Dear Bhaskar
1) Who is the "we" ?
2) Why should "we" ask in in RTI for monthly disposal and penalties? This is to be proactively disclosed u/s 4. Why does IC(SG) not upload all his orders - especially the penalty orders - and the reasons for NOT awarding penalty ?
3) Instead ask we should ask our friend(s) to digitise and upload the CIC records of interest to citizens AND NOT ONLY THOSE WHICH MR. SHEKHAR SINGH WANTS DIGITISED.
Sarbajit
--- In rti_india@yahoogrou
>
> Dear Sarbajit,
> I confirm what I say. But from this month we are going to for monthly
> diposal and penalties of each commissioner. An may also other records that
> they keep.
>
> In service for RTI.
>
> Bhaskar
>
>
> On 2/2/10, sarbajitr <sroy1947@..
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch
> > >
> > > 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@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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
> > 40yahoogroups.
> > > 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.
> > > 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