The IC is not "tough", he is corrupt. This so called "efficiency" is the hallmark of corrupt public servants. Where is he implementing RTI Act even in "letter" ? I have quoted the letter from his own order which he is flouting.
FYI I am not the only person saying such things. For example on HJ-YG one Mr Vishas Bhamburkar has posted (and fought with the IC-SG fan club / shouting brigade led by Bhaskar Prabhu). You may contrast his views with your own.
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/HumJanenge/message/26919
"No point in clogging up everyone's mailboxes and irritating the Shailesh Gandhi Fan Club Members who are taking such efforts to convert this person with feet of clay into a demi-God, if not God himself.
I stand by my view that my cases were a massacre of justice before Mr. Shailesh Gandhi and I see no point in appearing before him again. One information Commissioner's contribution to the death of the RTI Act.
Best Regards,
Vishwas"
http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/HumJanenge/message/26888
"While I agree with Samir on all other matters, I have serious reservations on point 1. Having attended 2 hearings before Mr. Shailesh Gandhi, I feel the effort is more to clear cases rather than look at case in perspective and thereafter take a decision. There is a general feeling of urgency and hurry and the situation and atmosphere created is that of 'please say what you want - FAST - and kindly leave.' While this will certainly help in reduced pendency, will it give justice to an application who has fine not1st, but a 2nd Appeal? I am sure any applicant showing such tenacity needs to be treated better than cows or sheep who are herded.
In one case, the Public Authority claimed that they were not a Public Authority during the time of the 2nd Appeal (not before that). Earlier the PIO and the FAA had written back as the PIO & the FAA. Yet Shailesh Gandhi asked me if I had any
documents to show that they were a Public Authority. When I answered in the negative, the case was dismissed.
In the second instance, The Public Authority first claimed that they were not covered under the RTIA. This was disproved. Then they questioned my credentials. I countered this by saying that this forum was the wrong place to raise the point and they could approach the relevant authorities for any complaint that
they had against me. Then, they claimed that CIC had no jurisdiction. Again the same thing; I was asked for documents to prove that it came in the CIC's jurisdiction and when I didn't have any, the case was dismissed. My simple question is - does the CIC itself not know whether the case comes in their
jurisdiction? And if it didn't why was it taken up in the first place?
Thereafter, if there is any matter that might go up to Mr. Shailesh Gandhi in course of the 2nd Appeal, I choose not to file a 2nd Appeal and let it go. Shailesh Gandhi has less pendency and people get one more reason to praise him.
On the other hand, my experience with Ms. Annapurna Dixit is totally different. There is an effort taken to get the applicant to feel comfortable. Ample time is given to understand all aspects of the matter. The whole case is viewed in perspective. And even if the decision goes against the applicant (though it has
not happened in my case yet) the feeling is that the applicant is not made to feel stupid or that he has wasted the CIC's time. In fact, and this is very important, Ms. Annapurna Dixit in one instance, while agreeing with the PA, understood from me what information I was seeking, asked me to submit another
RTI in that style and told the PIO that they should answer - and had that put in her judgment.
My vote is for Ms. Annapurna Dixit (or Mr. M.L. Sharma, for that matter) any day over Mr. Shailesh Gandhi.
Best Regards,
Vishwas"
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:45 AM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
If some ICs are soft, v r aggrievd on that count but if an IC is tough and implementing the RTI Act in letter and spirit, v make charges of corruption withoug doubt.
What is an ideal situation?
No comments:
Post a Comment