Thursday, March 8, 2012

Re: [HumJanenge] My complaint to the Honourable President of India with kind and active help of Mr Surinderpal, Advocate from Ludhiana

Respected sir

before filing pitition to presedent of India , plz file one simple
RTI to IC asking certified copy of rule under which complaints are
being returned to FAA.

I hope she will be answerless .........
regards

On 3/8/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
> I do not mind barking at trees, if i feel that the tree is not giving
> the fruits for which it was intended to be planted for. If i have to
> right to use provisions given by the constitution, why should i not
> use them.
> Sir, I am not good at english, so please suggest in clear and
> understandable language. how does it matter if somebody is a puppet or
> rubber stamp.
>
> On 3/8/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
>> what do you suggest then? sit ideally and continue looking at mockery
>> of the rti act. who has allowed her to suggest complainants to file
>> appeals. no doubt she has no powers to order informaton disclosure in
>> complaint cases, but at the same time she has no rights to direct
>> using of section 19.
>>
>> On 3/8/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Sandeep
>>>
>>> You are barking up the wrong tree.
>>> PS: Only dogs bark.
>>>
>>> To save one round of email exchange
>>>
>>> 1) Madam President is a rubber stamp (or so Mr. Ornob Goswami of Times
>>> Now.TV said on national TV last night. Actually .he also said she was
>>> a "pupp..." but stopped himself just in time).
>>> 2) Section 14 is an enabling provision not a directory one and has to
>>> be read alongwith 12 and 13,
>>> 3) Your petition's grounds do not make out a strong case for
>>> application of section 14..
>>>
>>> and so on..
>>>
>>> Sarbajit
>>>
>>> On 3/6/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dear members
>>>> With active and kind help from Sh Surinderpal advocate and RTI
>>>> activist from Ludhiana and member of lawyers for social action, I have
>>>> been able to draft a complaint against Mrs Sushma Singh, central
>>>> Information commissioner for misusing her office. The complaint is
>>>> enclosed herewith:
>>>> the members are requested to give in their inputs please.
>>>> I hereby express my gratitude to Sh Surinderpal JI for his selfless
>>>> help.
>>>> regards
>>>> sandeep
>>>>
>>>> Date: 07.03.2012
>>>>
>>>> To
>>>> The Honourable President of India,
>>>> Rashtrapati Bhawan,
>>>> New Delhi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Petition u/s 14 of the RTI Act, 2005,
>>>>
>>>> To get the conduct of Mrs. Sushma Singh IC, CIC, New Delhi, inquired
>>>> by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in misusing powers and
>>>> exceeding authority as IC, and thus, behaving in a manner unbecoming
>>>> of an IC, and remove her from post immediately
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> To suspend Mrs. Sushma Singh from office and prohibit her from
>>>> attending office during pendency, against her, of inquiry by the
>>>> Hon'ble Supreme Court
>>>>
>>>> Your Excellency,
>>>> I hereby draw your kind attention to the conduct of Mrs. Sushma Singh,
>>>> IC, CIC, New Delhi:
>>>> 1. Mrs Singh has not heard majority of complaints filed u/s 18 of the
>>>> RTI Act since January 2011. Instead, majority of the complaints filed
>>>> by the complainants against the CPIOs for not replying their RTI
>>>> applications have been remanded back to the CPIOs/appellate
>>>> authorities concerned with direction to the latter to send reply to
>>>> the complainant's RTI application. In many other cases, the
>>>> complainants have either been directed to file the First Appeal (FA)
>>>> in case they are not satisfied with the response or supply of
>>>> information by the CPIOs concerned. If a complainant is not satisfied
>>>> with the orders of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), then only he
>>>> should approach the Commission with fresh second appeal. Some of these
>>>> complaints are as below:
>>>> Sl. No. Case No. Title of the complaint Date of remanding back
>>>> 1. CIC/SS/C/2010/000653 Sh PK Mittal vs. PIO and addl DCP
>>>> (Delhi) 10.01.2011
>>>> 2. CIC/SS/C/2010/000651 Sh Badri Nath vs. PIO and Addl DCP North
>>>> (Delhi Police) 11.01.2011
>>>> 3. CIC/AT/C/2010/1033/SS Shri S.K. Singal vs Central Coalfields
>>>> Ltd. 13.01.2011
>>>> 4. CIC/AT/C/2010/1030/SS Shri Rednam Deepak vs. Visakhapatnam Port
>>>> Trust 13.01.2011
>>>> 5. CIC/AT/C/2010/1261/SS Smt. Kumud Gurav vs. Ministry of Finance,
>>>> Deptt. of Revenue 15.02.2011
>>>> 6. CIC/AT/C/2010/1235/SS Shri Gyanchand Jain vs. O/O Commissioner of
>>>> Customs, Mumbai 17.02.2011
>>>> 7. CIC/SS/C/2011/000047 Mr. K. Manickaraj vs, Ministry of Law &
>>>> Justice, New Delhi. 31.03.2011
>>>> 8. CIC/SS/C/2011/000048 Shri Avinash Kumar vs. Airport Authority of
>>>> India 13.04.2011
>>>> 9. CIC/SS/C/2010/000650 Shri K.S. Ganabady Soupramaniane vs. Dte. of
>>>> School Education, Puducherry 11.01.2011
>>>> 10. CIC/AT/C/2010/987/SS Shri Nagender Lal Das vs Central Coalfields
>>>> Ltd. 14.01.2011
>>>> 11. CIC/AT/C/2010/1074/SS Shri Bharat Nandan Prasad vs Bharat Coking
>>>> Coal Ltd. 17.01.2011
>>>> 12. CIC/SS/C/2011/000018 Shri Pradeep Tiwari vs. M/o Social Justice &
>>>> Empowerment 14.02.2011
>>>> 13. CIC/SS/C/2011/000017 Shri Rajeev T. Singh vs. Kandla Port
>>>> Trust 14.02.2011
>>>> 14 CIC/SS/C/2011/000067 Shri V. Sathyaseelan vs. Ministry of Home
>>>> Affairs 28.04.2011
>>>>
>>>> Copies of orders are enclosed.
>>>> 2. A large number of second appeals filed by the appellants on FAA's
>>>> failure to pass order on their First Appeal in stipulated time of one
>>>> month, was decided by the 'learned' IC. Instead, she converted these
>>>> Second Appeals into First Appeals and remanded these back to the FAAs
>>>> concerned to decide the same, with directions to the appellants to
>>>> compulsorily wait for FAA's decision. She allowed the appellant to
>>>> approach the Commission with second appeal only in the situation of
>>>> dissatisfaction with FAA's order on first appeal. Some of these cases
>>>> are as below:
>>>>
>>>> Sl. No. Case No. Title of the appeal Date of remanding back
>>>> 1 CIC/AT/C/2010/1041/SS Shri B Bandyopadhyay vs. Commissioner of
>>>> Customs, Kolkata 14.01.2011
>>>> 2 CIC/AT/C/2010/1243/SS Shri Sudershan Kumar vs, Ministry of Road
>>>> Transport & Highways 14.02.2011
>>>> 3 CIC/SS/A/2011/901808 Dr. Praveen Thakan vs Agricultural Services
>>>> Recruitment Board 08.02.2012
>>>> 4 CIC/SS/A/2011/002033 D. V. Singh vs. Dredging Corporation of India
>>>> Ltd. 02.02.2012
>>>> 5 CIC/SS/A/2011/002036 U. Panduranga Rao vs Hindustan Shipyard
>>>> Ltd 02.02.2012
>>>> 6 CIC/SS/A/2011/002039 Chandi Ram vs FCI 16.02.2012
>>>> 7 CIC/SS/A/2011/002077 G.S. Saluja vs Rashtriya Chemicals &
>>>> Fertilizers Ltd 15.02.2012
>>>> 8 CIC/SS/A/2011/002113 Shatrunjay Tripathy vs Petroleum & Explosives
>>>> Safety Orgn 14.02.2012
>>>> 9 CIC/SS/A/2011/002080 G. K. Goyal vs BHEL 13.02.2012
>>>> 10 CIC/SS/A/2011/001990 DC Mishra vs NBPGR 13.02.2012
>>>>
>>>> Copies of orders are enclosed.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Mrs Sushma Singh often rejects the appeals by referring to the term
>>>> "voluminous information" in her judgements. Using this word, she
>>>> orders the public authority concerned to allow inspection of records
>>>> to the appellant for specific number of hours and for allowing
>>>> photocopies of some specified number of pages only and that also on
>>>> payment of fee. Some of these cases are as below:
>>>> Sl. No. Case No. Title of the appeal Date of order
>>>> 1 CIC/SS/A/2011/001273 Mr. Mahendra Agarwal vs NTPC Ltd., New
>>>> Delhi 2.2.12
>>>> 2 CIC/SS/A/2010/00079 Sh. Kirit Shah vs Airport Authority of
>>>> India, 29.09.10
>>>> 3 CIC/SS/A/2010/000663 Sh Jagvinder Singh Bisht vs ASRB 7.6.10
>>>> 4 CIC/SS/A/2011/000128 Shri Chetan Kothari vs Office of the Official
>>>> Liquidator, High Court, Mumbai 9.6.11
>>>> 5 CIC/SS/A/2010/000255 Shri Dilip Kumar Roy vs Ministry of Agriculture
>>>> and Cooperation, New Delhi. 29.11.10
>>>> Copies of some orders are enclosed herewith.
>>>>
>>>> It is worth mentioning here that I am also personally aggrieved by
>>>> Mrs. Sushma Singh in some of my cases i.e. Case No.
>>>> CIC/SS/A/2011/901802, 901804, 901807, 901809, 901811, 901812, 901813 &
>>>> 901830 orders dated 02.03.2012 titled Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs.
>>>> Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board. She clubbed all these cases
>>>> together and then dubbed the information as voluminous. She
>>>> arbitrarily gave discretion to the appellate authority to decide the
>>>> reasonability of number of documents to be supplied. The copy of the
>>>> order is enclosed.
>>>> In Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001731 order dated 24.2.12 (copy enclosed)
>>>> citing information as voluminous she directed the appellants to file
>>>> fresh applications.
>>>> 4. She directed the appellants to pay additional fee for getting
>>>> information though the mandatory period of 30 days had already
>>>> expired. Some of the cases are as under
>>>>
>>>> Sl. No. Case No. Title of the appeal Date of disposal
>>>> 1 CIC/SS/A/2011/001624 Shri Tej Bahadur Singh vs South Eastern
>>>> Coalfields Ltd 01.02.2012
>>>> 2 CIC/SM /A/2010/001380/SS Vijendra singh vs Bank of Baroda,
>>>> Gujarat 10.05.2011
>>>> 3 CIC/SS/A/2010/001223 Sh CL Suman vs IVRI, UP 04.05.2011
>>>> 4 CIC/SS/A/2011/000435 Mr. Anshuman Gargesh vs Airports Authority of
>>>> India, New Delhi 22.12.2011
>>>> 5 CIC/SS/A/2011/000802 Prof. Suresh Moon vs Indian Institute of Mines
>>>> 13.01.2012
>>>>
>>>> 5. Dismissal of appeals without giving any opportunity to the
>>>> appellants: Mrs Sushma Singh dismissed a large number of appeals
>>>> without hearing the appellants.
>>>> Copies of some of her orders are enclosed herewith:
>>>> Sl. No. Case No. Title of the appeal Date of disposal
>>>> 1 CIC/SS/A/2011/001446/SS Shri Rajinder Singh Mankotia vs, Sashastra
>>>> Seema Bal 16.02.2012
>>>> 2 CIC/SS/A/2011/001318 Shri Mahendra Singh vs CISF 24.02.2012
>>>> 3 CIC/SS/A/2011/000042 Shri V.D. Sharma vs CRPF 24.02.2012
>>>> 4 CIC/SS/A/2011/001846 Shri Ashok Kumar vs CRPF 24.02.2012
>>>> 5 CIC/SS/A/2011/001868 Mr. Taranath Pandey vs Intelligence Bureau,
>>>> Ministry of Home Affairs 16.02.2012
>>>>
>>>> It is stunning that Mrs. Sushma is least bothered to respect the legal
>>>> provisions or court rulings even, while passing ridiculous, unlawful
>>>> and unjustified orders. Some of these provisions and rulings are as
>>>> below:
>>>>
>>>> a. The preamble of the RTI Act aims at setting out the practical
>>>> regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to
>>>> information under the control of public authorities, in order to
>>>> promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public
>>>> authority;
>>>>
>>>> b. The RTI Act nowhere empowers an IC to convert the complaint u/s 18
>>>> of the RTI Act into an application and remand it back to same PIO
>>>> against whom the complaint has been filed.
>>>>
>>>> Section 18 (1)(b) of the RTI Act clearly devolves a duty on the
>>>> Information Commission to receive and enquire into the complaints from
>>>> any persons. This section mandates that the Information Commission is
>>>> under legal obligation to receive and inquire into the complaints
>>>> received by it. It means, the Commission has no option to refuse the
>>>> complaints or to inquire these complaints. The RTI Act nowhere
>>>> empowers the IC to act arbitrarily and remand the complaint back to
>>>> the CPIO for reply to the RTI application or force the complainant to
>>>> compulsorily fulfil the condition of filing First Appeal before the
>>>> First Appellate Authority before approaching the Commission with
>>>> complaint. The provision is reproduced here for your ready reference:
>>>> "18 (1) (a) who has been unable to submit a request to a CPIO either
>>>> by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or
>>>> because the CAPIO has refused to accept his or her application for
>>>> information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the
>>>> CPIO or senior officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or
>>>> the CIC;
>>>> (b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this
>>>> Act;
>>>> (c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or
>>>> access to information within the time limit specified under this Act;
>>>> (d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she
>>>> considers unreasonable;
>>>> (e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading
>>>> or false information under this Act; and
>>>> (f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining
>>>> access to records under this Act.".
>>>>
>>>> c. Similarly, an IC has no authority to remand back the Second Appeal
>>>> to the First Appellate Authority who had chosen not to decide the
>>>> First Appeal and aggrieved with whom the Appellant has approached the
>>>> Commission with second appeal.
>>>>
>>>> It is a stark reality that an applicant/appellant approaches the
>>>> Commission only after suffering disappointment at the hands of CPIO
>>>> who either did not respond within a month of the application, or
>>>> denied the information or supplied deficient information, and the FAA
>>>> who has either not decided the FA within one month or the appellant is
>>>> not satisfied with the decision.
>>>>
>>>> d. The Act further nowhere empowers an IC to compel inspection,
>>>> determine inspection time or supply of specified number of documents,
>>>> when the Act and Rules amply provide the other way. Mrs. Sushma Singh
>>>> is doing all this with impunity.
>>>> e. Further, the RTI Act nowhere prohibits supply of information on
>>>> the ground of it being 'voluminous', especially when the applicant is
>>>> ready to pay its cost prescribed by the rules made in this respect,
>>>> provided the information is offered in stipulated time u/s 7(1) of the
>>>> Act. It is only section 7(9) of the Act that puts slight restriction
>>>> pertaining to the 'format' not to 'content' of the information sought,
>>>> that too, only when it is likely to disproportionately divert the
>>>> resources of the Public Authority concerned or is detrimental to
>>>> preservation of record. Section 7(9) of the Act is reproduced below
>>>> for your ready reference:
>>>> "7(9) An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which
>>>> it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources
>>>> of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or
>>>> preservation of the record in question.".
>>>>
>>>> f. In WA No. 2100 of 2007 decided by the Kerala High court on 20
>>>> September 2007, the Hon'ble court held:
>>>> "In any event, when the Act does not exempt voluminous information
>>>> from disclosure, the petitioner cannot deny such information on that
>>>> ground. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this
>>>> contention also"
>>>> g. Section 7(6) of the Act is reproduced below for your ready reference:
>>>> Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person
>>>> making
>>>> request for the information shall be provided the information free of
>>>> charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits
>>>> specified in sub-section (1).
>>>> h. In WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006(C) decided by the Kerala High court on
>>>> 30 August 2010, it is clearly stated as under:
>>>> "The difficulties a public authority may encounter in the matter of
>>>> supply of information are no grounds to deny the information, if that
>>>> information is available and not exempted from disclosure. Whatever be
>>>> the difficulties, unless the information is exempt from disclosure,
>>>> the public authority is bound to disclose the same. The facts that the
>>>> information is voluminous, if all candidates apply for the information
>>>> with the available infrastructure it may not be possible to cope up
>>>> with the request, the authority will have to depute additional
>>>> manpower to collect and supply the information etc. are not reasons
>>>> available to the public authority to deny information to a citizen who
>>>> applies for the same. The public authority can only insist on
>>>> reasonable fees for supply of the information as per rules prescribed
>>>> for the same. As such, the flood gate theory sought to be pressed into
>>>> service by the Standing Counsel for the Public Service Commission is
>>>> not a defence against supply of information under the Right to
>>>> Information Act".
>>>>
>>>> i. In WP(C).No. 33718 of 2010(L), the Hon'ble Kerala High Court on 09
>>>> March 2011, held:
>>>> "Another plea of PSC is nothing but a managerial issue. It is pointed
>>>> out that the PSC has to incur the huge expenses and administrative
>>>> difficulties, including the deployment of staff exclusively to deal
>>>> with such requests and this would result in undue hardship and
>>>> clogging of its administrative setup. Once a piece of law is in place,
>>>> inconvenience is no excuse to exclude adherence to it. The bounden has
>>>> to obey and abide by it. This plea of PSC also does not commend
>>>> acceptance".
>>>>
>>>> j. The Hon'ble Apex court in Civil Appeal No. 7571 of 2011 decided on
>>>> 2 September 2011 has held:
>>>> "Public authorities should realize that in an era of transparency,
>>>> previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place.
>>>> Accountability and prevention of corruption is possible only through
>>>> transparency. Attaining transparency no doubt would involve additional
>>>> work with reference to maintaining records and furnishing information.
>>>> Parliament has enacted the RTI Act providing access to information,
>>>> after great debate and deliberations by the Civil Society and the
>>>> Parliament. In its wisdom, the Parliament has chosen to exempt only
>>>> certain categories of information from disclosure and certain
>>>> organizations from the applicability of the Act. As the examining
>>>> bodies have not been exempted, and as the examination processes of
>>>> examining bodies have not been exempted, the examining bodies will
>>>> have to gear themselves to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act.
>>>> Additional workload is not a defence. If there are practical
>>>> insurmountable difficulties, it is open to the examining bodies to
>>>> bring them to the notice of the government for consideration so that
>>>> any changes to the Act can be deliberated upon. Be that as it may"
>>>> The above facts show that Mrs. Sushma Singh is the self-styled king in
>>>> her office. She is passing orders in blatant violation of law and
>>>> court rulings. She is worried more about the PIOs and Public
>>>> authorities, than the information seekers. She has created her own
>>>> self-made laws. She has failed to realise that responsibility of
>>>> proper implementation and promotion of the transparency laws is on the
>>>> Information Commissions, who are the watch dogs for this purpose. Mrs.
>>>> Sushma Singh is least bothered about the RTI Act, for whose
>>>> implementation she is heavily paid from public exchequer. An
>>>> information Commissioner ought to be the saviour of the Act not its
>>>> killer as Mrs. Sushma Singh is. In none of the complaints entrusted to
>>>> her Bench, has the 'learned' IC issued notice to the respondent CPIO,
>>>> perhaps due to her attachment for them owing to her bureaucratic
>>>> background. In fact, she is doing the duty of killing the RTI Act for
>>>> the reasons best known to her only.
>>>>
>>>> Keeping in view the above facts and attitude of Mrs. Sushma Singh, I
>>>> humbly pray your goodself To get the conduct of Mrs. Sushma Singh IC,
>>>> CIC, New Delhi, inquired by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in
>>>> misusing powers and exceeding authority as IC, and thus, behaving in a
>>>> manner unbecoming of an IC, and remove her from post immediately
>>>>
>>>> I further pray you to suspend Mrs. Singh from office and prohibit her
>>>> from attending office during pendency, against her, of inquiry.
>>>>
>>>> I humbly pray for granting me opportunity of personal hearing in any
>>>> proceeding in this respect.
>>>>
>>>> A word of acknowledgement shall be appreciated. .
>>>> Hoping some tangible action in the interest of the Act and the RTI
>>>> users.
>>>>
>>>> With thanks,
>>>> Yours Faithfully,
>>>>
>>>> (Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
>>>> 1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
>>>> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
>> 1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
>> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>>
>
>
> --
> Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
> 1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.