Noted.with thanks
Just wondering what all is being done by eminent people active in RTI awareness
to bring just malpractices to halt. Its pathetic to see that people who are
entrusted job of implementing the act are slaughtering it like anything for
their own personal reasons, ignoring resources, time , money appellant spend
till the time his matter is heard in CIC and then same appellant end up with
such unexpected closures. !!!
Wish some day our MPs will come out with CIC accountability bill on lines of
judicial acc bill.
i wish COI
----- Origial Message ----
From: sroy1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com>
To: HumJanenge RTI India Right to Information Act 2005
<HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, 25 November, 2010 1:49:19 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] TOI: Gujarat: Info panel flayed over
pending cases
Dear Mohit
There are 2 Info Commissioners who are/were notorious for "condoning"
delays by PIOs and then dropping penalties against them. One of them
was our former Chief Information Commissioner himself. You should read
this decision.
http://cic.gov.in/cic-orders/faad_27052009_01.pdf
The author of this decision who worked under Mr Habibullah at the LBAS
and was handpicked by him to be legal adviser at CIC, is said to have
been ethically disturbed writing up such orders which were being put
out under his own signature (instead of Mr Habibullah's)
Sarbajit
On Nov 24, 12:07 pm, Mohit Goel <mr_moh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear sirs
>
> it is surprising how Chief information commissioner is allowing such things to
> happen.
> in one of my recent cases ,( few days back, ) there was clear cut case of non
> supply of information and PIO didnt have valid grnds why information was
>delayed
> for more than 5 months.
>
> Mr SG threaten to raise penality and issue show cause notice .. PIO became
> nervous/stressed.
>
> i was ask to leave office and wait for final order copy. PIO kept sitting in
> room for few min.. just to come out smiling after few min.
> I am sure he will not end up with penality in show cause notice.
>
> In my earlier 2 cases; penalties have yet not been raised in spite of 2
show
> cause notice to PIO and when i ask Mr SG about why he is not
> raising penalty where it was clear cut case of info denied/delayed and i
> struggled for 5 months in those cases , i was told that benefit of doubt need
>to
> be given to PIO'!!!!.. what benefit of doubt has yet not been made clear to me
> !! and those PIO are enjoying their life till date and now openly
> delaying information on RTI's realizing they will get shield at CIC office :)
>
> i leave interpretation of cases to grp members
>
> cheers to RTI act
>
> regards
> Mohit
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Mon, 22 November, 2010 2:17:59 PM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] TOI: Gujarat: Info panel flayed over
> pending cases
>
> Dear Vishal thanks for this news post.
>
> "A further probe revealed that some of Gandhi's office staff were hand in
glove
> with various departments,"
>
> For once Arvind Kejriwal now has the guts to say openly what I have been
saying
> all along. Namely that IC(Shailesh Gandhi)'s registry and especially all those
> private interns he hires and pays for are corrupt and hand in glove with
>various
> undesirable forces. Incidentally I had complained to the CIC about a nice
> little racket in IC(SG)'s registry whereby "FIRs for cash" was in progress,
but
> as usual no action although it seems to have stopped for the moment.
>
> Anyway who "probed" IC(SG) ??
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:17 AM, vishalkudchadkar <v_k...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Info-panel-flayed-o...
>
> >A large gathering of RTI activists from across the state and many of its
users
> >assembled for a public hearing at the Mehndi Nawab Jung Hall in Paldi to
>protest
> >against the rising pendency of cases in the information commission. The
> >participants had expressed worries over the neglect of appeals made under RTI
> >with various departments.
>
> >The RTI public hearing resounded with vitriol and sloganeering against the
> >Gujarat state information commissioners, who, the activists alleged, had done
> >little to solve the rising pendency of cases in the commission. Many went on
>to
> >the stage and even obstructed the day's proceedings. The participants were
>angry
> >because none of the commissioners bothered to attend the public hearing.
>
> >Setting the ball rolling was RTI activist and Magsaysay award winner Arvind
> >Kejriwal, who claimed that the very fact that information commissioners have
> >kept themselves away from the hearing was proof that they were guilty of the
> >delay caused. "We had a similar public hearing in Delhi where we invited
> >Shailesh Gandhi, one of the central information commissioner's. Gandhi
>admitted
> >that he never knew people were so angry with him . Orders issued were not
> >honored by departments, fines imposed were not collected, appeals made to the
> >commission were stashed away. A further probe revealed that some of Gandhi's
> >office staff were hand in glove with various departments," he said.
>
> >Likewise, Kejriwal insisted that such 'public hearings' be organized in the
> >presence of information commissioners to iron out differences with the
> >applicants in an amicable way. "We'll lodge a protest before the commission
in
> >the coming week," says RTI activist Bharat Jhala.
>
> >While giving a flip side view lawyer Mukul Sinha said, "RTI Act was never
>meant
> >for activists. It's an administrative tool to help the common man access
> >information which he could not have procured via a complex mesh of laws and
> >rules. My biggest grouse with information commissioners is that they have
done
> >little in terms of penalizing officers. Instead of imposing hefty fines, the
> >officers' service records should have an adverse remark, only then would they
> >comply with the RTI laws."
>
> >The meet also presented Vinod Pandya's RTI application which showed that in
>the
> >2009-10, of the 1,631 cases analysed, nearly 697 orders were issued by the
> >Gujarat information commission and that none was honored. "Some 663 RTI
> >applications were rejected on technical or merit grounds, while 204
>applications
> >were returned. The pendency of cases was close to 7,100. Between January and
> >August this year 2,380 orders were passed, of these only 27 penalties were
> >imposed.
No comments:
Post a Comment