Online RTI Request Form
Details
Public
Authority Details :-
* Public
Authority Prime Minister's Office
Request
Details :-
* Description
of Information Sought
Please refer to SYS/10525/Armed Forces dated
06.06.14 addressed to the Honourable Prime Minister.
The kindness of the Honourable Prime Minister was requested to have the
issues examined as Armed Forces personnel retired and serving look to the
Honourable Prime Minister for solutions to the listed pending issues mentioned
therein.
RTI Act 2005 vide Para 2 (f) states
Information means any material in any form, including records, documents,
memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks,
contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any
electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be
accessed by a public authority under any other law for the me being in
force.
Please provide information as defined in
Para 2 (f) of the RTI Act 2005 on the progress of the actions taken by the
Honourable Prime Ministers office in pursuit of solutions to issues mentioned
in the above-mentioned petition dated 06.06.2014.
It is requested that this applicant may not be requested to travel to
New Delhi to examine and earmark information from the files in the PMO related
to the request due to the expense which may far exceed the cost of photocopies
of information @ Rs 2/- per photocopied page or Rs 50/- per CD.
60940 Reply to RTI from PMO
Received on 16 Sep 14
Speed Post A.D
Right to Information
PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE
South Block,
New Delhi – 110 011
No.
RTI/4922/2014-PMR Dated: 10 Sept, 2014
To,
Subject:
Application under Right to Information Act, 2005
Sir,
Reference
is invited to application (no. 60940) dated 11.8.2014, received on
12.8.2014, on the above noted subject. The matter was referred to the office
for providing inputs. Inputs provided by the office in respect of your request
for information is enclosed (2 pages).
2. For
the purpose of section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Shri Krishan
Kumar, Director, is the appellate authority in respect of this office.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-----------------
Encl: as
above (2 pages) (S.
E. Rizwi)
Director
& Central Public Information Officer
Telephone:
2307 4072
* * * * *
Right to Information
RTI/4922/2014-PMR
PRIME MINISTER’S OFFICE
(Public – IV Section)
***
Sub:
Application of Shri S Y Savur under RTI Act 2005.
The
petition dated 6-6-2014 received from the applicant in this office has been
forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt of India for action as
appropriate vide PMO letter No. 7/3/2014-PMP-4/July2 dated 17-7-2014. An
attested copy of the communication is enclosed.
Sd/---------------
Section Officer 4/9/14
* * * * *
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeletePl refer my comment on your previous post seeking reply to RTI on the disposal of your appln. Exactly one So has fwd the same to MoD (probably to one of the dime a dozens of the US sitting in South Block). Nothing would change in this country even if Narendrabhai's grandfather comes from his grave to run the country which has been run only by the IAS since 15 Aug 1947, not by Nehru,Gandhi and other surnames of entire country. Let us save the trees for the posterity! Jai Hind!
Slightly ahead of time! I use RTIonline.
DeleteSaving trees, saves Rs 45 for speed post and assures that it reaches the CPIO. And so do the First Appeals.
No question of lost in the mail/transit!!
Works every time since the DOP&T introduced it!!
Sir, every bureaucracy works the same way - whether civil services or Armed Forces.
Don't take my word but read the AFT's orders in Lt Gen Rath vs UoI -
GCM declared null & void; leave refused to UoI to appeal to Supreme Court and Rs 1, 00, 000 costs imposed.
But, I have a difficult choice - sit back and do nothing or die (more due to advancing age) doing something. I took the latter option.
I am very sure this letter has neither been nor will be put up to PM aka Mr Narendra Damodardas Modi.......
ReplyDeleteThis is the way Babus/ Netas work in tandem....Delay, Distract,Deny the stakeholders .....and.....helping & getting help from each other......
Even Rank Pay Case , I feel is being dealt in same manner....
The CJI retires...leaves a vacuum...new judge will try to understand the issue.....
Wah ...I LOVE YOU BHARAT....:)
Sir,
DeleteFrom my understanding of the Apex Court, two Judges heard and disposed the TP (C) No. 56 of 2007. Then one Judge retired.
Three judges, including then Justice, now CJI Lodha heard and disposed off IA No. 9 of 2010 in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007.
The CJI retires on 27 Sep 14. That leaves two Judges, Justices TS Thakur and Justice Anil R Dave who were there when the then Ld SG (and now Justice) R F Nariman argued the case on behalf of UoI.
There is no vacuum because Justice Thakur (who becomes the CJI after CJi designate Dattu retires on 02 Feb 15 and is there till 03 Jan 17) or Justice Dave (DoR 18 Nov 16) are there for continuity.
I am sure the Registry and the next CJI will consider this aspect.
So, keep loving Bharat and say wah! wah!
Post Script:
DeleteJustices Thakur and Anil R Dave were on the Bench with then Justice Lodha (now CJI) when IA No. 9 of 2010 in TP (C) No. 56 of 2007 was disposed off on 04 Sep 12.
Then with Justice (now CJI) R M Lodha, on 2 or 3 judges Bench there have been Justices Madan B Lokur, Shiva Kirti Singh, N V Ramana, Kurian Joseph and finally R F Nariman.
My understanding is that for continuity, the CJI and Registry may consider any of them on the Bench with him or heading a Bench of being part of a 2 or 3 Judge Bench which has been hearing the Contempt Petition so far
sir,
DeleteLooking forward to 08 Oct 2014 is Air Force Day ....As per Hindu calender it is Ashwin Purnima/ Sharad Purnima. there is going to be Lunar Eclipse in most part of the world. May this day eclipse the working style of Babus & bring prosperity to AF samaj..:)
"..There is no vacuum.."
DeleteSir, there could not be a better and simpler explanation of the way the justice system operates independently of individuals.
The petition also has been listed for hearing on 8th October, as per web-site of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Aaah..."....for action as appropriate...".......Which is not the same as Appropriate action mind you....... So this PMO is also just a Post Office.......!....Cheers....
ReplyDeleteSir,
DeleteOur bureaucratic use of the English language continues 67 years after the Britishers left us.
Till about 15-20 years ago, personal applications started with "I have the honour to state..." even if it was a written admission of having committed murder.
Even today many Govt letters start with "I have been directed to say" instead of getting straight to the point.
Notes end with Submitted, (though my Director said that only sex workers and slaves submit), Kind Favour (is there an unkind favour?), For decision, please (because I don't want to expose my ignorance or my AR time is nearing), etc.
If you noted, a Section Officer is sending the petition to a mighty Secretary. Nothing else is expected insofar as the terminology goes.
So, I am not unduly upset and will utilise the RTI Act, 2005 to obtain the information.