Dear Bhaskar,
Since this is about IC(SG)'s proposal let me make a few comments.
1) I sat in once during IC(SG)'s hearings. I observed that usually he does not allow the appellant to speak - in front of me he asked two appellants to keep quiet and not to interrupt him. He directly puts a few questions to the PIO and proceeds to dictate the orders - then he does a big favour by giving a kutcha copy printout to the appellant on the spot.
2) IC(SG)'s hearings proceed very fast (spaced only 5 or 10 mins apart) for 2 reasons. a) his orders are "settled" before the matter is taken up at hearing - IC(MA) is said to be another such character. b) He is unable to decide complex cases - and in such matters he invariably allows the public authority to write up the final order (usually before the hearing). He is also notorious for issuing "penalty show cause notices" at the drop of a hat - this leaves the appellant quite satisfied initially - then invariably drops the penalty in private such orders never being posted on CIC website).
3) On the occasion I sat in on his hearing, IC(SG) disallowed me from assisting one of the parties who sought my assistance during the course of his hearing.
4) Finally, IC(SG) is and was an agent / condom of various vested interests - you can call them "mafias" and his holier than thou public image cannot conceal the fact that he gives short shrift to any applicant whose information demand would conflict with that of his benaami bosses (who got him appointed to CIC).
--- In rti_india@yahoogrou
>
> Dear Sarabjit,
> Most of the cases are simple in nature. Cronic cases do take time and even
> my cases in mumbai some times it takes time. But we observed and monitored
> the process by being present and noting the timeings of hearinmg it was in
> the range iof 8 to 13 mts.Except one or two cases. Most of the information
> commissioners donot come in time to the commissions, so hearing timings is
> less.
>
> Bhaskar Prabhu
>
>
> On 1/27/10, sarbajitr <sroy1947@..
> >
> >
> >
> > As this is the only thread this week which is even remotely connected to
> > RTI - sigh !
> >
> > 1) In my experience, at least 30 minutes is required to *PROPERLY* dispose
> > of a RTI Appeal at the CIC on HEARING basis. (Most of my matters usually
> > exceed 30 minutes). Many of these cases require multiple hearings - my cases
> > usually average 3 hearings per order. So I would say that about 10 - 15
> > appeal decisions per day is about the maximum what a good IC can be expected
> > to do consistently. This translates to about 250 orders per IC per month or
> > about 2500 decisions per year (incl holidays /other breaks).
> >
> > 2) As per CIC causelists, CIC(WH) hears 5 cases per day (spaced 30 mins
> > apart), IC(AT) about 8 (spaced 15 mins apart) and IC(MLS) about 14 (spaced
> > 20 min apart). The other ICs dont put up their causelists and should be
> > sacked.
> >
> > 3) There is thus absolutely no basis for Shailesh Gandhi to state that an
> > IC should be deciding 4000 appeals per year. We have all seen the pathetic
> > quality of his cyclostyled decisions. 4000 means deciding cases in an
> > anti-citizen manner - without affording hearing to appellants and by
> > clubbing multiple cases together.
> >
> > 4) The meat of the Indian Express story was Shailesh Gandhi's admission
> > that he was appointed through a flawed process "Even I was appointed through
> > a flawed process.".
> >
> > --- In rti_india@yahoogrou
> > Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch
> > >
> > > Dear Malay,
> > > This what we have been insisting in Mumbai and maharashtra.
> > > clear atleast 4000 appeals and complaints per year per commissioner. We
> > > keeping continuous pressure IC in Mumbai on the same matter.
> > >
> > > Bhaskar Prabhu
> > > Mahuiti Adhikar Manch
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment