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

Is asking why i was not shortlisted for a selection not allowed under
RTI? SS whom you say as seasoned bureaucrat cannot give decision on
the same.
For me an activist is that who is using the act or helping the others
use/understand the act.
it is funny that my applications at digging the corruption are termed
as vexatious.
I used rti to dig out one lakh illegal old age pensioners in Punjab.
if sushma singh were there, i would never had got that information. I
do not mind being branded as user/misuser/activist if my intentions
are right.
when i am knowing well that information is being shielded only because
it will expose bigwigs, then my ultimate aim is to get it.
Sushma singh does not know ABC of RTI act.

On 3/8/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sandeep
>
> Nothing is going to come out of your "Petition" u/s 14 to Prez. If you
> are honest with yourself, you also know this to be true. Kindly do not
> justify it saying "What else can I do?"
>
> The answer to your question is that you are in the wrong. Your RTIs
> were vexatious. IC(SS) is not the problem - you are !!
>
> The solution is that you should henceforth file RTIs as an applicant
> and not as an "activist". I, and this group, am here to help you do
> that and to ACHIEVE SUCCESS. Believe me, if you can face my criticism
> / prejudice / abuse on this group, then people like IC(SS) are nothing
> for you.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> 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
>>
>


--
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.