Re: [HumJanenge] CIC asks it FAA to dispose of Complain

As on date; only 2 ICs  are performing upto some standard.S.Mishra & Shailesh Gandhi.<SNIP> Ooops. Vijendra, the decision in this thread was delivered by none other than CIC S Mishra. Kindly re-check the link. Incidently, this was not a case in isolation, but the fact that CIC SM has remanded back a number of Complains / 2nd Appeals back to the First Appellate Authority. Some of the recent ones are given below. Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_C_2011_000940_M_64738.pdf Punjab National Bank http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_C_2011_000944_M_64739.pdf Canara Bank http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_C_2011_000951_M_64737.pdf On the bright side, CIC SM has also imposed full penalty on an erring CPIO, details of which I am posting separately. I would also like to add, that filing a complain under IPC as described by you would not be appropriate. Manoj --- On Tue, 8/16/11, vijendra singh <vijendra5558@gmail.com> wrote: Reply=  Each & every IC has formed  his own rules of practice . They never bother for  the harassed  citizen ; or for the RTI Act provisions / spirit.  They  took decision before some months that each  IC of CIC will  have to  dispose  300  cases per month. without bothering about  the bad quality of the justice. How absurd  their that decision was.  &  in what way the citizens will be  benefitted by that  absurd,   unwarranted,  unminded decision. As on date; only 2 ICs  are performing upto some standard.S.Mishra & Shailesh Gandhi. Rest are simply befooling the nationals just to fetch  big salary, & perks, banglow, cars etc. Obviously this ammounts to murder of the RTI Act; & therefore they must be  jailed u/s 302 , 167 , 218 ,  219 etc etc  of  IPC. Vijendra Singh On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote: I dont know if this has been debated on this list before, however, would like to raise the case of Shri Rajesh Kumar of Delhi who had filed an RTI with the CPIO of CIC on 15 November 2011. ( I assume the year is a misprint) . CIC SM has reverted the original complaint to the FAA of the CIC and directed the latter "to enquire into the allegations made by the Complainant and after giving him an opportunity of hearing". The CIC further directs the FAA to to obtain the explanation of the CPIO in writing for not providing the information in time and to forward the same to us along with his comments before 12 September 2011." The CIC will take its decision on the penal provision after hearing the FAA.  Check full decision dated 11th August, 2011 at the following link http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_C_2011_000095,96_M_64729.pdf Is this the shape of things to come? Would this apply only the complains filed against the CPIO of the CIC or would the same also be extended to other PA as well. On the bright side, larger public interest would be served, as most FAA hardly hear the appellant, let alone dispose of the appeal. The route for the Second Appeal would still be open for the appellant. Manoj -- Vijendra Singh E-19, Janakpuri, Ajanta Colony, garh road, Meerut-250004 UP