Sunday, July 29, 2012

[HumJanenge] RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP)

Dear Sarbajit,

As you see Mr. Mishra seems to have replied from his hotmail account. I don't know if we can treat his response as official response!!!

Even if we consider as official response, if you believe what Mishraji is saying, you are either naive or stupid or both or are feigning naivete, stupidity or both. Consider the following:

(a) Mr. Mishra does not hears cases from files, he does it exclusively on his computer. So the opportunity of files getting mixed by DEOs are virtually non existent. Besides files of 2011 and 2012 do not get mixed. Even the cases of senior citizens of 2012 are heard when the cases of 2012 being hearing.
(b) Why did this so-called mix-up happen only to an ex-MP and not to ordinary citizen like Mr. Karira or Mr. Mittal? Ask Mr. Karira how his files were "misplaced" by CIC?
(c) It is not wrongly taken up before some others, it is wrongly taken over by many others. Mr. Mishra is still hearing 2011 cases and this case is of 2012, did it not ring alarm bells to him?
(d) I do not know about the MP/IAS connection, so I will not comment on the same...

Regards.

Girish Mittal

More message actions
Jul 28 (1 day ago)
Dear Girish and other HJ List members 

I hope that this clarification from respected CIC S.Mishra-ji suitably 
clarifies that there was no "hanky panky" in Nitish Bharadwaj's 
hearing schedule and the perceived priority was due to some Registry 
error. 

Sarbajit 

---------- Forwarded message ---------- 
From: satyananda mishra <satyanandamishra@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 14:58:45 +0000 
Subject: RE: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP) 
To: sroy.mb@gmail.com 


Dear Mr Roy, 
          I am sorry for the delayed reply. It was due to the fact 
that I was trying to find out how this appeal got ahead of some 
others. The Registry sends hearing notice largely on a first come 
first served basis except for the following occasional adjustments: 
                   a) on account of the availability of 
Video-conferencing facility, and                       b) hearing of 
multiple cases of the same appellant or the same public authority 
           In the case of Nitish Bhardwaj, however, his case file got 
mixed up in the bundle of cases relating to the Cabinet Secretariat 
and the hearing notice was sent by the DEO in-charge on the assumption 
that it was in the right serial order. It was wrongly fixed and was 
taken up ahead of some others. The Registry and the DEO have been 
pulled up for this lapse and warned not to make such a mistake in 
future. Wherever I decide to take up a case on priority on the 
accepted grounds, I give written instruction in the case file. In this 
case, I had given no such instruction. Thus, it was a clerical error, 
at the most. 
           The insinuation that the case was taken up presumably 
because the wife of the appellant is a Madhya Pradesh Cadre IAS 
officer is both unkind and mischievous. I hope this clarifies the 
position. 
           I am grateful to you for bringing this to my notice and 
look forward to you for your continued watch over our working in the 
CIC. Regards. Satyananda Mishra 

From: s.mishra@nic.in 
To: satyanandamishra@hotmail.com 
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 17:40:09 +0530 
Subject: Fwd: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP) 



--Forwarded Message Attachment-- 
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2012 08:12:09 +0530 
From: sroy.mb@gmail.com 
Subject: REMINDER Re: Clarification in case of Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj (ex-MP) 
To: s.mishra@nic.in 

To: 
Shri Satyananda Mishra 
Chief Information Commissioner of India 
Central Information Commission 

24-July-2012 

Respected Sir 

I refer to my appended request for clarification concerning the 
purported "out-of-turn" hearing which was given to Mr. Nitish 
Bharadwaj (ex-MP) in a recent appeal decided by you in Case 
CIC/SM/A/2012/000231 on 20.July.2012. 

As the sequence in which cases are taken up for disposal in the 
Commission has considerable public interest  especially considering 
the very long pendency in high profile Public Authorities you have 
retained to yourself, I again request you to kindly clarify if any 
"out of turn" favour was indeed given to the appellant in that matter 
and the reasons, if any. 

yours faithfully 

Sarbajit Roy 
New Delhi 

No comments:

Post a Comment