Dear Bhaskar
You are an equally perceptive individual so I shall not directly reply to your comments.
It is yet to be confirmed that IC(SG) has imposed those penalties or cleared so many cases. On 14-Oct-2009 I (coincidentally Manoj Pai was also present) had filed an RTI to the CIC asking for these sort of details. The CIC has not replied to me - the PIOs are still passing the buck to each other, and they lay the blame squarely at IC(SG)'s door - as he was the IC in charge of digitisation of CIC records.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogrou
>
> Dear Sarbajit,
> My comments below to your points. U are an intellegient/
> donot wish to fall in debate. Myself and Mr. Monoj Pai were observing his
> hearing on 1st Feb 2010 as citizens. I find following to yr points which are
> written next to your points and he is giving eqaul oportunity for appaleant
> and also the PIO to sbustabciate there own case. I wanted to meet you while
> I was in Delhi but had very little time left with me.
>
> *IC Shailesh cleared arouund appeals/complaints 7057 as on 30 Jan 2010 and
> levied penalty amounting to 18.06 Lacs as on 1st Feb 2010 on 101 PIOs.*
> **
> Regards
> Bhaskar
>
>
>
> On 1/28/10, sarbajitr <sroy1947@..
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> ** We did not notice what you noticed. He did not prevent any appalant in
> substabciating his case if it the he has asked "information"
> orders immidately and that is fine and is signed.
> *
>
> > 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).
> >
>
> ** Issueing show cause notice is a clause in the Act , for PIO to submit why
> he should not be penalised and needs to be done.* *And complex cases takes
> naturally more time but today all commissioners even simple cases they donot
> dispose of fast.
> *
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> ** The appalent has to agree that you are assisting in the case and just
> interfering in the hearing as a spectator I donot think it to be correct.*
>
> 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).
> >
>
> ** Thanks for informing about condom bussiness, appriciie your social
> consultency intelligence of recognising the condom users. But I dissagree
> with your observation. *
> --- In rti_india@yahoogrou
> Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch
> >
> > 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@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> 40yahoogroups.
> > > Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch
> > > >
> > > > Dear Malay,
> > > > This what we have been insisting in Mumbai and maharashtra.
> should
> > > > 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