 112-183 MVA
2.1.7 Not Driving in Proper Lane. - Court Challan 66 r/w 192 MVA
2.1.8 Driving in the center and not to left side. - Rs.100/- 2 RRR r/w 177 MVA
2.1.9 Driving against One Way. - Rs.100/- 17 (i) RRR 177 MVA
2.1.10 Reversing without due care and attention. - Rs. 100/- MMVR 233 177 MVA
2.1.11 Taking “U” turn during outlawed hours. Rs.100/- 12 RRR 177 MVA
2.1.12 Failing to take precaution while taking a “Turn”. Rs.100/- 3 RRR 177 MVA
2.1.13 Failing to decelerate at intersection. Rs.100/- 8 RRR 177 MVA
2.1.14 Failing to carry on left of traffic island. Rs.100/- 2 RRR 177 MVA
2.1.15 Carrying persons on Footboard. Rs.100/- 123-177 MVA
2.1.16 Carrying persons causing hindrance to the driver. Rs.100/- 125-177 MVA
2.1.17 Trippling. Rs. 100/- 128/177 MVA
2.1.18 Driving on Footpath. Rs.100/- RRR 177 MVA
2.1.19 Stopping at pedestrian crossing or crossing a Stop Line. Rs.100/- RRR 177 MVA
Now, don’t let a policeman take more than Rs.100 from you when you unknowingly enter a one way. This too has to be ticketed and handed over to you.
Road Marking Related Offences v2.2.1 Violation of Yellow Line. Rs. 100/- 119/177 MVA
2.2.2 Violation of Stop Line. Rs. 100/- 113(1)/177 DMVR
2.2.3 Violation of Mandatory Signs . Rs. 100/- 119/177 MVA
Number Plate Related Offences
2.3.1 Use of Offensive Number Plate for vehicle used in driving. Rs.100/- CMVR 105 (2) (ii) 177 MVA
2.3.2 Displaying ‘Applied For’. Rs. 4500/- 39/192 MVA
Vehicle Light Related Offences
2.4.1 Improper use of headlights/tail light for vehicle used in driving. Rs.100/- CMVR 105 (2) (ii)177 MVA
2.4.2 Using High Beam where not required. Rs. 100/- 112(G) A DMVR 177 MVA
Horn Related Offences
2.5.1 Driving without Horn. Rs. 100/- 119(1)/177 CMVR
2.5.2 Improper horn usage while driving. Rs.100/- CMVR 105 (2) (ii) 177 MVA
Traffic Police Related Offences
2.6.1 Disobeying Traffic Police Officer in uniform. Rs. 100/- 119 MVA 22(a) RRR 177 MVA
2.6.2 Driving against Police Signal. Rs. 100/- 119 r/w 177 MVA
2.6.3 Disobeying manual Traffic Signal. Rs. 100/- 239 MMVR 22(a) RRR 177 MVA
Traffic Signal Related Offences
2.7.1 Disobeying Traffic signal / Sign Board. Rs. 100/- 22(b) RRR 239 MMVR 177 MVA
2.7.2 Failing to give Signal. Rs. 100/- 121 RRR 177 MVA
2.7.3 Jumping Signal. Rs.100/- 119/177 MVA
Speed and Overtake Related Offences
2.8.1 Exceeding the prescribed Speed Limits. Up to Rs.1000/- 112-183 MVA
2.8.2 Abetment for Over Speeding . Rs.300/- 112/183(2) MVA
2.8.3 Overtaking perilously. Rs.100/- 6 (a) RRR r/w 177 MVA
2.8.4 Failing to confer way to sanction Overtaking. Rs.100/- 7 RRR 177 MVA
2.8.5 Overtaking from Wrong Side . Rs. 100/- RRR 6/1/177 MVA
Other Offences
2.9.1 Disobeying Lawful Directions. Rs. 500/- 132/179 MVA
2.9.2 Driving under influence of Alcohol / Drugs. Rs.2000/- and/or imprisonment ( 6 months) 185 MVA
2.9.3 Using Mobile Phone while Driving. Up to 1000/- 184 MVA
2.9.4 Leaving vehicle in unoccupied engine. Rs.100/- 126-177 MVA v2.9.5 Leaving vehicle in unsafe position. Rs.100/- 122 177 MVA
2.9.6 In case of a minor Accident. Rs. 1000/- 184 MVA
2.9.7 Playing music while Driving. Rs. 100/- 102/177 MVA v2.9.8 Driving without Silencer. Rs. 100/- 120/190(2)/177CMVR v2.9.9 Driving when mentally or physically unfit. Court Challan 186 MVA
OFFENCES RELATED TO TOWING OF VEHICLES
3.1 Two Wheeler. Rs.100/- RRR 177 MVA
3.2 Car , Jeep, Taxi, Auto Rickshaw. Rs.200/- RRR 177 MVA
3.3 Truck, Tanker, Trailor. Rs.600/- RRR 177 MVA
OFFENCES RELATED TO POLLUTION
4.1 Smoking in Public Transport. Rs. 100/- 86(1)(5)/177 DMVR
4.2 Pollution Not Under Control. Rs. 100/- 99(1)(a)/177 DMVR
4.3 Fixing multi-toned/shrill horn. Rs.500/- 119 CMVR 190(2) MVA
4.4 Blowing Pressure Horn. Rs. 100/- 96(1)/177 DMVR
4.5 Silencer/muffler making noise. Rs.500/- CMVR 120 190(2) MVA
4.6 Smoky Exhaust. Rs.500/- 115 CMVR 190(2) MVA
4.7 Using horn in Silence Zone. Rs.100/- 21(ii) RRR 177 MVA
OFFENCES RELATED TO MOTOR VEHICLES
5.1 Using Vehicle in Unsafe Conditions. Court Challan 192 MVA
5.2 When motor vehicle is out of state for more than 12 months. Rs.100/- 47-177 MVA
5.3 Particulars to be printed on transport vehicles. Rs.100/- 84(G)-177 MVA
5.4 Without Wiper Rs.100/- CMVR 101 5,12 177 MVA
5.4 Without Side Mirror. Rs.100/- 5, 7/177 MVA
5.5 Defective tyres. Rs.100/- CMVR 94
5.6 No indication board on left hand drive vehicle. Rs.100/- 120, 177 MVA
5.7 Sale of motor vehicle/alteration of motor vehicle in contravention of Act. Rs.300/- 52/191 MVA, 32/192.66/192 MV Act
5.8 Vehicles fitted with dark glasses/sun films. Rs.100/- 100 CMVR 177 MVA
5.9 Driving without proper number plate/ illuminating rear number plate. Rs.100/- 236 MMVR 177 MVA
5.10 Failing to display public carrier board. Rs.100/- 116 MMVR 177 MVA
5.11 Using private vehicle for commercial purposes. Rs. 5000/-( not less than Rs. 2000/-)
5.12 Any sort of misconduct with passengers, not wearing uniform/not displaying badge. Rs.100/- MMVR 21(18)177 MVA
5.13 Overloading a goods vehicle. Rs. 2000/-plus Rs. 1000/- for every additional ton. MMVR 93(u)(i)177 MVA
5.14 Carrying goods in a dangerous or hazardous manner. Imprisonment and/or fine of Rs. 3000/- 29 RRR177 MVA
5.15 Infringement of permit conditions. Imprisonment and/or fine of Rs. 5000/-( not less than Rs. 2000/-) -
5.16 Use of Colored light on Vehicle Rs. 100/- 97(2)/177 DMVR
Documents to be carried at all times
1 Valid driving license.
2 Vehicle Registration Certificate.
3 Road Tax Token.
4 Pollution under Control Certificate.
5 Current Insurance Certificate.
thank u
V.Gopalakrishnan
fifth pillar
Showing posts with label RTI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RTI. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Tea Board asks RTI applicant to pay Rs 11 lakh
Tea Board asks RTI applicant to pay Rs 11 lakh
Says Info-Seeker Will Have To Shell Out Rs 2 For Each Of The 5.5 Lakh Pages The Reply Would Run Into
Jeeva TNN
Chennai: Bureaucrats seem to be setting new standards in replying to RTI applications. In what can be a record of sorts, the Tea Board, a wing of the Union ministry of commerce and industry, has demanded Rs 11 lakh from an RTI applicant to provide information he has asked for. The applicant, K K Raman, a resident of Thudiyalur in Coimbatore, wanted details of loans and subsidies, sanctioned as well as rejected, for small tea-growers by the board since 2000. He also asked for details of movable and immovable properties of the board's officials in the last nine years. Raman, in his application dated November 12, 2008, posed 31 queries which also included basic information like details of loan and subsidy schemes, eligibility criteria and documents required for applying for loans and subsidies. In his reply on the December 3, board's executive director R D Nazeem said the information sought for by the applicant would run into 60,000 files containing approximately 5.5 lakh pages. Contending that as per section 7 (3) (a) of the RTI Act, the board could charge Rs 2 per page to be created or xeroxed, Nazeem said the applicant would have to pay Rs 11 lakh and only after that his RTI application would be processed. The official went on to add that the applicant should also fully bear the travelling allowance, dearness allowance, transportation charges of documents and overtime wages for the employees who would be deputed to provide the information. Since some of the information had to be collected from documents at the board's offices in Kochi, Chennai and Kolkata, the applicant would have to bear the expenses of the officials who are deputed for that purpose, Nazeem added. The applicant was obviously stunned by the board's reply and is now preparing an appeal challenging it. "I wanted the information only because I suspect a lot of irregularities in the board's functioning. I filed the application to know the truth. But the condition laid down by the board to answer my queries strengthens my suspicion," Raman told TOI. Arguing that the board's demand was totally against the provisions of the RTI Act, he said: "Apart from asking such a huge amount towards creation or photocopying the documents, on what authority are they asking me to bear the TA, DA, overtime wages of Tea Board employees and cost of transportation of documents."
Says Info-Seeker Will Have To Shell Out Rs 2 For Each Of The 5.5 Lakh Pages The Reply Would Run Into
Jeeva TNN
Chennai: Bureaucrats seem to be setting new standards in replying to RTI applications. In what can be a record of sorts, the Tea Board, a wing of the Union ministry of commerce and industry, has demanded Rs 11 lakh from an RTI applicant to provide information he has asked for. The applicant, K K Raman, a resident of Thudiyalur in Coimbatore, wanted details of loans and subsidies, sanctioned as well as rejected, for small tea-growers by the board since 2000. He also asked for details of movable and immovable properties of the board's officials in the last nine years. Raman, in his application dated November 12, 2008, posed 31 queries which also included basic information like details of loan and subsidy schemes, eligibility criteria and documents required for applying for loans and subsidies. In his reply on the December 3, board's executive director R D Nazeem said the information sought for by the applicant would run into 60,000 files containing approximately 5.5 lakh pages. Contending that as per section 7 (3) (a) of the RTI Act, the board could charge Rs 2 per page to be created or xeroxed, Nazeem said the applicant would have to pay Rs 11 lakh and only after that his RTI application would be processed. The official went on to add that the applicant should also fully bear the travelling allowance, dearness allowance, transportation charges of documents and overtime wages for the employees who would be deputed to provide the information. Since some of the information had to be collected from documents at the board's offices in Kochi, Chennai and Kolkata, the applicant would have to bear the expenses of the officials who are deputed for that purpose, Nazeem added. The applicant was obviously stunned by the board's reply and is now preparing an appeal challenging it. "I wanted the information only because I suspect a lot of irregularities in the board's functioning. I filed the application to know the truth. But the condition laid down by the board to answer my queries strengthens my suspicion," Raman told TOI. Arguing that the board's demand was totally against the provisions of the RTI Act, he said: "Apart from asking such a huge amount towards creation or photocopying the documents, on what authority are they asking me to bear the TA, DA, overtime wages of Tea Board employees and cost of transportation of documents."
Ministers' assets exempted from RTI queries: PMO
The PMO has decided to keep the assets of ministers and their relatives under wraps saying information in this regard is exempted from the Right to Information Act.In reply to a RTI application filed by Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the PMO has termed the information as exempt under the Section 8 of the RTI Act and refused to divulge it for the same.The PMO had reportedly provided the details to the Cabinet Secretariat to facilitate answering of RTI applications in this regard but later took an about turn and denied the information to the applicant.Agrawal had filed an RTI application last year seeking details from the Cabinet Secretariat about the assets of Union Ministers and their relatives for the last two years. The letter was forwarded to Prime Minister's Office for necessary action on the application."In a letter dated May 19, 2008 the PMO provided the details of assets and liabilities of members of Union Council of Ministers to cabinet secretariat to deal with such RTI applications, " Agrawal said."But after that I did not get any response from either of the offices. I had even moved an application with the Central Information Commission in this regard," he added.After six months, PMO in a letter dated December 17, 2008 told Agrawal that the information sought could not be provided as it was exempt under the RTI Act provisions.The office sought exemption under clauses 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) which relate to immunity granted to "documents fiduciary relationship" and "Cabinet Documents" under the RTI Act, 2005 respectively.
Some HC judges for declaration of assets
Some HC judges for declaration of assets
Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN New Delhi: The growing popular pressure for across-theboard transparency in public appears to have blown judiciary’s resistance to the demand for declaration of judges’ assets, with a section of Delhi High Court judges declaring their intent to make the disclosure on their own. The HC judges who voted for transparency at a full court meeting last week are determined to go ahead with the move despite reservations among peers who are still arguing what they call judicial exceptionalism. But even as the status quoists continue with the resistance, the move by the reformists, combined with the bold refusal of veteran constitutional lawyer Fali S Nariman to be the amicus curiae in the case arising from judiciary’s challenge to CIC order for disclosure, promises to be the trigger for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue soon. Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan is learnt to be mulling a proposal to make it mandatory for judges of the HCs and the SC to declare their assets to the President, their appointing authority. This will be in sync with the practice in government, where employees declare their assets to their appointing authority. This goes hand in hand with pro-transparency groundswell in the Bar. Constitutional experts and senior advocates are fully in support of Nariman’s views, which was intimated to the Delhi HC along with a blunt refusal to become the amicus curiae in the petition filed by SC challenging a Central Information Commission order to make public the fact whether or not judges periodically declared their assets. Former law minister Ram Jethmalani told TOI that his views were well known and he was unhesitatingly in favour of judges declaring their assets. Former attorney general Soli J Sorabjee was cryptic yet to the point, when he said, “Whether legally bound or not, in the fitness of things, the judges should declare their assets.” Senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, agreeing with Sorabjee and Jethmalani, said he fully endorsed Nariman’s belief that judges must be amenable to good practices (declaration of assets). The fresh proposal being deliberated upon by the CJI signals a significant departure from the earlier stubbornness in the judiciary that under the May 7, 1997 resolution passed at the Chief Justices conference, there was voluntary declaration of assets by SC judges to the CJI. Similarly, the HC judges declared their assets to the respective CJs. In fact, last year, the CJI had written to the chief justices of HCs asking them to ensure that judges adhered scrupulously to the 1997 resolution and declared their assets periodically to them. However, there was strong opposition to making public the details of their assets on the old-fashioned argument that it would impinge upon the independence of judiciary. This stand had been under stress since the enaction of the Right to Information Act in 2005 and there had been numerous applications seeking a peep into the hitherto forbidden data. Though the public had been debating this issue, the real progress towards bringing down the iron curtain was taken by the CIC recently when it directed the SC Registry that it should at least give information whether or not judges declared their assets periodically, as was envisaged under the 1997 resolution. A section of judges was forceful in advocating that ‘My Lords’, who expect transparency from the government and the litigants, should also submit themselves to identical norms. They even proposed that there should be a website where the judges could declare their assets suo motu. But, the debate ended in a stalemate with many opposing the idea on the ground that data relating to judges’ assets could be misused by unscrupulous elements.
Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN New Delhi: The growing popular pressure for across-theboard transparency in public appears to have blown judiciary’s resistance to the demand for declaration of judges’ assets, with a section of Delhi High Court judges declaring their intent to make the disclosure on their own. The HC judges who voted for transparency at a full court meeting last week are determined to go ahead with the move despite reservations among peers who are still arguing what they call judicial exceptionalism. But even as the status quoists continue with the resistance, the move by the reformists, combined with the bold refusal of veteran constitutional lawyer Fali S Nariman to be the amicus curiae in the case arising from judiciary’s challenge to CIC order for disclosure, promises to be the trigger for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue soon. Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan is learnt to be mulling a proposal to make it mandatory for judges of the HCs and the SC to declare their assets to the President, their appointing authority. This will be in sync with the practice in government, where employees declare their assets to their appointing authority. This goes hand in hand with pro-transparency groundswell in the Bar. Constitutional experts and senior advocates are fully in support of Nariman’s views, which was intimated to the Delhi HC along with a blunt refusal to become the amicus curiae in the petition filed by SC challenging a Central Information Commission order to make public the fact whether or not judges periodically declared their assets. Former law minister Ram Jethmalani told TOI that his views were well known and he was unhesitatingly in favour of judges declaring their assets. Former attorney general Soli J Sorabjee was cryptic yet to the point, when he said, “Whether legally bound or not, in the fitness of things, the judges should declare their assets.” Senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, agreeing with Sorabjee and Jethmalani, said he fully endorsed Nariman’s belief that judges must be amenable to good practices (declaration of assets). The fresh proposal being deliberated upon by the CJI signals a significant departure from the earlier stubbornness in the judiciary that under the May 7, 1997 resolution passed at the Chief Justices conference, there was voluntary declaration of assets by SC judges to the CJI. Similarly, the HC judges declared their assets to the respective CJs. In fact, last year, the CJI had written to the chief justices of HCs asking them to ensure that judges adhered scrupulously to the 1997 resolution and declared their assets periodically to them. However, there was strong opposition to making public the details of their assets on the old-fashioned argument that it would impinge upon the independence of judiciary. This stand had been under stress since the enaction of the Right to Information Act in 2005 and there had been numerous applications seeking a peep into the hitherto forbidden data. Though the public had been debating this issue, the real progress towards bringing down the iron curtain was taken by the CIC recently when it directed the SC Registry that it should at least give information whether or not judges declared their assets periodically, as was envisaged under the 1997 resolution. A section of judges was forceful in advocating that ‘My Lords’, who expect transparency from the government and the litigants, should also submit themselves to identical norms. They even proposed that there should be a website where the judges could declare their assets suo motu. But, the debate ended in a stalemate with many opposing the idea on the ground that data relating to judges’ assets could be misused by unscrupulous elements.
Some HC judges for declaration of assets
Some HC judges for declaration of assets
Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN New Delhi: The growing popular pressure for across-theboard transparency in public appears to have blown judiciary’s resistance to the demand for declaration of judges’ assets, with a section of Delhi High Court judges declaring their intent to make the disclosure on their own. The HC judges who voted for transparency at a full court meeting last week are determined to go ahead with the move despite reservations among peers who are still arguing what they call judicial exceptionalism. But even as the status quoists continue with the resistance, the move by the reformists, combined with the bold refusal of veteran constitutional lawyer Fali S Nariman to be the amicus curiae in the case arising from judiciary’s challenge to CIC order for disclosure, promises to be the trigger for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue soon. Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan is learnt to be mulling a proposal to make it mandatory for judges of the HCs and the SC to declare their assets to the President, their appointing authority. This will be in sync with the practice in government, where employees declare their assets to their appointing authority. This goes hand in hand with pro-transparency groundswell in the Bar. Constitutional experts and senior advocates are fully in support of Nariman’s views, which was intimated to the Delhi HC along with a blunt refusal to become the amicus curiae in the petition filed by SC challenging a Central Information Commission order to make public the fact whether or not judges periodically declared their assets. Former law minister Ram Jethmalani told TOI that his views were well known and he was unhesitatingly in favour of judges declaring their assets. Former attorney general Soli J Sorabjee was cryptic yet to the point, when he said, “Whether legally bound or not, in the fitness of things, the judges should declare their assets.” Senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, agreeing with Sorabjee and Jethmalani, said he fully endorsed Nariman’s belief that judges must be amenable to good practices (declaration of assets). The fresh proposal being deliberated upon by the CJI signals a significant departure from the earlier stubbornness in the judiciary that under the May 7, 1997 resolution passed at the Chief Justices conference, there was voluntary declaration of assets by SC judges to the CJI. Similarly, the HC judges declared their assets to the respective CJs. In fact, last year, the CJI had written to the chief justices of HCs asking them to ensure that judges adhered scrupulously to the 1997 resolution and declared their assets periodically to them. However, there was strong opposition to making public the details of their assets on the old-fashioned argument that it would impinge upon the independence of judiciary. This stand had been under stress since the enaction of the Right to Information Act in 2005 and there had been numerous applications seeking a peep into the hitherto forbidden data. Though the public had been debating this issue, the real progress towards bringing down the iron curtain was taken by the CIC recently when it directed the SC Registry that it should at least give information whether or not judges declared their assets periodically, as was envisaged under the 1997 resolution. A section of judges was forceful in advocating that ‘My Lords’, who expect transparency from the government and the litigants, should also submit themselves to identical norms. They even proposed that there should be a website where the judges could declare their assets suo motu. But, the debate ended in a stalemate with many opposing the idea on the ground that data relating to judges’ assets could be misused by unscrupulous elements.
Dhananjay Mahapatra TNN New Delhi: The growing popular pressure for across-theboard transparency in public appears to have blown judiciary’s resistance to the demand for declaration of judges’ assets, with a section of Delhi High Court judges declaring their intent to make the disclosure on their own. The HC judges who voted for transparency at a full court meeting last week are determined to go ahead with the move despite reservations among peers who are still arguing what they call judicial exceptionalism. But even as the status quoists continue with the resistance, the move by the reformists, combined with the bold refusal of veteran constitutional lawyer Fali S Nariman to be the amicus curiae in the case arising from judiciary’s challenge to CIC order for disclosure, promises to be the trigger for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue soon. Chief Justice of India K G Balakrishnan is learnt to be mulling a proposal to make it mandatory for judges of the HCs and the SC to declare their assets to the President, their appointing authority. This will be in sync with the practice in government, where employees declare their assets to their appointing authority. This goes hand in hand with pro-transparency groundswell in the Bar. Constitutional experts and senior advocates are fully in support of Nariman’s views, which was intimated to the Delhi HC along with a blunt refusal to become the amicus curiae in the petition filed by SC challenging a Central Information Commission order to make public the fact whether or not judges periodically declared their assets. Former law minister Ram Jethmalani told TOI that his views were well known and he was unhesitatingly in favour of judges declaring their assets. Former attorney general Soli J Sorabjee was cryptic yet to the point, when he said, “Whether legally bound or not, in the fitness of things, the judges should declare their assets.” Senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, agreeing with Sorabjee and Jethmalani, said he fully endorsed Nariman’s belief that judges must be amenable to good practices (declaration of assets). The fresh proposal being deliberated upon by the CJI signals a significant departure from the earlier stubbornness in the judiciary that under the May 7, 1997 resolution passed at the Chief Justices conference, there was voluntary declaration of assets by SC judges to the CJI. Similarly, the HC judges declared their assets to the respective CJs. In fact, last year, the CJI had written to the chief justices of HCs asking them to ensure that judges adhered scrupulously to the 1997 resolution and declared their assets periodically to them. However, there was strong opposition to making public the details of their assets on the old-fashioned argument that it would impinge upon the independence of judiciary. This stand had been under stress since the enaction of the Right to Information Act in 2005 and there had been numerous applications seeking a peep into the hitherto forbidden data. Though the public had been debating this issue, the real progress towards bringing down the iron curtain was taken by the CIC recently when it directed the SC Registry that it should at least give information whether or not judges declared their assets periodically, as was envisaged under the 1997 resolution. A section of judges was forceful in advocating that ‘My Lords’, who expect transparency from the government and the litigants, should also submit themselves to identical norms. They even proposed that there should be a website where the judges could declare their assets suo motu. But, the debate ended in a stalemate with many opposing the idea on the ground that data relating to judges’ assets could be misused by unscrupulous elements.
RTI query brings to fore lapses in rural job scheme
Publication:The Times Of India - Chennai;
Date:Jan 27, 2009;
Section:Times Region;
Page Number:5
RTI query brings to fore lapses in rural job scheme
B Aravind Kumar TNN Chennai: It was a strange case of incongruity. In Tiruvannamalai district, the block development officer (BDO) paid Thalaivirichaan Rs 80 as the daily wage on December 28, 2006. Thalaivirichaan, however, had died 30 years ago. What was even stranger was that the BDO of the Chethupattu panchayat union admitted that he knew that Thalaivirichaan had died “approximately’’ 30 years ago and that the wage was paid for a day by “mistake.’’ This startling revelation was obtained by Rathinapandian, general secretary, Fifth Pillar India, through an RTI petition to the project officer of the District Rural Development Agency. An anti-corruption and RTI activist, Rathinapandian was approached by villagers in Nammedu panchayat (falls under Chethupattu union in Tiruvannamalai district) regarding irregularities in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) being implemented there since August 28, 2006. Rathinapandian immediately petitioned the project officer, DRDA, in charge of the NREGS. The petition was forwarded to K Kandhasamy, the BDO concerned. The BDO said he had issued identity cards to 526 persons, of which 58 persons had registered twice. Asked about how many days one Perumal, son of Thalaivirichan, had been paid daily wages, the BDO has replied that the 46-year old had worked for 11 days, for wages of Rs 766. However, the BDO could not give a copy of Perumal’s identity card. Asked if Thalaivirichan had an ID card, the BDO replied in the negative but admitted that his name found its way into the daily wage register on December 28, 2006 “by mistake.’’ He was then candid enough to admit that he knew about Thalaivirichan’s death that had occurred about 30 years ago. When Rathinapandian asked for details of irregularities under the NREGS in Nambedu panchayat, the collector attached a writ petition filed under Article 226 by C Venkatesan of Nammedu village, an elected representative who alleged that the president was employing persons of her choice by creating false records. As huge amounts were being paid as daily wages through the NREGS (Rs 7,437 lakh was paid during 2007-08), Rathinapandian moved the court. Pandian’s queries on the action initiated against corrupt officials, their transfers, and the final action taken report have not been submitted. arvind.kumar4@timesgroup.com
Date:Jan 27, 2009;
Section:Times Region;
Page Number:5
RTI query brings to fore lapses in rural job scheme
B Aravind Kumar TNN Chennai: It was a strange case of incongruity. In Tiruvannamalai district, the block development officer (BDO) paid Thalaivirichaan Rs 80 as the daily wage on December 28, 2006. Thalaivirichaan, however, had died 30 years ago. What was even stranger was that the BDO of the Chethupattu panchayat union admitted that he knew that Thalaivirichaan had died “approximately’’ 30 years ago and that the wage was paid for a day by “mistake.’’ This startling revelation was obtained by Rathinapandian, general secretary, Fifth Pillar India, through an RTI petition to the project officer of the District Rural Development Agency. An anti-corruption and RTI activist, Rathinapandian was approached by villagers in Nammedu panchayat (falls under Chethupattu union in Tiruvannamalai district) regarding irregularities in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) being implemented there since August 28, 2006. Rathinapandian immediately petitioned the project officer, DRDA, in charge of the NREGS. The petition was forwarded to K Kandhasamy, the BDO concerned. The BDO said he had issued identity cards to 526 persons, of which 58 persons had registered twice. Asked about how many days one Perumal, son of Thalaivirichan, had been paid daily wages, the BDO has replied that the 46-year old had worked for 11 days, for wages of Rs 766. However, the BDO could not give a copy of Perumal’s identity card. Asked if Thalaivirichan had an ID card, the BDO replied in the negative but admitted that his name found its way into the daily wage register on December 28, 2006 “by mistake.’’ He was then candid enough to admit that he knew about Thalaivirichan’s death that had occurred about 30 years ago. When Rathinapandian asked for details of irregularities under the NREGS in Nambedu panchayat, the collector attached a writ petition filed under Article 226 by C Venkatesan of Nammedu village, an elected representative who alleged that the president was employing persons of her choice by creating false records. As huge amounts were being paid as daily wages through the NREGS (Rs 7,437 lakh was paid during 2007-08), Rathinapandian moved the court. Pandian’s queries on the action initiated against corrupt officials, their transfers, and the final action taken report have not been submitted. arvind.kumar4@timesgroup.com
RTI first Appeal
From Chennai-78
V. GOPALAKRISHNAN,
7,Pammal Nalla Thambi Street,
M.G.R.Nagar,
Chennai – 600078.
To
Respected Sir/Madam
Sub: Under the RTI Act 2005, sec 19(1) 1st appeal submitted for
not furnishing Information – Regarding
Ref: 1. My RTI Application letter Dated…………. [enclosed].
-----
I requested certain information’s vide reference cited to the Public Information Officer. But even after lapse of more than 30 days information not furnished.
So I appeal to you sir under RTI Act 2005, Sec 19(1), Kindly arrange to get correct information and copy of document at free of cost under RTI Act 2005 Sec 7(6) as early as practicable.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully,
(V. GOPALAKRISHNAN)
V. GOPALAKRISHNAN,
7,Pammal Nalla Thambi Street,
M.G.R.Nagar,
Chennai – 600078.
To
Respected Sir/Madam
Sub: Under the RTI Act 2005, sec 19(1) 1st appeal submitted for
not furnishing Information – Regarding
Ref: 1. My RTI Application letter Dated…………. [enclosed].
-----
I requested certain information’s vide reference cited to the Public Information Officer. But even after lapse of more than 30 days information not furnished.
So I appeal to you sir under RTI Act 2005, Sec 19(1), Kindly arrange to get correct information and copy of document at free of cost under RTI Act 2005 Sec 7(6) as early as practicable.
Thanking you
Yours faithfully,
(V. GOPALAKRISHNAN)
about Tamilnadu Information commission, The Hindu on 18/2/09
Drop in number of cases heard by SIC
Shyam Ranganathan
Commission receives 400 petitions a day
It has plans for more hearings in districts
CHENNAI: The average number of cases heard by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission per commissioner per month has gone down since May, when four commissioners were added to ensure speedy disposal of cases.
An analysis of the hearings conducted by the Commission in 2008 (based on data provided by the Commission to an RTI activist) shows that the average efficiency has been reduced with only 11.7 cases heard per commissioner per month from May to December, whereas 18.4 cases were heard per commissioner per month between January and April.
Although the number of days when hearings were held has increased to an average of 12 days per month in the last seven months from 8 days per month in the first four months of the year, the increase in the number of hearings by groups of commissioners could have caused the reduction in the average per commissioner.
The analysis notes that the proportion of cases handled by a single commissioner has reduced from 82 per cent in April (79 per cent in January, 83 in February and 13 in March) to a maximum of 39 per cent in September and finally 10 per cent in December. With nearly 400 petitions received each day, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission is heavily overloaded, according to S. Ramakrishnan, chief commissioner. Most cases are disposed of at the 'tapal' stage itself and only a few scheduled for hearing by commissioners and this takes up quite a bit of the commission's time.
He says in the first few months, the newly inducted commissioners mostly sat in groups to help in a uniform process of trial and to make sure judgments were standardised across commissioners. Soon more individual sittings could be conducted as all commissioners were on the same page, he says. However, to increase efficiency, Mr. Ramakrishnan says that the Commission will hold more hearings in districts.
He argues it will not be possible to hold more than 10 or so hearings each day at the Commission itself. Instead, commissioners will tour different districts and dispose of cases there itself saving time and money.
But another activist in Chennai says the system itself needs to be changed to increase efficiency. "It takes quite a long time for cases to be heard and disposed of. But the bigger problem is that there is no enforcement mechanism. If I don't get the information that the Commission says I should get, there is no recourse but to file another petition and go through the lengthy process one more time."
hasEML = false;
Shyam Ranganathan
Commission receives 400 petitions a day
It has plans for more hearings in districts
CHENNAI: The average number of cases heard by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission per commissioner per month has gone down since May, when four commissioners were added to ensure speedy disposal of cases.
An analysis of the hearings conducted by the Commission in 2008 (based on data provided by the Commission to an RTI activist) shows that the average efficiency has been reduced with only 11.7 cases heard per commissioner per month from May to December, whereas 18.4 cases were heard per commissioner per month between January and April.
Although the number of days when hearings were held has increased to an average of 12 days per month in the last seven months from 8 days per month in the first four months of the year, the increase in the number of hearings by groups of commissioners could have caused the reduction in the average per commissioner.
The analysis notes that the proportion of cases handled by a single commissioner has reduced from 82 per cent in April (79 per cent in January, 83 in February and 13 in March) to a maximum of 39 per cent in September and finally 10 per cent in December. With nearly 400 petitions received each day, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission is heavily overloaded, according to S. Ramakrishnan, chief commissioner. Most cases are disposed of at the 'tapal' stage itself and only a few scheduled for hearing by commissioners and this takes up quite a bit of the commission's time.
He says in the first few months, the newly inducted commissioners mostly sat in groups to help in a uniform process of trial and to make sure judgments were standardised across commissioners. Soon more individual sittings could be conducted as all commissioners were on the same page, he says. However, to increase efficiency, Mr. Ramakrishnan says that the Commission will hold more hearings in districts.
He argues it will not be possible to hold more than 10 or so hearings each day at the Commission itself. Instead, commissioners will tour different districts and dispose of cases there itself saving time and money.
But another activist in Chennai says the system itself needs to be changed to increase efficiency. "It takes quite a long time for cases to be heard and disposed of. But the bigger problem is that there is no enforcement mechanism. If I don't get the information that the Commission says I should get, there is no recourse but to file another petition and go through the lengthy process one more time."
hasEML = false;
RTI application for new services connection electricity
Sub: Application for service connection - certain information under Right
to Information Act 2005 – requested – reg.
I request the following information on my application seeking electricity service connection may be supplied.
When my application seeking service connection was received in the office of
the Asst. Engineer/ O&M / ………..
Why the acknowledgement for the receipt of application was not given ?
When the same was registered and furnish the registration number.
Whether the clause of the Distribution code of TNERC was complied with in the above registration ?
What is the time frame prescribed in the relevant rules for effecting the service connection ?
What is the reason for delay in effecting the service connection ?
Who are all the officials responsible for the delay ?
What is the action taken or proposed to be taken against the above officials for causing the delay ?
If the delay was because of non-availability of energy meter or any other material, who is responsible for the same ?
If the meter or other material was not made available at the department stores, who is responsible for purchasing and making it available at the stores ?
If it was because of delay in purchase of meters and materials, what is the action taken or proposed to be taken against that official ?
When the service connection will be given ?
to Information Act 2005 – requested – reg.
I request the following information on my application seeking electricity service connection may be supplied.
When my application seeking service connection was received in the office of
the Asst. Engineer/ O&M / ………..
Why the acknowledgement for the receipt of application was not given ?
When the same was registered and furnish the registration number.
Whether the clause of the Distribution code of TNERC was complied with in the above registration ?
What is the time frame prescribed in the relevant rules for effecting the service connection ?
What is the reason for delay in effecting the service connection ?
Who are all the officials responsible for the delay ?
What is the action taken or proposed to be taken against the above officials for causing the delay ?
If the delay was because of non-availability of energy meter or any other material, who is responsible for the same ?
If the meter or other material was not made available at the department stores, who is responsible for purchasing and making it available at the stores ?
If it was because of delay in purchase of meters and materials, what is the action taken or proposed to be taken against that official ?
When the service connection will be given ?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
RTI crusader lands in trouble
VICTIM OF FORGERY
RTI crusader lands in trouble
Julie Mariappan TNN
Chennai: The central government’s Right to Information Act has virtually
thrown open the iron doors of bureaucracy to the common citizen. The flipside is
that activists seeking transparency can also become targets and be prevented
from seeking information through RTI.
That is how V Gopalakrishnan of MGR Nagar landed in trouble. An ardent RTI
crusader, Gopalakrishnan had shot off several applications to various government
agencies several times demanding information on the basic amenities such as
waterways, power supply, road-widening works and encroachments.
But on Monday night, a 100-strong mob gathered in front of his house and
began abusing him for sending an RTI application to the Chennai corporation to
clear encroachments. They wanted to know why Gopalakrishnan had demanded the
demolition of three temples in MGR Nagar. For Gopalakrishnan, it was a blow out
of the blue. “The crowd was not convinced by my reply that I did not file the
application. The frustrated people abused me and my family. There was total
chaos until the police arrived on the scene,†Gopalakrishnan told TOI.
The next morning, he took some of the temple authorities to the office of the
local ward (131) and was shocked to find that application had indeed been filed
by forging his signature. Worse, the application was completely written in
Tamil, while he always prefers writing in English. His initial was also not on
the application. “I immediately lodged a complaint with the MGR Nagar police
and the civic body. But what took me by surprise was the fact that the public
got to know the applicant’s name. In fact, the Saidapet zone are not coming
out with a proper reply,†Gopalakrishnan said.
His query on the de-silting programme in the MGR canal and on the
encroachments on the canal bed, is yet to get a reply from corporation officials
since August last year. Gopalakrishnan is the secretary of the Chennai chapter
of Fifth Pillar, an NGO working against corruption in the administration.
RTI crusader lands in trouble
Julie Mariappan TNN
Chennai: The central government’s Right to Information Act has virtually
thrown open the iron doors of bureaucracy to the common citizen. The flipside is
that activists seeking transparency can also become targets and be prevented
from seeking information through RTI.
That is how V Gopalakrishnan of MGR Nagar landed in trouble. An ardent RTI
crusader, Gopalakrishnan had shot off several applications to various government
agencies several times demanding information on the basic amenities such as
waterways, power supply, road-widening works and encroachments.
But on Monday night, a 100-strong mob gathered in front of his house and
began abusing him for sending an RTI application to the Chennai corporation to
clear encroachments. They wanted to know why Gopalakrishnan had demanded the
demolition of three temples in MGR Nagar. For Gopalakrishnan, it was a blow out
of the blue. “The crowd was not convinced by my reply that I did not file the
application. The frustrated people abused me and my family. There was total
chaos until the police arrived on the scene,†Gopalakrishnan told TOI.
The next morning, he took some of the temple authorities to the office of the
local ward (131) and was shocked to find that application had indeed been filed
by forging his signature. Worse, the application was completely written in
Tamil, while he always prefers writing in English. His initial was also not on
the application. “I immediately lodged a complaint with the MGR Nagar police
and the civic body. But what took me by surprise was the fact that the public
got to know the applicant’s name. In fact, the Saidapet zone are not coming
out with a proper reply,†Gopalakrishnan said.
His query on the de-silting programme in the MGR canal and on the
encroachments on the canal bed, is yet to get a reply from corporation officials
since August last year. Gopalakrishnan is the secretary of the Chennai chapter
of Fifth Pillar, an NGO working against corruption in the administration.
Drop in number of cases heard by TAMILNADU SIC
Drop in number of cases heard by SIC
Shyam Ranganathan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission receives 400 petitions a day
It has plans for more hearings in districts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHENNAI: The average number of cases heard by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission per commissioner per month has gone down since May, when four commissioners were added to ensure speedy disposal of cases.
An analysis of the hearings conducted by the Commission in 2008 (based on data provided by the Commission to an RTI activist) shows that the average efficiency has been reduced with only 11.7 cases heard per commissioner per month from May to December, whereas 18.4 cases were heard per commissioner per month between January and April.
Although the number of days when hearings were held has increased to an average of 12 days per month in the last seven months from 8 days per month in the first four months of the year, the increase in the number of hearings by groups of commissioners could have caused the reduction in the average per commissioner.
The analysis notes that the proportion of cases handled by a single commissioner has reduced from 82 per cent in April (79 per cent in January, 83 in February and 13 in March) to a maximum of 39 per cent in September and finally 10 per cent in December. With nearly 400 petitions received each day, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission is heavily overloaded, according to S. Ramakrishnan, chief commissioner. Most cases are disposed of at the 'tapal' stage itself and only a few scheduled for hearing by commissioners and this takes up quite a bit of the commission's time.
He says in the first few months, the newly inducted commissioners mostly sat in groups to help in a uniform process of trial and to make sure judgments were standardised across commissioners. Soon more individual sittings could be conducted as all commissioners were on the same page, he says. However, to increase efficiency, Mr. Ramakrishnan says that the Commission will hold more hearings in districts.
He argues it will not be possible to hold more than 10 or so hearings each day at the Commission itself. Instead, commissioners will tour different districts and dispose of cases there itself saving time and money.
But another activist in Chennai says the system itself needs to be changed to increase efficiency. "It takes quite a long time for cases to be heard and disposed of. But the bigger problem is that there is no enforcement mechanism. If I don't get the information that the Commission says I should get, there is no recourse but to file another petition and go through the lengthy process one more time."
Shyam Ranganathan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission receives 400 petitions a day
It has plans for more hearings in districts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHENNAI: The average number of cases heard by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission per commissioner per month has gone down since May, when four commissioners were added to ensure speedy disposal of cases.
An analysis of the hearings conducted by the Commission in 2008 (based on data provided by the Commission to an RTI activist) shows that the average efficiency has been reduced with only 11.7 cases heard per commissioner per month from May to December, whereas 18.4 cases were heard per commissioner per month between January and April.
Although the number of days when hearings were held has increased to an average of 12 days per month in the last seven months from 8 days per month in the first four months of the year, the increase in the number of hearings by groups of commissioners could have caused the reduction in the average per commissioner.
The analysis notes that the proportion of cases handled by a single commissioner has reduced from 82 per cent in April (79 per cent in January, 83 in February and 13 in March) to a maximum of 39 per cent in September and finally 10 per cent in December. With nearly 400 petitions received each day, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission is heavily overloaded, according to S. Ramakrishnan, chief commissioner. Most cases are disposed of at the 'tapal' stage itself and only a few scheduled for hearing by commissioners and this takes up quite a bit of the commission's time.
He says in the first few months, the newly inducted commissioners mostly sat in groups to help in a uniform process of trial and to make sure judgments were standardised across commissioners. Soon more individual sittings could be conducted as all commissioners were on the same page, he says. However, to increase efficiency, Mr. Ramakrishnan says that the Commission will hold more hearings in districts.
He argues it will not be possible to hold more than 10 or so hearings each day at the Commission itself. Instead, commissioners will tour different districts and dispose of cases there itself saving time and money.
But another activist in Chennai says the system itself needs to be changed to increase efficiency. "It takes quite a long time for cases to be heard and disposed of. But the bigger problem is that there is no enforcement mechanism. If I don't get the information that the Commission says I should get, there is no recourse but to file another petition and go through the lengthy process one more time."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)