Even if we accept your figures, it simply means that only about 6,000
cases are pending at CIC - and NOT the 27,000 which they claim.
The 3,000 cases spike is already reflected in the so-called receipts
for Dec. 2011 where over 5,000 cases were "received" compared to the
running average of about 2,000 cases per month.
The other problem is that all RTI appeals were ordered to be
digitised. A PRIVATE agency responsible for this has allegedly walked
off with about 10,000 records and failed to return them despite
considerable followup. Somebody can file an RTI for this to ascertain
its truth, If true, it is scandalous.
Sarbajit
On Mar 3, 7:55 am, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mr Sarbajit,
>
> I think you missed my detailed response to your earlier post regarding those lists - the one where I proved that those lists were bogus.
>
> The list put up by Registry of IC (AD) is also bogus.
>
> On complaining very strongly about the correctness of those lists, I was told that the purpose of the lists was to help those appellants/complainants whose files have been lost in the CIC. Apparently there are 3000 to 3500 cases which have gone missing from the CIC, since its inception.
>
> Anyhow, since the list from one month to another also has discrepancies, a RTI is on the way.
>
> RTIwanted
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: Nidhi Sharma <nidhi2...@gmail.com>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 10:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.
>
> Dear Nidhi (and group)
>
> After my email post to the HJ list specifying that IC(AD) was #2
> defaulter, the CIC has been stung into action. IC(AD)'s registry has
> published their pending cases on CIC's website. She claims to have
> only 220 Appeals and 150 Complaints pending (ie. about half of what
> .IC(SG)'s outstanding is).
>
> So it is quite obvious that of the known pendency of the CIC (and
> which we must assume to be true), IC-SG is the worst offender in terms
> of pendency at around 850 cases, and even assuming that teh remaining
> 5 ICs had an average of 400 cases each (avg. of CIC + AD) then this
> works out to 2,000 cases which is almost exactly equal to the info
> given to me of "around 2,700" pending cases only.
>
> Satyanand's Mishra's own figures damn him. WHY THEN DO WE NEED THESE 3
> EXTRA ICs ? Is it because of all those paid holidays they now get for
> study tours / junkets to New Zealand and Scandanavia where a certain
> MNC financed NGO is hosting them. ??
>
> Sarbajit
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 2/27/12, Nidhi Sharma <nidhi2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Sarbajit
>
> > I met Mr Satyanand Mishra last week. He stands by the 20,000+ figure. He
> > says that is the real pendency with CIC. He has now asked all registries
> > (ICs) to manually count every case pending with them and file a return by
> > the end of this week so that he can actually react to the media reports.
>
> > nidhi
