Re: [HumJanenge] Fwd: HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING

When the applicant is willing to attend the hearin in person, why he should be force to testify on phone through audio recording.  I came to know that the record of submission through video recordings can be refered at a later date.  Applicants should not be forced for AC.  Videp conferencing is useful for outstation applicants.  Applicant should be given an option to give their submissions either personally or through video conferencing while issuing the notice of hearing of second appeal.  In case, an applicant is not willing in both, matter should be decided on the basis of documents available on record.  Submissions on phone can easily be left without consideration and a claim cannot be made as there is no record. no body can mamanipulated I doubt that the Audio Conference can withstand scrutiny of law in appeals if any party claims that his submissions have not been properly recorded or they have not been given appropriate time for making the submission. I request Shri Sarabjit Roy to give his opinion about the legality of AC. This is a serious matter and more serious is Mr. Mani Ram Sharma's observation "that lock of the wardrobe of justice in Central Information Commission can be opened with a golden key only. This unearths the dualistic and masqueraded role of Commission". We must request to Shri Satyananada Mishra, Chief IC to stop forced forced AC forthwith. While the public is fighting against the corruption, CIC is inventing new practices which can be a matter of debate and unacceptable to the public.   New practices to make RTI ineffective are being invented by all - Public Authorities, SIC's and others. I shall soon share my good and bad experinces with this registry. On Thu, 28/7/11, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote: From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Fwd: HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com> Date: Thursday, 28 July, 2011, 11:57 PM There is something rotten in IC ADs registry. I have received 3 separate complaints within a period of 15 days that hearings are offered via AC - even when appellants/complainants have not requested the same. In all the 3 cases, the appellants/complainants claim that calls never came. When they called back IC ADs registry,  they were told that calls were made but there was no response and that matters were decided based on available records. Immediately afterwards, I was also offered AC for a second appeal where I had clearly mentioned in capital letters / bold font / big point size - that hearing only in person or through VC. Now 4 instances in 15 days is bit too much of a coincidence ! And then this. PS: Has anyone tried to seek permission from any IC in the CIC or SIC to record the audio or video of the hearing ? If yes, what was the response ? RTIwanted From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 9:00 PM Subject: [HumJanenge] Fwd: HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mani Ram Sharma <maniramsharma@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:50 PM Subject: HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING To: CIC Ad <adixit@nic.in> Mani Ram Sharma, ADVOCATE                  Nakul Niwas, Behind Roadways Depot,                      Sardarshahar -331 403-7                  District: Churu ( Raj)                  Email: maniramsharma@gmail.com Dated: 28th  Jul, 2011       Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, New Delhi   Madam,   HEARING IN CIC/SM/A/2011/000106:THROUGH AUDIO CONFERENCING     With reference to your revised notice dated 13.07.11 in the said cause I wish to request you that I have waited for the proposed hearing till 4.40 PM but no call has been received from your end. The matter was posted for hearing on 13.07.11 earlier and then adjourned for 28.07.11 at 4.00PM. It was advised that you have overstayed in the earlier hearing in Full Bench. I think there might be some powerful party involved in the said full bench case and more than sufficient opportunity had been afforded to that powerful party.    After all a call was received at about 6.10 PM for the purpose and the same was disconnected by you after a short hearing of 4 minutes.  You were found patient less in the frontline of defence of the respondent PIO Delhi High Court .While trying to call you from my cellphone the same was not attended by you. Though I have already submitted my submission per email.   Please recapitulate that my three cases against PIO Supreme Court were scheduled for hearing on 18.07.11 and a time of 15 minutes (total 45 minutes) was allotted (transcript of audio is enclosed for your ready reference and recapitulation) for each of the case but you were in very hurry to hear the cases and allowed only total time of 17 minutes to all the cases.  All this gives message to the citizens that lock of the wardrobe of justice in Central Information Commission can be opened with a golden key only. This unearths the dualistic and masqueraded role of Commission.       Yours truly   (Mani Ram Sharma)