Friday, November 25, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] How can a common man show his anger against elected politicians?

Its unfortunately an exruciatingly slow process,to begin with,but can get accelerasted as the time passes.
Unlike in the past,wildfire effecte could be created through uce of ICT.Some agencies specialise in this work.
Succintly the message to be conveyed has to be drafted(best done in consultative manner and even then pilot-tested) and got circulated.If it catches the fancy of popular electronic media,so much the better.Perseverence is the name of the game for assued success.
There're teething troubles,as usual for pioneers,and that shouldn't deter the people committed to lofty causes.
spm

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:37 PM, M K Singhal <mk.singhal@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Rahul Gandhi has been instigating people to show their anger towards mismanagement and corruption in UP ever since he embarked on his election campaign from Phulpur a few days ago. The question is how can a common man show his anger in this context.
On the same day, when Rahul was going to address the rally, some students tried to approach him and hand him a memorandum. They were not only stopped from doing so but even kicked and manhandled by not one but by four responsible central ministers for this act, although heavy security guard provided to protect Rahul was there to protect him. Thus the common man is not allowed to come anywhere near their leaders to express their grievance (let aside anger). The said four ministers are sitting safe in Parliament and the court has exempted them from arrest. Not a word was discussed in Parliament on this.
Only yesterday, a common man slapped Sharad Pawar to show his anger against rising prices. He was not only arrested but charged with a no. of offences and put in jail for fourteen days. The parliament spent a full session today (25/11/2011) deprecating his act and did not carry out any other business.
In the past when Kiran Bedi etc said some words affecting respectability of parliamentary members, some members decided to move a privilage motion against her.
Also in the past, when some common man threw a chappel towards an elected representative, he was badly handled.
In none of the above cases was it known that they wanted to physically assault the said elected representatives. They were only showing their anger against them.
In yet olden times, people used to show their anger by throwing rotten tomatoes. This is now not possible because of the strict security search carried out before any common man goes to attend any elected representatives rally.
I invite suggestions from members as to what is the best way of showing anger against elected representatives by a common man. I fact, I would like Rahul Gandhi to clarify the people he addresses in this matter.
mksinghal
 

Re: [HumJanenge] What is happening to the IC voted as the "best" by this group ?

MLS is a good example of an IC who passes orders going beyond his jurisdiction.
Five of my cases submitted in february are still to be heard by him.


On 11/25/11, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Guptaji
>
> The group which publicly voted on this question (and in which you also had
> full voting rights) is [RTI_INDIA] . Please see this thread
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/4781
>
> I opine if a similar poll is conducted today that CIC(SM) would have
> improved his "score" significantly and IC(AD)'s would have gone down even
> further.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:42 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
>
>> Shri MLS and best IC! Why r u joking? Which group has conferred this
>> award and before conferring the award, whether it has taken the opinion of
>> the members of that group.
>>
>> I can site many erroneous decisions by him against the Delhi Development
>> Authority. It is a separate matter that I have not challenged them the the
>> High Court but this fact does not mean that the appellants are satisfied
>> with his decisions. In many deserving cases, he had never penalized the
>> CPIO.
>>
>> In the past, he used to start proceedings by making remark targetting the
>> Appellant whether if wants to eat the mangoes or want to count the seed
>> (Gutali). (Aam khane se matlab hai yaa gutali ginne se). Tell me your
>> grievance and that would be settled implying do not press for the
>> information.
>>
>> I brought this to the knowledge to the then CCIC, Mr. Wajahat Habibullah
>> by sending a letter/ email and after that this phrase was not repeated
>> before me in the subsequent hearings.
>>
>> Respondent to my complaint to the CCIC, MLS refused to hear one of my
>> appeal against DDA and recommended for its transfer to CCIC which was
>> later
>> on heard by some other Shri Shailesh Gandhi, IC. In fact, I was happy on
>> this decision of Shri MLS. However, I cound not attend the hearing in
>> that
>> case as have not received the notice of hearing due to change of my
>> address.
>>
>


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

Re: [HumJanenge] How can a common man show his anger against elected politicians?


 
      Dear Sir,
      As per Democratic norms, you have to tolerate the elected representatives for the period till the next election. They even move with Security guards to be safe from YOU. You can do nothing in between (even to approach him).To go near them as well you must be their CHAMCHA. You have elected them means they become free (from your suggestions as well) to do anything that their Party or leader tells them. Kindly note that they are not leaders but politicians and politicians by definition worry about their own selficsh gains thn even any proinciple/s. Thei leader is their leader and not of the general public because he is also a politician. It is nearly impossible to get any 'leader' in Democratic system. Leader normally leads; he has no interest in becoming popular.
       With regards to all,
        ------Mukund Apte
 
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 6:37 PM, M K Singhal <mk.singhal@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Rahul Gandhi has been instigating people to show their anger towards mismanagement and corruption in UP ever since he embarked on his election campaign from Phulpur a few days ago. The question is how can a common man show his anger in this context.
On the same day, when Rahul was going to address the rally, some students tried to approach him and hand him a memorandum. They were not only stopped from doing so but even kicked and manhandled by not one but by four responsible central ministers for this act, although heavy security guard provided to protect Rahul was there to protect him. Thus the common man is not allowed to come anywhere near their leaders to express their grievance (let aside anger). The said four ministers are sitting safe in Parliament and the court has exempted them from arrest. Not a word was discussed in Parliament on this.
Only yesterday, a common man slapped Sharad Pawar to show his anger against rising prices. He was not only arrested but charged with a no. of offences and put in jail for fourteen days. The parliament spent a full session today (25/11/2011) deprecating his act and did not carry out any other business.
In the past when Kiran Bedi etc said some words affecting respectability of parliamentary members, some members decided to move a privilage motion against her.
Also in the past, when some common man threw a chappel towards an elected representative, he was badly handled.
In none of the above cases was it known that they wanted to physically assault the said elected representatives. They were only showing their anger against them.
In yet olden times, people used to show their anger by throwing rotten tomatoes. This is now not possible because of the strict security search carried out before any common man goes to attend any elected representatives rally.
I invite suggestions from members as to what is the best way of showing anger against elected representatives by a common man. I fact, I would like Rahul Gandhi to clarify the people he addresses in this matter.
mksinghal
 



--
      With regards to all,
      ------Mukund Apte

[HumJanenge] RTI Activist has been threatened of dire consequence by Govt. official in Bolangir, Orissa

RTI Activist has been threatened of dire consequence by Govt. official in Bolangir, Orissa

Dear Friends

Attack on RTI Activists gets rising day by day in Orissa. Mr.  Gopabandhu Chhatria, a BPL RTI Applicant  has been  threatened  of attack by Mr. Birendra Tripathy, SDO, Rural Works, Bolangir on 18.10.2011. In a complaint petition   addressed to Superintendent of Police, Bolangir on 24.10.2011, Mr. Chhatria has stated that he had submitted an application seeking information  about newly constructed building for Tahsil office   located  before DEOgan Block from the PIO, office of SDO, Rural Works, Bolangir. Without providing information, Mr. Birendra Tripathy made a call from his mobile ( 9437150548)  to Chhatria       (9668523372)  and threatened him of dire consequence, if he  continued seeking information from his office.  Then he handed over his mobile to  a contractor who also scolded  Chhatria and asked him to refrain from accessing any information  from the said office.

 

It needs to be mentioned here that Mr. Chhatria, Jarasingha, Dist-Bolangir had sought information about a newly constructed building for Tahasil office   in his area.  Though it was constructed a few months back, this building  has  been cracked and water flowing  from the roof.  The work is substandard and getting  no use  for  the people. Apprehending corruption and irregularities in the fund allotted  for the said work,  Chhatria has sought  information to know the details of expenditure and sample of the  building. 

 

Chhatria is yet to get any response from SP, Bolangir, as he shared in a meeting held in Bhubaneswar on 16.11.2011. It needs to be mentioned that last year, Chhatira was arrested by the local police and put behind bar  following a false FIR lodged  against him by the then BDO, Deogan Block  in 2009. His fault was that he had sought information about irregularities in construction of Check Dam.

 

Regards

Pradip Pradhan

M-99378-43482

Date-25.11.2011

[HumJanenge] Staggering pendency of cases with Orissa Information Commission- What for?

Staggering pendency of cases with Orissa Information Commission- What for? 

 

Dear friends,

On 27.10.2011 I had been to the office of Orissa Information Commission to attend the hearing of a complaint case on the request of a Complainant. I happened to come across the notice board, where only 10 cases were found to have been listed for hearing by   Mr. Tarun Kanti Mishra, State Chief  Information Commissioner , 8 cases by Mr. Jagadanand and 1 case by Mr. Pramod Kumar Mohanty  on that day. This fact that was surprising for the simple reason that Information Commissioners were hearing per day such a small number of cases when the pendency of the cases with the Commission as of today was more than 15,000, Secondly, it is also a fact that the Commission has decided not to hear the cases on Saturdays. Thus, they are observing a five-day week in respect of hearing of cases.  If such practices continue, it will take around 6 years to dispose only the pending cases, forget about the cases to be filed within the intervening years.

 

Obviously, the people are losing faith in the Commission as their cases are being heard by the Commission after a big lapse of 2 to 3 years.  The complainants are also losing their interest to attend the hearing of the cases, due to inordinate delay that renders the information sought by them irrelevant. Moreover, taking advantage of the absence of the complainants in the hearing, the Commissioners are also found disposing the cases in an arbitrarily manner, without ensuring the supply of information sought or imposing of penalty on the erring PIOs.

 

Massive pendency- the real reasons

a.The pendency of cases with the Commission started growing from  the very time when Mr. D.N.Padhi, the then State Chief Information Commissioner and Prof. Radhamohan, State Information Commissioner got themselves briskly engaged in so-called awareness programme around  the RTI Act. Leaving their mandatory duty to adjudicate the complaints and appeals, they were most of the time found in self-adorning roles of Chief Guest or Chief Speaker at awareness ceremonies sponsored by them out of funds grabbed from the Government through illegal means. Not only that. In order to garner support somehow for such nefarious misdeeds, they also arbitrarily distributed funds to different Govt. and Non-Govt. bodies including mostly their pet and pliant NGOs. In this process, the Commission acquired the image of a self-opinionated funding agency in place of a quasi-judiciary authority constituted for adjudicating the cases of complaints and appeals under the RTI Act. To start with, this perverse role of the Commission served as the single greatest factor for staggering pendency of cases that we see today.

 

b. Secondly, since the Commission started functioning, it has been noticed that the Commission has been disposing a meager number of cases per day. On a rough estimate the average monthly disposal by a Commissioner in years 2009 and 2010 was only 35 to 40 cases. Whereas, the Central Information Commissioners and other state Information Commissioners are found each disposing 300 to 450 cases per month.  Now the question arises, why the performance of Orissa Information Commissioners in respect of disposal of cases is so dismal.  Is it due to their inefficiency or any other  reason. In fact, is sheer inefficiency of the Commissioners coupled with a lack of concern among them for the plight of the complainants and appellants. The question may arise again, how is it that such inefficient persons were appointed as Commissioners at   all. The only possible answer to this all-important question is that these Commissioners have been given appointment mainly because of their close proximity to the political headquarters of the State, for whom loyalty rather than caliber mattered decisively.

 

c. Thirdly, it is further surprising that the hearing of the cases starts at 11 o'clock  and gets finished at 2 o'clock i.e., only 3 hours being devoted  for hearing.  Many a time,  the Commissioners do also wind up the hearing session by 1 o'clock, taking advantage of the absence of the PIO  or the complainant/ appellant. However, the Central Information Commissioners like Mr. Sailesh Gandhi and Information Commissioners of other states begin their hearing sessions at 10 o'clock  and continue upto 5 to 6 PM, being able thus to dispose larger number of cases.

 

D. Fourthly, Orissa Information Commissioners don't do  any homework before coming to the hearing session. It has been noticed on several occasions that a Commissioner like Mr. Jagadanand, to start with, takes 10 to 15 minutes to read and understand a case, while the concerned parties shall remain standby in silence. Such a queer practice on the part of the Commissioner simply kills away the precious time and reduces the time required for hearing the parties. It has also been noticed that the said Information Commissioner enters the court with a haggard face after attending a meeting or workshop held elsewhere preceding his arrival in Commission's office. Only after reaching the hearing chamber, does he start minding his business of hearing. In absence of any home work as already mentioned, his performance in hearing and disposing a case degrades to an inferior quality too.

 

E. Fifthly, the Commissioners, instead of practicing quick disposal of  a case after hearing the parties on one or maximum two dates, are in the habit of lingering the same through fixing somany dates of hearing for a single case. For example, in a complaint case of Mr. Nilamani Joshi, Bolangir  the Commission fixed as many as 19 dates spread in two years  for disposal of his  case. This case involved a massive corruption in paddy procurement by an nexus of public servants, millers and politicians. The deliberate prolongation of this case by the concerned Commissioners not only exposes their rank inefficiency in handling a case, but also suggests some sort of clandestine nexus of the concerned Commissioners with the corrupt public servants involved in the case.  Moreover,  in some cases involving mega corruption by public servants, the Commission deliberately fixes several dates for hearing, so that   the complainants would feel harassed and hesitant to  attend the hearings. The Commission, taking advantage of  the absence of the  complainants so harassed, disposes the cases to the advantage of the corrupt public servants. Wonderfully enough, the decisions passed by the Commission in such crucial cases, say that the complainant has already received the information, the PIO is therefore exonerated from penalty  and also the case is closed.  

 

F. Sixthly,  the Commission in their  desperate bid  to calibrate their image  by way of showing the public an increased level of efficiency in case disposal has ventured into a  dangerous strategy i.e. by disposing  all the cases unilaterally, without hearing the parties and by way of remanding all the complaints and 2nd  appeals to the concerned 1st Appellate Authorities with a direction to   provide the information, along with an intimation to the concerned complainant/ appellants asking them to approach the Commission again if they fail to get the information as directed. By doing so, the Commission has been able to artificially hike the number of disposals, but there is not a single instance where this new strategy has benefitted the complainants or appellants.   A complainant like the author of this write-up himself is deeply frustrated due to this new-fangled, face-saving strategy of the Commission.

 

G. Though more than 6 years  have passed since its constitution, the Orissa Information   Commission has not been able  to show a single example where they have  registered  a complaint or appeal  case properly, and issued the acknowledgement thereof along with case number to the complainant/appellant, let alone holding the hearing or deciding the case timely. Strange but true, the complainant/ appellants happen to know their case numbers after two to three years following the submission of their complaint/ appeals, and that too   when the date  for hearing is fixed.

 

Though the Commission has been criticized  by the Civil Society Groups and RTI Activists on umpteen times for their negligence  and  inefficiency in disposal of cases, the statutory authority stubbornly refuses to revamp their old, dillydallying manner of disposing the complaints and appeals of the aggrieved RTI users. Under such circumstances, If  the state goes for appointing more  Commissioners like the present lot  it will  simply drain away a further chunk of state exchequer, built out of   the tax payer's money.

Regards
 

Pradip Pradhan

RTI Activist, Orissa

M-99378-43482

Date- 25.11.2011

 

Re: [HumJanenge] What is happening to the IC voted as the "best" by this group ?

Can Sarbajit ji u inform how many votes were polled and the votes each IC got?

I remember last time when many members, probabily you also, opposed such an exercise taken by PCRF of Shri Arvind Kejriwal.

In the poll, it would have been better if the opinions of the members of Hum Janenge groups should have been taken.

U R stating that I also had full voting rights but when I am not aware of such an exercise, how can I cast my vote.

Have u put some email on the Hum Janenge about the opinion poll? If so, please inform the date of that mail.

Only who are at the bottom of popularity need such certification from the RTI's activists. 

I demand fresh poll with more voters. 


From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2011 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] What is happening to the IC voted as the "best" by this group ?

Dear Guptaji

The group which publicly voted on this question (and in which you also had full voting rights) is [RTI_INDIA] . Please see this thread

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/4781

I opine if a similar poll is conducted today that CIC(SM) would have improved his "score" significantly and IC(AD)'s would have gone down even further.

Sarbajit

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:42 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Shri MLS and best IC! Why r u joking?  Which group has conferred this award and before conferring the award, whether it has taken the opinion of the members of that group. 

I can site many erroneous decisions by him against the Delhi Development Authority. It is a separate matter that I have not challenged them the the High Court but this fact does not mean that the appellants are satisfied with his decisions.  In many deserving cases, he had never penalized the CPIO.

In the past, he used to start proceedings by making remark targetting the Appellant whether if wants to eat the mangoes or want to count the seed (Gutali). (Aam khane se matlab hai yaa gutali ginne se). Tell me your grievance and that would be settled implying do not press for the information.

I brought this to the knowledge to the then CCIC, Mr. Wajahat Habibullah by sending a letter/ email and after that this phrase was not repeated before me in the subsequent hearings. 

Respondent to my complaint to the CCIC, MLS refused to hear one of my appeal against DDA and recommended for its transfer to CCIC which was later on heard by some other Shri Shailesh Gandhi, IC. In fact, I was happy on this decision of Shri MLS.  However, I cound not attend the hearing in that case as have not received the notice of hearing due to change of my address.



Re: [HumJanenge] What is happening to the IC voted as the "best" by this group ?

Dear Guptaji

The group which publicly voted on this question (and in which you also had full voting rights) is [RTI_INDIA] . Please see this thread

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/4781

I opine if a similar poll is conducted today that CIC(SM) would have improved his "score" significantly and IC(AD)'s would have gone down even further.

Sarbajit

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:42 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
Shri MLS and best IC! Why r u joking?  Which group has conferred this award and before conferring the award, whether it has taken the opinion of the members of that group. 

I can site many erroneous decisions by him against the Delhi Development Authority. It is a separate matter that I have not challenged them the the High Court but this fact does not mean that the appellants are satisfied with his decisions.  In many deserving cases, he had never penalized the CPIO.

In the past, he used to start proceedings by making remark targetting the Appellant whether if wants to eat the mangoes or want to count the seed (Gutali). (Aam khane se matlab hai yaa gutali ginne se). Tell me your grievance and that would be settled implying do not press for the information.

I brought this to the knowledge to the then CCIC, Mr. Wajahat Habibullah by sending a letter/ email and after that this phrase was not repeated before me in the subsequent hearings. 

Respondent to my complaint to the CCIC, MLS refused to hear one of my appeal against DDA and recommended for its transfer to CCIC which was later on heard by some other Shri Shailesh Gandhi, IC. In fact, I was happy on this decision of Shri MLS.  However, I cound not attend the hearing in that case as have not received the notice of hearing due to change of my address.

[HumJanenge] How can a common man show his anger against elected politicians?

Rahul Gandhi has been instigating people to show their anger towards mismanagement and corruption in UP ever since he embarked on his election campaign from Phulpur a few days ago. The question is how can a common man show his anger in this context.
On the same day, when Rahul was going to address the rally, some students tried to approach him and hand him a memorandum. They were not only stopped from doing so but even kicked and manhandled by not one but by four responsible central ministers for this act, although heavy security guard provided to protect Rahul was there to protect him. Thus the common man is not allowed to come anywhere near their leaders to express their grievance (let aside anger). The said four ministers are sitting safe in Parliament and the court has exempted them from arrest. Not a word was discussed in Parliament on this.
Only yesterday, a common man slapped Sharad Pawar to show his anger against rising prices. He was not only arrested but charged with a no. of offences and put in jail for fourteen days. The parliament spent a full session today (25/11/2011) deprecating his act and did not carry out any other business.
In the past when Kiran Bedi etc said some words affecting respectability of parliamentary members, some members decided to move a privilage motion against her.
Also in the past, when some common man threw a chappel towards an elected representative, he was badly handled.
In none of the above cases was it known that they wanted to physically assault the said elected representatives. They were only showing their anger against them.
In yet olden times, people used to show their anger by throwing rotten tomatoes. This is now not possible because of the strict security search carried out before any common man goes to attend any elected representatives rally.
I invite suggestions from members as to what is the best way of showing anger against elected representatives by a common man. I fact, I would like Rahul Gandhi to clarify the people he addresses in this matter.
mksinghal
 

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Re: [HumJanenge] What is happening to the IC voted as the "best" by this group ?

Shri MLS and best IC! Why r u joking?  Which group has conferred this award and before conferring the award, whether it has taken the opinion of the members of that group. 

I can site many erroneous decisions by him against the Delhi Development Authority. It is a separate matter that I have not challenged them the the High Court but this fact does not mean that the appellants are satisfied with his decisions.  In many deserving cases, he had never penalized the CPIO.

In the past, he used to start proceedings by making remark targetting the Appellant whether if wants to eat the mangoes or want to count the seed (Gutali). (Aam khane se matlab hai yaa gutali ginne se). Tell me your grievance and that would be settled implying do not press for the information.

I brought this to the knowledge to the then CCIC, Mr. Wajahat Habibullah by sending a letter/ email and after that this phrase was not repeated before me in the subsequent hearings. 

Respondent to my complaint to the CCIC, MLS refused to hear one of my appeal against DDA and recommended for its transfer to CCIC which was later on heard by some other Shri Shailesh Gandhi, IC. In fact, I was happy on this decision of Shri MLS.  However, I cound not attend the hearing in that case as have not received the notice of hearing due to change of my address.


From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 5:20 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] What is happening to the IC voted as the "best" by this group ?

What is happening to the IC voted as the "best" by this group ?


This matter was originally scheduled for hearing for today dated 22.11.2011.
However, the Registery of the Commission had adjourned this matter to 26.12.2011 due
to administrative reasons.  It appears that notice to this effect did not reach the Public
Authority on account of which Capt. Amit Mohan and Advocate B.K. Saini have
appeared before the Commission today.  As Capt. Amit Mohan has travelled all the way
from Suratgarh(Rajasthan) and requests for the hearing today so that he does not have to
appear before the Commission again at considerable Government cost and as the Counsel
appearing for the Public Authority is also present before the Commission, I have decided
to hear this matter today itself and dispose it of as per law.  

What happened to Item 7 of the Appeal Procedure Rules  ?
What happened to Principles of Natural Justice ?
How many times any appellants have been heard by IC MLS in the absence of "respondents" and orders passed based on record ?

Seems that IC MLS was in a hurry - he gives no reasons for denial of information for items 1, 4 and 5.

The first appeal was against the decision of CPIO for payment of additional fees (appellant invoked 7(6)).

So, CPIO agrees to give all information, FAA denies and CIC overturns FAA'S orders and does not give any reasons for only allowing part disclosure.

Also note that FAA has denied information on Sec 4(1)(b) citing Sec 7(9) and no commets from IC MLS regarding this.

RTIwanted


Re: [HumJanenge] DISCLOSURE OF LAB REPORTS - CASE OF SHASHI/ PRASHANT BHUSHAN, ADVOCATES

Thanks, Sandeep ji,  Good order based on facts.

----- Original Message -----
From: sandeep kumar <drsandgupta@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] DISCLOSURE OF LAB REPORTS - CASE OF SHASHI/ PRASHANT BHUSHAN, ADVOCATES

Please find the order as enclosed

On 11/24/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> As per media reports, recently, Central Information
> Commission has ordered the disclosure of Lab Report about the investigation
> of
> alleged fake CD against Shri Shanti Bhushan, former Law Minister allegedly
> involving some politician.
> I have tried to search that
> decision on CIC website but failed.  If
> any member of this blog can give the details of the decision, I shall be
> grateful to him. I have a similar case pending in the CIC against EOW, Delhi
> Police for the disclosure of Lab Report about the software used in DDA
> Housing
> Scheme, 2008.


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

[HumJanenge] Re: What is happening to the IC voted as the "best" by this group ?

This decision shows WHY IC(MLS) was voted the best by ANOTHER RTI
group.

Once again MLS shows how to kill the snake (vexatious applicant
misusing RTI) without breaking the RTI stick.

10 out of 10 from me.

Sarbajit


On Nov 24, 4:50 pm, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is happening to the IC voted as the "best" by this group ?
>
> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_LS_A_2011_002094_M_7085...
>
> This matter was originally scheduled for hearing for today dated 22.11.2011.
> However, the Registery of the Commission had adjourned this matter to 26.12.2011 due
> to administrative reasons.  It appears that notice to this effect did not reach the Public
> Authority on account of which Capt. Amit Mohan and Advocate B.K. Saini have
> appeared before the Commission today.  As Capt. Amit Mohan has travelled all the way
> from Suratgarh(Rajasthan) and requests for the hearing today so that he does not have to
> appear before the Commission again at considerable Government cost and as the Counsel
> appearing for the Public Authority is also present before the Commission, I have decided
> to hear this matter today itself and dispose it of as per law.
>
> What happened to Item 7 of the Appeal Procedure Rules  ?
> What happened to Principles of Natural Justice ?
> How many times any appellants have been heard by IC MLS in the absence of "respondents" and orders passed based on record ?
>
> Seems that IC MLS was in a hurry - he gives no reasons for denial of information for items 1, 4 and 5.
>
> The first appeal was against the decision of CPIO for payment of additional fees (appellant invoked 7(6)).
>
> So, CPIO agrees to give all information, FAA denies and CIC overturns FAA'S orders and does not give any reasons for only allowing part disclosure.
>
> Also note that FAA has denied information on Sec 4(1)(b) citing Sec 7(9) and no commets from IC MLS regarding this.
>
> RTIwanted

Re: [HumJanenge] DISCLOSURE OF LAB REPORTS - CASE OF SHASHI/ PRASHANT BHUSHAN, ADVOCATES

Please find the order as enclosed

On 11/24/11, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> As per media reports, recently, Central Information
> Commission has ordered the disclosure of Lab Report about the investigation
> of
> alleged fake CD against Shri Shanti Bhushan, former Law Minister allegedly
> involving some politician.
> I have tried to search that
> decision on CIC website but failed. If
> any member of this blog can give the details of the decision, I shall be
> grateful to him. I have a similar case pending in the CIC against EOW, Delhi
> Police for the disclosure of Lab Report about the software used in DDA
> Housing
> Scheme, 2008.


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

[HumJanenge] What is happening to the IC voted as the "best" by this group ?

What is happening to the IC voted as the "best" by this group ?


This matter was originally scheduled for hearing for today dated 22.11.2011.
However, the Registery of the Commission had adjourned this matter to 26.12.2011 due
to administrative reasons.  It appears that notice to this effect did not reach the Public
Authority on account of which Capt. Amit Mohan and Advocate B.K. Saini have
appeared before the Commission today.  As Capt. Amit Mohan has travelled all the way
from Suratgarh(Rajasthan) and requests for the hearing today so that he does not have to
appear before the Commission again at considerable Government cost and as the Counsel
appearing for the Public Authority is also present before the Commission, I have decided
to hear this matter today itself and dispose it of as per law.  

What happened to Item 7 of the Appeal Procedure Rules  ?
What happened to Principles of Natural Justice ?
How many times any appellants have been heard by IC MLS in the absence of "respondents" and orders passed based on record ?

Seems that IC MLS was in a hurry - he gives no reasons for denial of information for items 1, 4 and 5.

The first appeal was against the decision of CPIO for payment of additional fees (appellant invoked 7(6)).

So, CPIO agrees to give all information, FAA denies and CIC overturns FAA'S orders and does not give any reasons for only allowing part disclosure.

Also note that FAA has denied information on Sec 4(1)(b) citing Sec 7(9) and no commets from IC MLS regarding this.

RTIwanted

[HumJanenge] DISCLOSURE OF LAB REPORTS - CASE OF SHASHI/ PRASHANT BHUSHAN, ADVOCATES

As per media reports, recently, Central Information Commission has ordered the disclosure of Lab Report about the investigation of alleged fake CD against Shri Shanti Bhushan, former Law Minister allegedly involving some politician.
I have tried to search that decision on CIC website but failed.  If any member of this blog can give the details of the decision, I shall be grateful to him. I have a similar case pending in the CIC against EOW, Delhi Police for the disclosure of Lab Report about the software used in DDA Housing Scheme, 2008.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

[HumJanenge] Re: Suggestions for making Draft “Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011” more Citizen-friendly

Dear Mr Pradahan,

I once did some research on the same. I am copy pasting my findings below, from the various Rajya Sabha Reports.

=====================================================

This may be another path breaking mechanism, just like the RTI Act. 

Feel, the main blockage is the Law Ministry who are forcing P&T to abandon it.

And the Synopsis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
 The 25th Report


29.2 It could gather that Government is the major litigant in Courts of law, resulting in vast expenditure of public money, Governmental resources and time. It is of the view that the essence of good governance is defeated in the absence of efficient and timely redressal of grievances. If the grievances are redressed timely at the level at which they arise, the aggrieved will not approach Courts of Law. This will save resources and time, of both the aggrieved and the Government.
 
29.3 The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Government should make a study as to the nature of cases pending in Courts mainly because of non-application of in built Public Grievances Redressal Mechanism and make the erring office accountable and punished. This will reduce the number of cases in Courts which arise due to non-application of mind and soul into the dispute.
 
29.4 The Committee is of the view that public service delivery system is inefficient unless it caters to the needs and issues of the common man. In order to assuage the concerns of the people regarding the efficiency of the public services, it is pertinent that their grievances are redressed promptly.
 
29.5 The Committee strongly feels that enacting a statute for PGRM will go a long way in ensuring participatory governance and the Ministry should seriously examine this issue and the Committee be apprised of the outcome therefrom.
 
>>>>>>>>> 

The 29th Report

 
2. … Some countries such as Japan and Sweden have adopted Consumer Policy Statements, and the concept of Citizen's Charter has gained wide acceptance in many countries, particularly in the UK.
 

3.5. ….. The Secretary had also apprised the Committee about the Citizen Charter and Benchmark Excellence Scheme of UK and USA.
 
3.50 The Committee further feels that a wrong notion has entered into the mind of the public that the Right to Information Act is an instrument to solve their grievances by giving/providing them information written/oral required by them. The Committee feels that this wrong notion needs to be changed because information seeking is altogether different from the redressal of grievances and need to be looked in a different manner. The Committee, therefore, recommends that Government should immediately take some urgent steps like taking the help of NGOs working in the field of Right to Information, print and electronic media, organising nukkad natak in the rural and urban area on the subject to educate people about their rights etc. The Committee also recommends that in order to solve the problems of the people, the Government must give statutory backing to the Public Grievances Redressal Mechanism on same line that of the Right to Information Act, the both will work parallel to each other and help in solving the grievances.
 
3.51 The Committee, further recommends that the Public Grievance Redressal Mechanism should be envisaged in a statutory form on the line of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which would make it mandatory on all State Governments /UTs /Ministries/ Departments/ Organisations to pursue the grievance till their final disposal. The Committee also recommends that like Right to Information Act in the PGRM system there should be a time limit of 30 days and provision of FINE on DELAY should be there.
 
3.52 The Committee feels that each Department/PSU/Bank Trust etc. is having their internal system for redressal of grievances of its personnel but it is not working satisfactorily and that is the reason that non settlement of grievances result in filing of petitions in the courts on petty issues. Our judicial system which is already overburdened by over 3 crore cases pending in various courts of the country contains a large segment of cases on small and petty issues which could have been settled by the parent Department/organizations had their been a good and mature internal grievance redressal system there. The Committee, therefore, recommends that internal grievance redressal methods available in various Ministries/Departments and the organisations should be strengthened or restructured in a way like both the representative of the organisation and the aggrieved party must be present before the designated authority and the grievance is settled then and there.
 
 
4.4 In support of its foregoing recommendations/observations, The Committee, strongly recommends that the Public Grievance Redressal Mechanism should be envisaged in a statutory form on the line of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which would make it mandatory on all State Governments/UTs/Ministries/Departments/Organisations to pursue the grievance till their final disposal. The Committee also reiterates that like Right to Information Act in the PGRM system there should be a time limit of 30 days and provision of fine on delay should be there.
 
 
>>>>>>>>> 

The 31st report

 
7.5 In the light of the recommendation of the Committee the Ministry of Law and Justice has been requested to conduct a study as to the nature of cases pending in Courts simply because of non-application of in-built Public Grievances Redressal Mechanism and make the erring office accountable and punished.
 
7.9 The Committee also welcomes the view of the DARPG that timely redressal at the level where complaint arises will reduce the burden of the Courts and thereby, save the resources of the Government as well as those of the aggrieved person. TheCommittee, however, awaits the details of the study undertaken by the Ministry of Law and Justice as to the nature of cases pending in the Courts because of non-application of inbuilt PGRM and making the erring office accountable and punished. The Committee desires that the details may be made available by the Ministry in their ATN.
 
7.10 The Committee notes that its suggestion regarding enacting a statute for PGRM in the lines of the Right to Information Act is being considered by the Department in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice. The Committee eagerly awaits the details of the Concept Paper alongwith the comments of the Ministry of Law and Justice. The Committee further urges the DARPG to pursue the matter vigorously with that Ministry.
 
7.11 The Committee takes note of the communication dated 4th November, 2008 received from the Secretary, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, in which it was stated that there could not be single authority/Act to deal with all the issues that are raised through public grievances pertaining to different Ministries/Departments.
 
7.12 In this regard, the Committee is of the strong view that enactment of a law for Public Grievances Redressal Mechanism will ensure accountability and lend enforceability to the inherent right of a citizen as a consumer of the services rendered by the Government. The Committee would like to emphasize that the recommendation of the Committee was for an inbuilt Public Grievances Redressal Mechanism for "customer satisfaction", rather than an external mechanism. TheCommittee recommends that the Government should examine the recommendation in right earnest.
 
>>>>>>> 

The 35th Report


Status as per the statement made by the Minister in the House
 
(e) The Commission is of the view that when it comes to public grievances some principles of the RTI initiative may be adopted. However, public grievances cover a wide range of issues and problems ranging from simple complaints regarding red-tapism, corruption and delays to major demands for provision of physical and social infrastructure. Grievances could thus be categorized into three broad groups – (i) grievances arising out of abuse of office and corruption on the part of public functionaries (ii) grievances arising out of systemic deficiencies with in an organization (iii) grievances arising from non-fulfilment of needs/demands. While the first category is amenable to statutory intervention similar to those embodied in the RTI Act the second and third categories may require internal reforms, organization capacity building, and even substantial budgetary allocations. Statutory mechanism already exist to deal with the first category of grievances. Moreover, the Commission has recommended creation of Local Body Ombudsman in its Sixth Report. The Commission is of the view that since budgetary allocations are a legislative process, setting up of an internal mechanism as under the RTI Act, with powers to issue directions on such issues would interfere with the resource allocation process which is approved by the legislature. Moreover, setting up of an external appellate authority with powers to issue directions by means of a law, may lead to proliferation of litigation, convert the grievance redress process in to a legalistic exercise and may create a turf war with the existing judicial and statutory mechanisms. In view of these observations of the Commission the Department does NOT propose to pursue the matter of statutory form for the public grievances redress mechanism in Government of India Ministries/Departments.
 
Committee's further observation
 
The Commission has recommended that creation of a Local Body Ombudsmanmay also be useful in this regard. The Committee welcomes such move, if it serves the very objective of ensuring an effective grievances redressal mechanism. The Committee is of the view that whatever may be the modus operandi for redressal of the internal grievances in the Government Department/Ministries/Organizations but sans statutory backup it remains as an arrangement without teeth. However, if the government desires to have other specific statutory body to deal with the grievances in the lines of the recommendations of the second ARC, the Committee has no reservations in this regard. Therefore, the Committee urges the Government to take immediate and pertinent steps in this regard at the earliest as ensuring an effective Public Grievances Redressal Mechanism is the need of the hour.
 
Another rationale behind the Committee's favor for statutory backup to the PGRM is that it would provide an alternative avenue for the redressal of public grievances that would ultimately lessen the burden of the judiciary. Though, prima facie, it may appear that providing statutory backup to the PGRM for some category of grievances would lead towards some functional overlapping and legalistic complexities. Nevertheless, in the long run, when this mechanism would have become popular, it would certainly provide a speedy alternative to the redressal of the public grievances and would lessen the overburdened Judiciary as the cases, in which the government is a party, are cause of large bulk of litigation in the CourtsThe Law Commission's 100th and 230th Reports Litigations by and against the Government: Some Recommendations for Reformand Reforms in Judiciary: Some Suggestions, respectively, are the indicative of this fact. The Committee therefore impresses upon the Government to come out with a solution taking into account the observations of this Committee in a time bound manner.
 


From: Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com>
To: social-watch-group <social-watch-group@googlegroups.com>; samukhya <samukhya@yahoogroups.com>; focusorissa <focusorissa@yahoogroups.com>; odishasoochanaadhikarabhiyan <odishasoochanaadhikarabhiyan@googlegroups.com>; national-rti-forum <national-rti-forum@googlegroups.com>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2011 10:19 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Suggestions for making Draft "Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011" more Citizen-friendly

Dear friends
Please  find  below  the suggestions on "Draft Citizens Grievance Redress Bill-2011"  given  to  the Department of  Administrative Reforms and  Public Grievances, Govt. of India.
With regards
Pradip Pradhan  

To
The Secretary
Dept of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances,
Government of India
New Delhi
 
Sub- Suggestions for making Draft "Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011" more Citizen-friendly
 
Sir,
 
Greetings from "Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan"
 
"Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan" is a State level Network of Civil Society Groups and RTI Activists spearheading the campaign for effective implementation of RTI Act in the state of Orissa.  
 We came across the Draft Bill on "Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011" hosted on the website of  your Department along with an open invitation for   seeking suggestions from the public on  the said Draft Bill by 23.11.2011.
 First of all, we welcome this move of Central Govt. for bringing  such a long-awaited  bill i.e., "Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011" for  supplying specified goods  and   rendering   services  to the people in a time bound manner.  The  proposed law  has its  relevance  in view of the fact that   the  common people of the country  are  greatly harassed  by the  bureaucracy  in their pursuit of  accessing their entitlements from the  Govt. Even the grievances of public nature are neither attended nor responded to by the  officers  for months on end.   The apathetic and indifferent attitude of the administration in  addressing the grievances of the people has left the people frustrated and hopeless.
 However, while going through the  salient features of the Draft Bill, we came across  a lot of anomalies, lacunas and self-contradictory provisions  which may defeat the very basic purposes of the proposed law. We  feel  it a privilege to bring to your kind notice the  following  shortcomings in the draft bill   for  your kind  consideration in the interest of making it more citizen-friendly.
 1. The nomenclature of the Draft Bill as "Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011" may be withdrawn and be renamed as "Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011". Because, we have seen in Orissa that the State Govt. has misused  the word " Citizen"  while  implementation the RTI Act.  As you might know, Orissa RTI Rules-2005 framed by the State Government under Section 27 of the RTI Act has made a provision to compel the applicants  for producing proof of Citizenship in the shape of Voter ID card or Passport along with    the application for information.  As a result, a person below the age of  18 years, who is not entitled to a Voter ID Card   or may not possess a passport in the country is not able to apply for information under the Act. Thus Orissa RTI Rules has deprived a vast bulk of young population, who are very much citizens of the country, of their legitimate right to access information under the Act. In view of such a negative experience, the nomenclature or the text of the bill should avoid the sensitive word 'citizen'.
 2. Section  11 (3)  of the  Draft  Bill vests certain powers of a civil court to the concerned 'Head of the Department of Public Authority' to enable it to exercise its functions as an
appellate authority.   At the same time,   Section 11 (4) of the Draft bill  says  the HoD "shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by
the principles of natural justice". Both these  sections are  self-contradictory  and confusing Then again, Section 11(4)  gives  power  to HOD to frame and allow its own procedure  of adjudication, which is not desirable either, because millions of diverse and inchoate procedures will proliferate throughout the country making the situation too confusing and complicated for the ordinary members of the public. Thus, there should be well laid, easy and uniform procedures of adjudication of complaints and appeals as a part of the Bill itself in respect of appeal proceedings at all levels, HoD, State Commission and Central Commission. 
 3. In the whole Draft, there is no provision for compensation to the complainants, who might have suffered loss or detriment owing to their deprivation of time-bound delivery of good or service applied for. The provision of  compensation  for  the  aggrieved   complainants  is  required to be there because he or she  might have  suffered  a lot  financially, physically or psychologically in pursuit of availing the entitlement from the concerned Public Authority.  Realizing the importance of Compensation, the RTI Act  in its Section 19 (8-b) has enjoined upon the Information Commissioners to award compensation to the aggrieved complainants. So the Draft Bill should have a similar provision for compensating the loss or detriment the Complainant might have suffered.
 4. Another great shortcoming noticed In the Draft Bill is the absence of any time limit  for  disposal of the complaints of general nature (not being immediate and urgent in nature)  lodged before the   State  Grievance Redressal Commission  and Central Grievance Redressal Commission. Needless to say, the decision of such Commissions arrived at following the disposal  of cases is a kind of service that  the Commissions  provide to the public. As the basic goal of the draft bill is to ensure time bound delivery of service by each  public authority, the Commissions, being the public authorities themselves should also provide their services including the decision on a complaint in a time bound manner. In absence of a specified time limit, the complainants will have to wait for an indefinite period for getting justice from the Commissions, and as a result, the  basic purpose of the proposed law will  no doubt get defeated, and the  public will continue to suffer harassment harassed by the negligent and corrupt public servants complained against. In corroboration of this anxiety we like to cite  the example  of State Information Commission Orissa which takes  even three to four years  to  dispose of a complaint or appeal. Having experienced the inordinately long delay in getting their complaints redressed by the Commission, the RTI users in Orissa   are feeling frustrated  and  losing their faith  in  RTI Act as a tool for bringing transparency and accountability in the system of governance in the  State. So, the time limit  for disposal of the complaints and appeals by the State and Central Commissions needs to be specified in the proposed draft law at any rate.
 5. Section 50  of the Draft Bill  says "the provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force."  It needs  to be  withdrawn, because  every Public Authority in order to escape its obligation to render time-bound delivery of service shall take the excuse of several existing laws and bye-laws, where there may not be any provision of time limit at all and/or where there may not be any provision of penalty imposable against the non-compliance of time-bound delivery of service. So we suggest  that  there should be a provision for  overriding  effect  of the proposed law  vis-à-vis any other law or instrumentality of the state,  just like Section 22 of of RTI Act.
 
6. There  is no mention in the Draft Bill of the exact  amount of penalty  to be imposed  on the    Grievance Redressal Officer proved guilty. As a result, the HoD or Commissions State or Central may in their discretion  refrain from imposing any penalty or may impose a penalty of too paltry an amount against a default involving big money. Considering the huge amount of money that would be involved around the goods and services to be delivered under the proposed law, there should be the provision for a hepty amount of monetary penalty against the guilty public servants, at least heavier that the one made in RTI Act 2005.
 7.The Sections 23 and 39 of the draft bill vest penal powers to the State and Central Commissions exercisable against any person including an appellant on the perceived grounds of 'intentional
insult or interruption' (Section 228 of IPC) or 'procedure in certain cases of contempt' (Section 345 of CrPC 1973) or treatment of the case as the one based upon a police report (Section 346 of CrPC 1973). These provisions shall frighten away the common man so much that none shall dare to approach the Commissions for seeking justice to their complaints. These Sections should stand deleted completely from the draft bill.
 8. The  Draft Bill has  entrusted the powers  to  the  concerned State and Central Governments    for making Rules.  The experience of leaving the Rule-making powers  to the    the State Governments has become very counter-productive.  For example,  in the name of implementing the RTI Act in the State, the  Orissa  Govt.  framed Orissa RTI Rules-2005, most provisions of which are not only ultra vires the parent Act, but also absurd and anti-people such as compulsory use of Form-A for application, submission  of proof of citizenship, imposition of form and fees for making appeal, deficient letter of intimation (Form-B), letter of rejection on arbitrary grounds (Form-C), imposition of difficult modes of payment,  and above all collection of cost of information from the BPL persons. So there is every possibility of the State Government diluting and denying the letter and spirit of the proposed law through exercising of Rule-making power, if entrusted to them. It is suggested that like Forest Rights  Act 2006, the Central Govt.  should  frame the Rules for implementing the provisions of the Act, and leave to the State Government the only power to make notification of various authorities required to be installed as per the Act and Rules made by the Centre
We  hope  the  Central Govt. will take  our   suggestions into account  while shaping   the final Bill  to be tabled in the Parliament.
 
Thanking you
Yours sincerely
Pradip Pradhan
State Convener
Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
MIG-316, Sailashree Vihar
C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar, Orissa
Date-23.11.2011