KRISHNA KUMAR P
08 October 2011 at 18:40
Sir,
I P Krishna Kumar applied RTI application on 27 Aug 2011 to GVMC for sanction, expenditure details and facilities provided/given by GVMC to our locality. Reply received on 20 Aug 11 from PIO of GVMC saying that your application has been forwarded to Chief City Planning officer and he will give reply to you (letter date is 05 Aug 11) till to date there is no any reply.
My question is as per RTI act:
(a) How many days I well wait for reply form Chief City Planning officer?
(b) In case reply not received form authority what I will do?
Anonymous
08 October 2011 at 14:40
sir,,, meri query yah hai ki agar koi goverment job me selection rules me general category ke liye candidates ki age under 25 year honi chahiye and obc candidates ke liye age me 28 year and sc, st ke liye under 30 year age honi chahiye .and after competitive exam .general category ki cut of merit 65% and obc category ki cut of merit 63% declare hoti hai .and mene obc category me apply kiya ho and mere mark 68% ho but age 26 year ho to sir me general catgory ki seat par selecte hota hu ya obc ki seat par ..please rplyyy me sirrrrr
MG N RAO
08 October 2011 at 13:00
my wife has been denied child care leave by her employer even though on genuine grounds and she is the lone employee so far to be turned down it is vested interest only. now she is transferred to another place and orders has been issued by the highest authority ie. head quareters at delhi still relieving is not done and also no child care leave and he has virtually caused office arrest of a female employee what is the quick legal remedy for us
Member (Account Deleted)
07 October 2011 at 21:45
I made an appeal to the RTI Cell IHQ of MoD(Army), Sena Bhavan , New Delhi on 04 Aug 2011 as follows:-
a) Information of all the specific Rules which allows canteen facilities to be extended to the civilians.
b) Specific dates since which the facilities are extended.
c) Copy of the relevant circulars , name and rank of authority who issued the circular.
d) In addition if there is any vigilance mechanism where complaint may be given to them.
I have just recd the reply as follows vide their letter No A/810027/RTI/7642 dated 29 Sep 2011 recd today by ordinary post. It says :
a) Info on query No (a) - An extract copy of AO 2/2006/QMG is encl herewith . The photostat page of the extract of the Army Order is almost inlegible but let me try to decipher.
Para 12 . Defence Civilians ;- Following categories of civilians paid from Defence Services Estimates and also those employed in the under mentioned ministries / departments are permitted to make purchases from service canteens subject to payment of sales tax and other levies as per directions of the respective state where they are entitled to such facilities:-
- min of defence.
- defence audit deptt.
- executive officer cantonment board.
-hindustan aeronautics ltd
-indian defence accounts services who are serving on deputation to posts other than those in the min of defence9fin).
-secretarat border security roads development board and hq director gen border roads.
- civilian employees of unit/formation run canteens.
serving and retired employees of canteen stores departments who are getting pension from CSD funds.
2. Info on query No (b)- The canten facilities are extended to the civilians wef 27 Jun 1966.
3. Information on query No (c)- Copy of the circular mentioned in para 2(b) above is encl herewith. The circular att is a letter from Army Headquarters QMG DHO PO NEW DELHI dated 27 Jun 1966 addsd to HQ southern /western/Eastern and central command.
Subjects :- Canteen Facilities to civilian employees paid out of defence Estimates and also those employed in the min of defence , ministry of finance(defence) and their respective attached offices..
It goes on to say : - All civilians paid out of defence services estimates and also employed in the under mentioned ministries / departments will be permitted to make purchases from the services canteens on production of their authenticated photo bearing security passes ;-
It includes all the categories I have just listed which have now been included in the Army Order published in 2006.
I am in possession of a reply from the same office i.e QMG IHQ of MoD( Army) dated 04 Nov 2008 in reply to my RTI query earlier which states as follows :
Para 2 - The Army order under ref pertains to QMG bR . QMG is the nodal agency of the BOARD OF CONTROL CANTEEN SERVICES( wherein Hon'ble Rakha Mantri is the Chairman) to issue all policy instructions / directions / guidelines on behalf of the MOD. Accordingly the Army Order under ref was issued on the issue of URCs.
Para 3 - The Canteen facility less liquor and AFD items were extended to the serving civilian employees paid out of Defence Estimates as a goodwill gesture for their support to the Defence Services consequent a decision during the 53 Meeting of the BOCCS. Relevant Extracts of the same are encl.
As per the extract the meeting was held only on 18 Mar 1986.
One need not much brain to see through the game QMG is playing . I had asked for the Rules under which definition of Troops ( That is the pre condition to avail CSD facility) was diluted . Naturally that had to a cabinet/ Parliament decision as it immediately increase the clientele multifold and caused the govt crores of rupees on infrastructures as well as manpower to handle that extraordinary burdain to the exchequers .
For the military bosses and the Defence Audit Personnel and of course the IAS.COM more the merrier. GOvt of India bleeds , there are more expansion of the CSD,,More procurement more profit , more QD to the URCs and more income to that so called NON-PUBLIC funds held by the military bosses in collusion with the audit authorities as well as the IAS .com at the min of Deence as well as Offence sorry Finance.
And there is more. The Military bosses became bolder. They published Army Order kind Coutesy Gen J J Singh allowing Audit Staff/Est to run their own canteens ( the QMG letter talks about availing serfacility from services canteens). And the profit in those URCs are being paid as dividend to the civilian employees - what a wonder ful Idea Sirjiii?
Now the CSD depot are also running their own URCs( Could not covered by any of the Army Orders ) but they are there. The URC staff are just temporarily employed casual employees . The unit commanders / head of the est recruit them as per their whims and fancies ( following no govt of India policies) but they are also included to avail the CSD facility. Look at the level where the Min of Defence , the military bosses have stooped down to appease the Defence Auding officials , the casual employees of the URC so that CSD facility can be abused to its maximum potential converting consolidated funds of India to Non-public funds for the thre sewrvices , almost all departments of Defence and Offence.
I think we need that damn LOKPAL bILL URGENTLY. tHIS LOOT AND SCOOT AND PLUNDER OF NATIONAL WEALTH MUST CEASE TO EXIST.
Pl do help me making my next step.
Anonymous
06 October 2011 at 22:02
Dear Experts,
This query is related to this judgement available at http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SRB/judgement/23-05-2011/SRB20052011CW24912000.pdf
It is about the Delhi High Court nullifying the validity of July 13, 1962 notification exempting air guns, air rifles, air pistols from the requirement of license under the Arms Act 1959. I do understand that Hon'ble Delhi High Court did not apply its mind to the provision of Section 41(a) of the Arms Act 1959.
The query is: Does High Court have power to nullify a Central legislation under judicial review beyond its territorial jurisdiction or its effect has to be within its jurisdiction?
Bajrang Sharma
06 October 2011 at 11:12
this is my moot court problem. in this case a college installed cctv in order to achieve academic excellence and student discipline and also they connected cctv to internet.there was a girl in the clg who was chatting with a boy and her parents saw her chatting through cctv and when girl returned home, she was taken to task by her parents.likes of that girl who were getting monitored by their parents formed a association called students' privacy council and filed a writ petition in the high court, inter alia, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the college to remove cctv. now i am from behalf of the plaintiff...i.e i have to support that girl...NOTE- there was no security reason to install cctv.
Aishwarya Pandey
04 October 2011 at 23:16
Dear Sir,
just wanted to know that whether students have right to privacy in college/school premises? and if a university is declared as to be a deemed university, can a writ of mandamus be declared against ?
Anonymous
04 October 2011 at 14:55
shall not the assets of the RESPONSIBLE organisation be seized, liquidated and proceeds distributed among the victims family.this would have been the natural action in developed nation.
IS NOT THIS A FIT CASE FOR P.I.L, suo-motu proceedings, WHERE GOVERNMENT IS USING TAX PAYERS HARD EARNED MONEY TO PAY FOR MISTAKES OF PROFIT MOTIVATED ORGANISATION.
PLEASE GIVE YOUR VALUED ADVICE AS TO HOW THE MATTER SHALL BE PURSUED TO ACHIEVE A JUST CONCLUSION. or
RECOMMEND GOOD NGO WHO STAND FOR THIS CAUSE.
SSng Aulakh
03 October 2011 at 23:38
1. If Notice of motions in a Suit taken out by the Plaintiff for urgent reliefs remain pending for years together.
2. If the the matter on board is not reaching for months together.
3. Can any one inform that what Constitutional remedy the Plaintiff have got ?
4. Who should be held responsible for the sufferings of the Plaintiff and his family gone through due to the above ?
Please give an honest and unbiased reply.
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Judgement-citation-requested-privacy-cctv cams..
Dear Sir,(s)
There was case decided in recent past (2006 to 2010)about infringement of privacy by a Paying Guest owner at Pune.He had installed CCTV cameras in rooms of his PG house & illegal use of the same..
He was made liable.
Can you please inform,if you know about citation.?
It could be of help at the earliest.
Rgrds