Why not lodge complaint with Central Vigilance Commission for corrupt practices in CIC.
-J. P. SHAH 9924106490
http://www.jps50.blogspot.com/
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: s.mishra <s.mishra@nic.in>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 9:43 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Public Grievance concerning Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar
To:
Shri. Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commisisoner of India
Central Information Commission (at New Delhi)
BY EMAIL
21-July-2012
Respected Sir
I am caused to represent about the perverse and arbitrary listing of cases before your goodself for disposal when it concerns high level Respondents and the role of Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar in this.
I am caused to represent to you by a letter addressed to yourself by one Mr. C.J.Karira dated 16.July.2012 which I have appended below, and which makes pointed allegations against Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar and other CIC officers, but mainly against Mr.Shreyaskar.
As the details of "status" of complaints and appeals at the Central Information Commission is in the public domain, the citizens are pained to observe that your Registry is deliberately delaying hearing the appeals and complaints involving high profile Respondents. It is an open secret that Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar is the person to be approached in the CIC to ensure that cases are delayed, files are lost or frivolous objections are raised. It is also an open secret that Mr.Shreyaskar, who has curiuosly been posted in Delhi at the CIC since as long as I can remember, was brought in by Mr.Wajahat Habibullah for the purpose of obfuscating and delaying high profile RTI requests when the previous officer, Dr. Munish Kumar, declined to be as pliable as Mr.Habibullah desired.
By way of example, let me cite an instance concerning Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal. In Feb/March 2011 Mr. Agrawal filed 3 or 4 2nd Appeals to you and also Smt. Sushma Singh. . Smt. Sushma Singh disposed of Mr. Agrawal's 3 cases within 3 months. On the other hand Mr. Aghrwal's matter before yourself concerning the National Advisory Council was delayed for over 15 months and was only disposed of last week.
Another such example is how Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar and Mr. Habibullah between them ensured that 2nd appeals aganst the CBI concerninmg the QUATTROCHI investigations were never listed for disposal and files wre repeatedly "lost" and CIC's computer records tampered with. After Mr. Habibullah demitted office, the "ruling powers" were contrained to ensure that CBI was taken out of RTI ambit to preclude the QUATTROCHI files from being disclosed under RTI process.
The inescapable conclusion is that something is very rotten in the Registry Section(s) of the Central Information Commission. Kindly take urgent steps to resolve such problems for the future. As a precondition, it would be desirable if Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar's excessively long stay in Delhi at the Commission is shortened in the larger public interestand so that reform can go through.
I would be obliged if this email is acknowledged.
yours sincerely
Sarbajit Roy
B-59 Defence Colony
New Delhi 110024
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] "Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records IC(SG)
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:15 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] "Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records IC(SG)
From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] "Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records IC(SG)
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
To:
Mr Satyananda Mishra
Chief Information Commissioner
Central Information Commission
August Kranti Bhawan
New Delhi
Date: 16 July 2012
Dear Sir,
RE: LONG PENDING COMPLAINTS IN THE CENTRAL INFORMATION
COMMISSION
Sir, for the last one year and on several occasions, I have brought to your notice my various Complaints which are long pending in the Commission.
Although you have given verbal instructions to various officers and staff, in my presence, to list these on a priority basis, it seems that your officers and staff are continuously trying to delay the listing of these complaints on one pretext ore the other.
The long pending Complaints are:
| S. No. | Appeal/Complaint Nr. | Filing Date | Public Authority |
| 1. | CIC/SM/A/2011/901282 | 19-01-2010 | Allahabad High Court |
| 2. | CIC/SM/A/2011/901284 | 19-01-2010 | Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| 3. | CIC/SM/A/2011/901286 | 19-01-2010 | Guwahati High Court |
| 4. | CIC/SM/A/2011/901287 | 19-01-2010 | Chattisgarh High Court |
| 5. | CIC/SM/A/2011/901288 | 19-01-2010 | Gujarat High Court |
| 6. | CIC/SM/A/2011/901290 | 20-01-2010 | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| 7. | CIC/SM/A/2011/901293 | 21-01-2010 | Jharkhand High Court |
| 8. | CIC/SM/A/2011/901295 | 21-01-2010 | MP High Court |
| 9. | CIC/SM/A/2011/901285 | 23-01-2010 | Madras High Court |
| 10. | CIC/SM/A/2011/901289 | 24-01-2010 | Orissa High Court |
| 11. | CIC/SM/A/2011/901316 | 24-01-2010 | Patna High Court |
| 12. | CIC/SM/A/2011/901147 | 03-03-2010 | Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| 13. | CIC/SM/A/2011/91299 | 16-03-2010 | Rajasthan High Court |
| 14. | CIC/SM/A/2011/901300 | 25-04-2010 | Sikkim High Court |
| 15. | CIC/SM/A/2011/901302 | 25-04-2010 | Uttarakhand High Court |
As you can see from the above table, these have been pending for more than two and a half years !
If anyone in the Commission had bothered to open these complaints and even glanced at them casually, he would have realized the effort I have put in to prepare these complaints – each Complaint took me at least 3 to 4 days.
Firstly, these Complaints were "lost" by Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar, when he was Dpty. Registrar to the Ex CIC, Mr Wajahat Habibullah.
I was asked to resubmit the Complaints. The resubmitted Complaints were once again "lost". These were finally registered by Mr Vijay Bhalla, the present Dpty. Registrar.
I have tried my best to meet everyone from the Chief Information Commissioner in the Commission (including ex Chiefs Mr Habibullah and Mr Tiwari and yourself), Secretary (the past Secretary and the present Secretary), The Additional Secretary, Registrars, Designated Officers and Clerks, repeatedly and on several occasions even outside the Commission. I have written innumerable letters, emails and repeated reminders. But nothing has happened.
Since you became the Chief Information Commissioner in January 2011, I have met you in person, several times on this issue as well as sent written letters and reminders. Based on these, you have issued instructions to your officers and staff – but they have even disobeyed and disregarded your own instructions.
On December 28, 2011 while conducting a hearing against Ten High Courts on Section 4 suo moto disclosure, in the presence of at least twenty people, you instructed Mr Akash Deep Chakravarti, Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar and Mr Vijay Bhalla – to read these complaints, prepare a comparative chart and put up before you within 15 days. More than six months have passed, but they have still not done so.
During my last conversation with Mr Vijay Bhalla, about a month ago, I was informed that if he lists these long pending Complaints, Mr Akash Deep Chakravarti and Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar are threatening him that there will be "Contempt of Court", since there is a stay order from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in relation to WP(C) 3530 of 2012, Order dated 23.05.2011 .
I have personally read that stay order from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and it is obvious that the both Mr Chakravarti and Mr Shreyaskar are trying to shelter behind this particular stay order so that they can hide their inefficiency, lethargy and corrupt practices.
The stay order has nothing to do with the subject matter of my above long pending Complaints and it is clear that both Mr Chakravarti and Mr Shreyaskar have neither read any of my Complaints and nor have they understood the stay order from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
The only conclusions I can draw from this bitter experience is:
1. That your officers and staff are corrupt and amenable to extraneous influences since they have intentionally lost these complaints twice and have also disobeyed your repeated instructions.
2. Your officers and staff and Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar in particular, have some malicious vendetta against me because of which they are intentionally and deliberately trying to block the listing of these Complaints since 30 months.
3. The officers and staff of the Commission are influenced by the "name and fame" of the complainant, since I have proof that other Complaints against the same public authorities, which have been filed much later than my complaints, have already been listed, heard and orders passed. Your officers and staff are therefore discriminating against me on the basis of some unknown reasons.
4. Your officers and staff are disobedient to the extent that they do not even follow and obey your own instructions. Under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act 2005, "the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission" vests in you. It is a sad that the officers and staff of the Commission fail to abide by the instructions of even the Chief Information Commissioner himself, who is the head of the Commission.
5. The Central Information Commission does not follow the "first come first served" principle in listing of Complaints. Your officers and staff are lethargic and oblivious of this principle of fair play OR are corrupt to the extent that they list matters pertaining to appellants/complainants because they have been "influenced" and "bought over" by vested interests.
I am present in Delhi on the 18th July 2012 for a hearing of four cases by your good self and request you for a personal meeting to resolve this issue once and for all.
Sadly, I have to state that this is the last attempt I am making to get these long pending cases listed and heard, because as you would have realized by now, the whole experience has been totally frustrating, bitter and a waste of time for me. Rather than waste my limited resources on the corrupt, inefficient, lethargic, incompetent, disobedient and insubordinate officers and staff of the Commission, it would be better if I spent them on training Citizens and PIOs in using the RTI Act properly and correctly - at least they have ears !
Thanking You,
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:15 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] "Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records IC(SG)
CIC/SG/A/2012/000643
http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2012_000643_19270_M_84898.pdf
Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar,
CPIO & Director
Central Information Commission
"The Appellant states that he is extremely disappointed with the way
the Commission is working. He states that he has sent these complaints
number of times and any of his communication are being reported to be
lost. He expresses is anguish that if CIC cannot keep its records
properly how can, it set example for Public Authorities. The PIO
states that this is the only instance which is being reported and
there are no other instances which have been reported to the
Commission. The Commission recommends to the Secretary of the
commission to ensure that communication received from Appellant are
not lost and recorded properly."
Only 1 instance of CIC records not being maintained properly. <rol>
Q: Why didn't SG inquire into Pankaj Shreyaskar's bizarre statement.
Ans: Because for many years IC(SG) was responsible for digitisation of
the CIC's records.
Sarbajit
http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2012_000643_19270_M_84898.pdf
Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar,
CPIO & Director
Central Information Commission
"The Appellant states that he is extremely disappointed with the way
the Commission is working. He states that he has sent these complaints
number of times and any of his communication are being reported to be
lost. He expresses is anguish that if CIC cannot keep its records
properly how can, it set example for Public Authorities. The PIO
states that this is the only instance which is being reported and
there are no other instances which have been reported to the
Commission. The Commission recommends to the Secretary of the
commission to ensure that communication received from Appellant are
not lost and recorded properly."
Only 1 instance of CIC records not being maintained properly. <rol>
Q: Why didn't SG inquire into Pankaj Shreyaskar's bizarre statement.
Ans: Because for many years IC(SG) was responsible for digitisation of
the CIC's records.
Sarbajit
No comments:
Post a Comment