Re: [HumJanenge] Re: IC Sushma Singh and her strange orders...

Mr Sarbajit,

Under which clause of the RTI Act does the IC have the power to remand back to the FAA, even after the FAA has passed an order ?

She is just delegating her powers (read "passing the buck") - which is in direct contravention of the Delhi HC order in your own case (DDA matter). 

Instead of complimenting her, you should be filing a contempt of court petition.

RTIwanted

---

From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:11 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: IC Sushma Singh and her strange orders...

Dear Karira

In both the examples you have cited, IC(SS) demonstrates how as a
"seasoned bureaucrat" she is PRO-CITIZEN to ensure that applicant gets
EITHER his information (EVENTUALLY) or a "reasoned DEPARTMENTAL order
which can be adjudicated on in appeal (either again before the CIC ..
recall that Archana Pande case .. or in the High Court).

This is a good strategy on her part to ensure that  FAAs cannot get
away with passing vague orders. She deserves to be complimented for
this.

Sarbajit

On May 15, 11:14 am, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> IC Sushma Singh is known for her copy/paste orders (in spite of Mr Sarbajit claiming that she is a seasoned bureaucrat)
> seems to be now going overboard in her zeal to dispose matters before her and reduce pendency ! Looks as if disposal is the other word fro remanding back:
>
> (Asking FAA to decide on Penalty)
>
> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2011_001982_T_8214...
>
> 4. Having considered the submissions of the CPIO and the appellant, the
> Commission observes that there is a delay of 42 days in providing of requisite
> records to the appellant. The documents requested on 9.6.2011 after inspection,
> were provided only on 22.7.2011.  The FAA, CESTAT is hereby directed to
> consider the submissions of Shri Mohinder Singh, CPIO and identify the person
> responsible for the delay and recover the penalty amount from him. If both are
> responsible, the penalty should be recovered on pro-rata basis from both Shri
> Mohinder Singh, CPIO and Shri Pramod Kumar, Deemed CPIO.
>
> 5. Penalty of Rs. 10,500/- (Rupees ten thousand five hundred only) for the
> delay of 42 days @ Rs. 250/- per day is imposed u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005,
> which shall be recovered in 5 monthly instalments of Rs. 2,100/- (Rupees two
> thousand one hundred only) either from both Shri Mohinder Singh, CPIO and
> Shri Pramod Kumar, deemed CPIO on pro-rata basis or from any one of them,
> identified responsible for the delay, by the FAA, from their pay and allowances
> from the month starting June, 2012 to October, 2012.
>
> ===================
>
> (Remanding back even when FAA has passed an order)
>
> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2012_000243_M_8265...
>
> 4. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, it is the contention of
> the appellant thateven after passing of the order by the FAA dated 5.7.2011,
> directing the CPIO to provide the information sought by the appellant in respect
> of Point 3(b)(iii), 3(b)(iv), 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vi), complete and correct information
> has not been provided to him by the CPIO in his letter dated 12.8.2011. The
> CPIO on the other hand submits that he had complied with the directions of the
> FAA.
> 5. In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by the appellant with the replies
> provided to him by the CPIO, the matter is remitted back to the FAAwith the
> direction to provide information by passing a speaking order in respect of Point
> 3(b)(iii), 3(b)(iv), 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vi), by treating the second appeal filed before
> the Commission as first appeal, within three weeks of receipt of this order.
>
> Can someone clarify whether she is "Information Commissioner" or "Remanding Commissioner" ?
>
> RTIwanted