Saturday, March 3, 2012

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

Mr Sarbajit,

Wow, cannot believe your appreciation of IC(SS) !

I do not know about the "seasoned bureaucrat" part, but she definitely
passes strange orders as an IC.

Here is a sample:


The Commission has received second appeal dated  24.8.2011 from Shri
S.R.   Yadav,   Bikaner,   u/s 19 of the RTI Act, 2005..............
.
.
.

3. The appellant filed first appeal dated 7.4.2011 before appellate authority
& Chairman, Bar Council of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, which was also not decided
by the appellate authority.

4. In order to avoid multiple proceedings under the RTI Act, the matter is
remitted to Appellate Authority   &  Chairman,   Bar   Council   of   Rajasthan,
Jodhpur, with a copy of second appeal, with the following directions: 
                 
i) In case the first appeal dated 7.4.2011 has not been disposed of by AA,
he should dispose of the first appeal by passing a speaking order, after
hearing the parties in the matter,  within two weeks of receipt of this
order.
   ii) In case AA has already disposed of the first­appeal, he should furnish a
copy of his order to the appellant  within one week of receipt of this................

========

(NOTE: There are many more similar ones)

Isn't the CIC the second appellate authority ?

RTIwanted


From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2012 7:33 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

.
.
.

IC(SS) is a seasoned bureaucrat, she doesn't make such foolish
mistakes. If I blindly had to chose between  supporting an order of
hers versus the say of some disgruntled RTI activist, I would chose
her order any day.

Sarbajit


>



Re: [HumJanenge] Re: No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

Mr Sarbajit,


I do not give out "imaginary" figures. 

Consider this:

1. CIC itself states that it received a total of 5120 Appeals and Complaints in December 2012.

2. IC ADs Registry claims that only 131 Second Appeals and 122 Complaints were received in her Registry.
That is a total of 253.
Please see: 
and 

Can you believe that the Departments handled by IC AD are so RTI compliant that they contribute less than 5% of the total appeals/complaints received in the entire Commission during Dec 2012 ? 
Go figure !

3. Please see:
As of end of Jan 2012, 5 cases shown pending against my name.
Now see: 
As of end of Feb 2012, NO cases pending against my name.
Where did the 5 cases disappear ?
Most probably in the Kafkaesque corridors of the CIC.
(By the way, even the figure of 5 is incorrect !)

4. Please see: 
As of end of Jan 2012, 2091 cases pending in Registry of CIC(SM).
Now see: 
As of end of Feb 2012, only 372 cases pending in Registry of CIC(SM).
That implies that CIC(SM) disposed off 1719 cases in Jan 2012 !
Do you seriously believe that ?
Even CIC itself does not believe it !
Total disposal against CIC(SM)s name is only 281.

5. CIC has been digitising each and every paper that entered CIC for the last 2 years. And they were doing all this without even having a OCR or a DMS software. What use is the mountain of data if you cant even read and analyse it ? Please read: http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Advt/Tender-for-DMS.pdf

You need to get back to your detailed Engineering analysis skills and see through this eye wash being put up on the CIC website and misinformation being dished out to you by so called CIC "insiders".

Problem with you these days is that inspite of being present in Delhi, you are paying very little attention to RTI and the happenings in the CIC. Stop discussing mundane things like Religion, some Generals age, Kill Lokpal, NGOs and H*******, etc. and get back to the basics - you will be a bigger asset.

RTIwanted






From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2012 9:43 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

Dear Karira

Even if we accept your figures, it simply means that only about 6,000
cases are pending at CIC - and NOT the 27,000 which they claim.

The 3,000 cases spike is already reflected in the so-called receipts
for Dec. 2011 where over 5,000 cases were "received" compared to the
running average of about 2,000 cases per month.

The other problem is that all RTI appeals were ordered to be
digitised. A PRIVATE agency responsible for this has allegedly walked
off with about 10,000 records and failed to return them despite
considerable followup.  Somebody can file an RTI for this to ascertain
its truth, If true, it is scandalous.

Sarbajit


On Mar 3, 7:55 am, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mr Sarbajit,
>
> I think you missed my detailed response to your earlier post regarding those lists - the one where I proved that those lists were bogus.
>
> The list put up by Registry of IC (AD) is also bogus.
>
> On complaining very strongly about the correctness of those lists, I was told that the purpose of the lists  was to help those appellants/complainants whose files have been lost in the CIC. Apparently there are 3000 to 3500 cases which have gone missing from the CIC, since its inception.
>
> Anyhow, since the list from one month to another also has discrepancies, a RTI is on the way.
>
> RTIwanted
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: Nidhi Sharma <nidhi2...@gmail.com>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 10:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.
>
> Dear Nidhi (and group)
>
> After my email post to the HJ list specifying that IC(AD) was #2
> defaulter,  the CIC has been stung into action. IC(AD)'s registry has
> published their pending cases on CIC's website. She claims to have
> only 220 Appeals and 150 Complaints pending (ie. about half of what
> .IC(SG)'s outstanding is).
>
> So it is quite obvious that of the known pendency of the CIC (and
> which we must assume to be true), IC-SG is the worst offender in terms
> of pendency at around 850 cases, and even assuming that teh remaining
> 5 ICs had an average of 400 cases each (avg. of CIC + AD) then this
> works out to 2,000 cases which is almost exactly equal to the info
> given to me of "around 2,700" pending cases only.
>
> Satyanand's Mishra's own figures damn him. WHY THEN DO WE NEED THESE 3
> EXTRA ICs ? Is it because of all those paid holidays they now get for
> study tours / junkets to New Zealand and Scandanavia where a certain
> MNC financed NGO is hosting them. ??
>
> Sarbajit
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 2/27/12, Nidhi Sharma <nidhi2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Sarbajit
>
> > I met Mr Satyanand Mishra last week. He stands by the 20,000+ figure. He
> > says that is the real pendency with CIC. He has now asked all registries
> > (ICs) to manually count every case pending with them and file a return by
> > the end of this week so that he can actually react to the media reports.
>
> > nidhi


[HumJanenge] No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

Dear Sandeep ji,
 
Yes, you should challenge this order in High Court, otherwise all commisions will start refusing the  informations by quoting decision of SC as have been done in the instant case.
 
All the best
 
thanks
 
Paramjit Singh
(World Record Holder)
http://www.recordholdersrepublic.co.uk/recordholdersdetails.asp?id=434

--- On Sat, 3/3/12, Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sandeep gupta <drsandgupta@gmail.com>
Subject: [.RTI.] Re: [HumJanenge] Re: No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, 3 March, 2012, 9:45 PM

recently i had a hot discussion with her. she is not aware of rti
rules, regulations etc. she said to me that application forms of the
candidates for selection to public post contains personal information
and cannot be disclosed.
I asked that if this is personal then what is public. she said that i
should not advise her. i firmly believe that she is only making a
mockery of the rti act.
please go through the attached order. I am going to challenge this
order in the punjab and haryana high court. she talks of supreme court
orders but does not seem to know of the crux of the matter.
what should one do when she asks PIO to give an order in complaint
case and the PIO chooses not to reply to this order?
what should one do when the FAA chooses not to give any decision even
after her orders.

On 3/3/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> For one moment forget the SC judgment and recall what we have been
> advising in the group.
>
> No IC, not even IC(SS) can ignore genuine complaint cases, such as
> where PIOs have not been appointed, or where he refuses to accept RTI
> application.etc. I hope you are not saying that she is doing so
> because frankly I dont track CIC goings on and their orders anymore.
>
> The problem is when PIO fails to reply, or he gives "misleading" /
> "partial" information etc. For years we had all those f***ing NGO
> "parasites" (actually I use another word) who advised RTI fools to use
> "complaint" (instead of appeal) because a) "It is quicker" b) "CIC has
> powers of court" c) "Complaint is not time barred unlike appeal (so
> all those 2 year old cases can be revived etc). ....
>
> The recent SC judgment put a stop to all such nonsense, so the NGO
> HARAMIS (!!!) are now focused on some meaningless observations in SC
> judgments about how too much time is wasted in RTI, how the Govt will
> come to a standstill etc....
>
> There is no need for SC to say that the only appeal for a poor or zero
> FA decision is a 2nd Appeal to CIC  -- BECAUSE THE RTI ACT SAYS SO AND
> LEAVES NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.
>
> IC(SS) is a seasoned bureaucrat, she doesn't make such foolish
> mistakes. If I blindly had to chose between  supporting an order of
> hers versus the say of some disgruntled RTI activist, I would chose
> her order any day.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Mar 3, 3:16 pm, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> which judgement sir?
>> the SC judgement says that information cannot be ordered to be
>> supplied in complaint cases. but i am not saying that she should have
>> ordered supply of information. she was required to take action on
>> complaint (whatever rti act prescribes). there is no supreme court
>> order which says that appellant can be forced to file second appeal
>> again.
>>
>> On 3/3/12, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Dear Sandeep
>>
>> > When IC(SS) ... and all other ICs .. have a SC judgment allowing them
>> > to do what they are doing, what purpose will it solve to file a
>> > Petition to the President of India ?
>>
>> > Sarbajit
>>
>> > On Mar 3, 4:49 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I wish to inform as to how pendency is cleared by SS. She has not
>> >> heard any complaint case. she asks all complainants to first use
>> >> option of first appeal. if there is disattisfaction with order of FAA
>> >> file fresh second appeal.
>> >> in some cases, there is no response from FAA and the appellant
>> >> approaches CIC, then she asks the FAA to give decision. appellant is
>> >> asked to approach commission again after decision of FAA.
>> >> by this blatant violation of provisions of RTI act, these so called
>> >> highly talented ICs clear the pendency of the cases.
>> >> I am contemplating filing a petition to president of india to seek
>> >> removal of such commissioners.
>> >> please give your feedback/comments
>>
>> >> On 3/2/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Dear Nidhi (and group)
>>
>> >> > After my email post to the HJ list specifying that IC(AD) was #2
>> >> > defaulter,  the CIC has been stung into action. IC(AD)'s registry has
>> >> > published their pending cases on CIC's website. She claims to have
>> >> > only 220 Appeals and 150 Complaints pending (ie. about half of what
>> >> > .IC(SG)'s outstanding is).
>>
>> >> > So it is quite obvious that of the known pendency of the CIC (and
>> >> > which we must assume to be true), IC-SG is the worst offender in
>> >> > terms
>> >> > of pendency at around 850 cases, and even assuming that teh remaining
>> >> > 5 ICs had an average of 400 cases each (avg. of CIC + AD) then this
>> >> > works out to 2,000 cases which is almost exactly equal to the info
>> >> > given to me of "around 2,700" pending cases only.
>>
>> >> > Satyanand's Mishra's own figures damn him. WHY THEN DO WE NEED THESE
>> >> > 3
>> >> > EXTRA ICs ? Is it because of all those paid holidays they now get for
>> >> > study tours / junkets to New Zealand and Scandanavia where a certain
>> >> > MNC financed NGO is hosting them. ??
>>
>> >> > Sarbajit
>>
>> >> > Sarbajit
>>
>> >> > On 2/27/12, Nidhi Sharma <nidhi2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Dear Sarbajit
>>
>> >> >> I met Mr Satyanand Mishra last week. He stands by the 20,000+
>> >> >> figure.
>> >> >> He
>> >> >> says that is the real pendency with CIC. He has now asked all
>> >> >> registries
>> >> >> (ICs) to manually count every case pending with them and file a
>> >> >> return
>> >> >> by
>> >> >> the end of this week so that he can actually react to the media
>> >> >> reports.
>>
>> >> >> nidhi
>>
>> >> --
>> >> 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

[HumJanenge] STOP mailing me in "humjanenge@googlegroups.com"

IMPORTANT

IF
you are receiving emails from this list and are NOT a member,

THEN
you are receiving FORWARDED emails, so

GOTO
https://lists.riseup.net/www/sigrequest/humjanenge

enter your email ID
and UNSUBSCRIBE manually

HJ@gg cannot unsubscribe you.

Sarbajit

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

ok sir, now i got it.
regards


On 3/4/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK
>
> Firstly I m glad that we seem to now acknowledge that fault does not
> lie with conduct of a particular IC. In fact any good IC would deal in
> the same way, and in your case IC(SS) has gone out of her way to issue
> a detailed order showing considerable application of mind, whereas say
> erstwhile IC(MA) would have disposed you in a 2 para order.
>
> 2) If the PA has not VOLUNTARILY done its 4(1)(d) discloure, (and
> which I emphasise they are not to do VOLUNTARILY but AS A MATTER OF
> COURSE after the SC Constitutional bench judgment in the S.P.Mukharji
> (???) corruption case) in every decision they take, it is open to the
> AGGRIEVED UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES to request the PIO to publish the
> same, and thereafter to THEMSELVES file section 6 RTI requests.
>
> 3) Instead you have attempted to take on the problems of the entire
> world (for reasons best known to you) and caused a genuine
> apprehension on the part of the PA that their work will come to a
> standstill since your RTI request(s) is NOT SPECIFIC !!! . . IC(SS)
> after having heard you, has upheld the PA and cited the SC order. She
> has however allowed you 1 FULL DAY's INSPECTION of all records (which
> the PA wishes to show you) with the right to take copies. Thus as
> IC(MA) would famously say "there is no question of information
> denial".
>
> 4) The ONLY QUESTION you must address is ... "WHAT IS MY LOCUS STANDI
> TO DO ALL THIS ?".
> There is a clear difference in law between an aggrieved person who
> fights for his own rights, and an interloper, intermeddler who acts as
> a busybody / blackmailer. Unfortunately even genuine busybodies end up
> being characterised as blackmailers and which affects ALL RTI USERS.so
> I have no sympathy for such people.
>
> 5) Get a copy of the ARSB's "cooked up" explanation and start RTIing
> from there.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Mar 4, 3:47 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ok, sir.
>> now let us come to actual point.
>> ASRB is a recruitment body which carries out recruitment of scientists
>> for ICAR. for the last five-six years, none of the non selected or the
>> candidate not considered eligible has ever been intimated about the
>> reasons for his/her non selection (violation of section 4(1)(d). No
>> list of candidates rejected/non selected/not called for interview/non
>> shortlisted has ever been published. one even does not come to know as
>> to who was selected.
>> The ASRB sends recommendations to ICAR. ICAR after getting
>> recommendations studies the files and and then sends them back to
>> ASRB.
>> When I filed application with ASRB they did not disclose anything. in
>> the meantime, i also filed application with ICAR asking for inspection
>> of records of scientists selected. they were very liberal. so i
>> carried out inspection of applications of about 25 people and found
>> that atleast 5 of them were not eligible to even apply/not qualified
>> to even get shortlisted.
>> I then filed a complaint with the prime minister/agriculture
>> minister/chairman ASRB highlighting all important facts. copy of the
>> same is enclosed.
>> PMO marked it to secretary to look into the matter who inturn sent it
>> to ASRB for needful. Now i have come to know that ASRB has not done
>> anything on this communication and sent a detailed (cooked up reply)
>> explanation.
>> Now what to do? I would like to get your feedback on this issue.
>>
>> On 3/3/12, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Dear Sandeep
>>
>> > I shall confine myself only to her order.
>>
>> > 1) It is clear therefrom that YOU are a VEXATIOUS RTI BUSYBODY filing
>> > RTI applications like a TAXICAB for hire. (At least that is what they
>> > are going to say).
>>
>> > 2) YOU have invited SS's order onto yourself. Aa bail mujhe maar.
>>
>> > 3) Your arguments for the P&H are stupid (and you have only a small
>> > chance of winning - and that too only because the P^H HC is one of the
>> > more liberal courts). You would be KICKED OUT in the SC.
>>
>> > 4) I completely agree with her that PERSONAL details of unsuccessful
>> > candidates cannot be disclosed in RTI, even after the fact.
>>
>> > 5) ">what should one do when the FAA chooses not to give any decision
>> > even after her orders ?"
>> > Ans: File a 2nd appeal (for the FIRST TIME, because the first of her
>> > orders were given in "complaint" jurisdiction in routine).
>>
>> > Sarbajit
>


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

[HumJanenge] Re: No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

OK

Firstly I m glad that we seem to now acknowledge that fault does not
lie with conduct of a particular IC. In fact any good IC would deal in
the same way, and in your case IC(SS) has gone out of her way to issue
a detailed order showing considerable application of mind, whereas say
erstwhile IC(MA) would have disposed you in a 2 para order.

2) If the PA has not VOLUNTARILY done its 4(1)(d) discloure, (and
which I emphasise they are not to do VOLUNTARILY but AS A MATTER OF
COURSE after the SC Constitutional bench judgment in the S.P.Mukharji
(???) corruption case) in every decision they take, it is open to the
AGGRIEVED UNSUCCESSFUL CANDIDATES to request the PIO to publish the
same, and thereafter to THEMSELVES file section 6 RTI requests.

3) Instead you have attempted to take on the problems of the entire
world (for reasons best known to you) and caused a genuine
apprehension on the part of the PA that their work will come to a
standstill since your RTI request(s) is NOT SPECIFIC !!! . . IC(SS)
after having heard you, has upheld the PA and cited the SC order. She
has however allowed you 1 FULL DAY's INSPECTION of all records (which
the PA wishes to show you) with the right to take copies. Thus as
IC(MA) would famously say "there is no question of information
denial".

4) The ONLY QUESTION you must address is ... "WHAT IS MY LOCUS STANDI
TO DO ALL THIS ?".
There is a clear difference in law between an aggrieved person who
fights for his own rights, and an interloper, intermeddler who acts as
a busybody / blackmailer. Unfortunately even genuine busybodies end up
being characterised as blackmailers and which affects ALL RTI USERS.so
I have no sympathy for such people.

5) Get a copy of the ARSB's "cooked up" explanation and start RTIing
from there.

Sarbajit

On Mar 4, 3:47 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, sir.
> now let us come to actual point.
> ASRB is a recruitment body which carries out recruitment of scientists
> for ICAR. for the last five-six years, none of the non selected or the
> candidate not considered eligible has ever been intimated about the
> reasons for his/her non selection (violation of section 4(1)(d). No
> list of candidates rejected/non selected/not called for interview/non
> shortlisted has ever been published. one even does not come to know as
> to who was selected.
> The ASRB sends recommendations to ICAR. ICAR after getting
> recommendations studies the files and and then sends them back to
> ASRB.
> When I filed application with ASRB they did not disclose anything. in
> the meantime, i also filed application with ICAR asking for inspection
> of records of scientists selected. they were very liberal. so i
> carried out inspection of applications of about 25 people and found
> that atleast 5 of them were not eligible to even apply/not qualified
> to even get shortlisted.
> I then filed a complaint with the prime minister/agriculture
> minister/chairman ASRB highlighting all important facts. copy of the
> same is enclosed.
> PMO marked it to secretary to look into the matter who inturn sent it
> to ASRB for needful. Now i have come to know that ASRB has not done
> anything on this communication and sent a detailed (cooked up reply)
> explanation.
> Now what to do? I would like to get your feedback on this issue.
>
> On 3/3/12, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Sandeep
>
> > I shall confine myself only to her order.
>
> > 1) It is clear therefrom that YOU are a VEXATIOUS RTI BUSYBODY filing
> > RTI applications like a TAXICAB for hire. (At least that is what they
> > are going to say).
>
> > 2) YOU have invited SS's order onto yourself. Aa bail mujhe maar.
>
> > 3)  Your arguments for the P&H are stupid (and you have only a small
> > chance of winning - and that too only because the P^H HC is one of the
> > more liberal courts). You would be KICKED OUT in the SC.
>
> > 4) I completely agree with her that PERSONAL details of unsuccessful
> > candidates cannot be disclosed in RTI, even after the fact.
>
> > 5) ">what should one do when the FAA chooses not to give any decision
> > even after her orders ?"
> > Ans: File a 2nd appeal (for the FIRST TIME, because the first of her
> > orders were given in  "complaint" jurisdiction in routine).
>
> > Sarbajit

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

Ok, sir.
now let us come to actual point.
ASRB is a recruitment body which carries out recruitment of scientists
for ICAR. for the last five-six years, none of the non selected or the
candidate not considered eligible has ever been intimated about the
reasons for his/her non selection (violation of section 4(1)(d). No
list of candidates rejected/non selected/not called for interview/non
shortlisted has ever been published. one even does not come to know as
to who was selected.
The ASRB sends recommendations to ICAR. ICAR after getting
recommendations studies the files and and then sends them back to
ASRB.
When I filed application with ASRB they did not disclose anything. in
the meantime, i also filed application with ICAR asking for inspection
of records of scientists selected. they were very liberal. so i
carried out inspection of applications of about 25 people and found
that atleast 5 of them were not eligible to even apply/not qualified
to even get shortlisted.
I then filed a complaint with the prime minister/agriculture
minister/chairman ASRB highlighting all important facts. copy of the
same is enclosed.
PMO marked it to secretary to look into the matter who inturn sent it
to ASRB for needful. Now i have come to know that ASRB has not done
anything on this communication and sent a detailed (cooked up reply)
explanation.
Now what to do? I would like to get your feedback on this issue.


On 3/3/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sandeep
>
> I shall confine myself only to her order.
>
> 1) It is clear therefrom that YOU are a VEXATIOUS RTI BUSYBODY filing
> RTI applications like a TAXICAB for hire. (At least that is what they
> are going to say).
>
> 2) YOU have invited SS's order onto yourself. Aa bail mujhe maar.
>
> 3) Your arguments for the P&H are stupid (and you have only a small
> chance of winning - and that too only because the P^H HC is one of the
> more liberal courts). You would be KICKED OUT in the SC.
>
> 4) I completely agree with her that PERSONAL details of unsuccessful
> candidates cannot be disclosed in RTI, even after the fact.
>
> 5) ">what should one do when the FAA chooses not to give any decision
> even after her orders ?"
> Ans: File a 2nd appeal (for the FIRST TIME, because the first of her
> orders were given in "complaint" jurisdiction in routine).
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Mar 3, 9:15 pm, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> recently i had a hot discussion with her. she is not aware of rti
>> rules, regulations etc. she said to me that application forms of the
>> candidates for selection to public post contains personal information
>> and cannot be disclosed.
>> I asked that if this is personal then what is public. she said that i
>> should not advise her. i firmly believe that she is only making a
>> mockery of the rti act.
>> please go through the attached order. I am going to challenge this
>> order in the punjab and haryana high court. she talks of supreme court
>> orders but does not seem to know of the crux of the matter.
>> what should one do when she asks PIO to give an order in complaint
>> case and the PIO chooses not to reply to this order?
>> what should one do when the FAA chooses not to give any decision even
>> after her orders.
>>
>> On 3/3/12, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > For one moment forget the SC judgment and recall what we have been
>> > advising in the group.
>>
>> > No IC, not even IC(SS) can ignore genuine complaint cases, such as
>> > where PIOs have not been appointed, or where he refuses to accept RTI
>> > application.etc. I hope you are not saying that she is doing so
>> > because frankly I dont track CIC goings on and their orders anymore.
>>
>> > The problem is when PIO fails to reply, or he gives "misleading" /
>> > "partial" information etc. For years we had all those f***ing NGO
>> > "parasites" (actually I use another word) who advised RTI fools to use
>> > "complaint" (instead of appeal) because a) "It is quicker" b) "CIC has
>> > powers of court" c) "Complaint is not time barred unlike appeal (so
>> > all those 2 year old cases can be revived etc). ....
>>
>> > The recent SC judgment put a stop to all such nonsense, so the NGO
>> > HARAMIS (!!!) are now focused on some meaningless observations in SC
>> > judgments about how too much time is wasted in RTI, how the Govt will
>> > come to a standstill etc....
>>
>> > There is no need for SC to say that the only appeal for a poor or zero
>> > FA decision is a 2nd Appeal to CIC  -- BECAUSE THE RTI ACT SAYS SO AND
>> > LEAVES NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.
>>
>> > IC(SS) is a seasoned bureaucrat, she doesn't make such foolish
>> > mistakes. If I blindly had to chose between  supporting an order of
>> > hers versus the say of some disgruntled RTI activist, I would chose
>> > her order any day.
>>
>> > Sarbajit
>>
>> > On Mar 3, 3:16 pm, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> which judgement sir?
>> >> the SC judgement says that information cannot be ordered to be
>> >> supplied in complaint cases. but i am not saying that she should have
>> >> ordered supply of information. she was required to take action on
>> >> complaint (whatever rti act prescribes). there is no supreme court
>> >> order which says that appellant can be forced to file second appeal
>> >> again.
>>
>> >> On 3/3/12, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Dear Sandeep
>>
>> >> > When IC(SS) ... and all other ICs .. have a SC judgment allowing them
>> >> > to do what they are doing, what purpose will it solve to file a
>> >> > Petition to the President of India ?
>>
>> >> > Sarbajit
>>
>> >> > On Mar 3, 4:49 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> I wish to inform as to how pendency is cleared by SS. She has not
>> >> >> heard any complaint case. she asks all complainants to first use
>> >> >> option of first appeal. if there is disattisfaction with order of
>> >> >> FAA
>> >> >> file fresh second appeal.
>> >> >> in some cases, there is no response from FAA and the appellant
>> >> >> approaches CIC, then she asks the FAA to give decision. appellant is
>> >> >> asked to approach commission again after decision of FAA.
>> >> >> by this blatant violation of provisions of RTI act, these so called
>> >> >> highly talented ICs clear the pendency of the cases.
>> >> >> I am contemplating filing a petition to president of india to seek
>> >> >> removal of such commissioners.
>> >> >> please give your feedback/comments
>>
>> >> >> On 3/2/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Dear Nidhi (and group)
>>
>> >> >> > After my email post to the HJ list specifying that IC(AD) was #2
>> >> >> > defaulter,  the CIC has been stung into action. IC(AD)'s registry
>> >> >> > has
>> >> >> > published their pending cases on CIC's website. She claims to have
>> >> >> > only 220 Appeals and 150 Complaints pending (ie. about half of
>> >> >> > what
>> >> >> > .IC(SG)'s outstanding is).
>>
>> >> >> > So it is quite obvious that of the known pendency of the CIC (and
>> >> >> > which we must assume to be true), IC-SG is the worst offender in
>> >> >> > terms
>> >> >> > of pendency at around 850 cases, and even assuming that teh
>> >> >> > remaining
>> >> >> > 5 ICs had an average of 400 cases each (avg. of CIC + AD) then
>> >> >> > this
>> >> >> > works out to 2,000 cases which is almost exactly equal to the info
>> >> >> > given to me of "around 2,700" pending cases only.
>>
>> >> >> > Satyanand's Mishra's own figures damn him. WHY THEN DO WE NEED
>> >> >> > THESE
>> >> >> > 3
>> >> >> > EXTRA ICs ? Is it because of all those paid holidays they now get
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > study tours / junkets to New Zealand and Scandanavia where a
>> >> >> > certain
>> >> >> > MNC financed NGO is hosting them. ??
>>
>> >> >> > Sarbajit
>>
>> >> >> > Sarbajit
>>
>> >> >> > On 2/27/12, Nidhi Sharma <nidhi2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Dear Sarbajit
>>
>> >> >> >> I met Mr Satyanand Mishra last week. He stands by the 20,000+
>> >> >> >> figure.
>> >> >> >> He
>> >> >> >> says that is the real pendency with CIC. He has now asked all
>> >> >> >> registries
>> >> >> >> (ICs) to manually count every case pending with them and file a
>> >> >> >> return
>> >> >> >> by
>> >> >> >> the end of this week so that he can actually react to the media
>> >> >> >> reports.
>>
>> >> >> >> nidhi
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> 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
>>
>>  CIC_SS_A_2011_901804_M_77481[1].pdf
>> 318KViewDownload


--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
1778, Sector 14, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

[HumJanenge] Re: No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

Dear Sandeep

I shall confine myself only to her order.

1) It is clear therefrom that YOU are a VEXATIOUS RTI BUSYBODY filing
RTI applications like a TAXICAB for hire. (At least that is what they
are going to say).

2) YOU have invited SS's order onto yourself. Aa bail mujhe maar.

3) Your arguments for the P&H are stupid (and you have only a small
chance of winning - and that too only because the P^H HC is one of the
more liberal courts). You would be KICKED OUT in the SC.

4) I completely agree with her that PERSONAL details of unsuccessful
candidates cannot be disclosed in RTI, even after the fact.

5) ">what should one do when the FAA chooses not to give any decision
even after her orders ?"
Ans: File a 2nd appeal (for the FIRST TIME, because the first of her
orders were given in "complaint" jurisdiction in routine).

Sarbajit

On Mar 3, 9:15 pm, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> recently i had a hot discussion with her. she is not aware of rti
> rules, regulations etc. she said to me that application forms of the
> candidates for selection to public post contains personal information
> and cannot be disclosed.
> I asked that if this is personal then what is public. she said that i
> should not advise her. i firmly believe that she is only making a
> mockery of the rti act.
> please go through the attached order. I am going to challenge this
> order in the punjab and haryana high court. she talks of supreme court
> orders but does not seem to know of the crux of the matter.
> what should one do when she asks PIO to give an order in complaint
> case and the PIO chooses not to reply to this order?
> what should one do when the FAA chooses not to give any decision even
> after her orders.
>
> On 3/3/12, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > For one moment forget the SC judgment and recall what we have been
> > advising in the group.
>
> > No IC, not even IC(SS) can ignore genuine complaint cases, such as
> > where PIOs have not been appointed, or where he refuses to accept RTI
> > application.etc. I hope you are not saying that she is doing so
> > because frankly I dont track CIC goings on and their orders anymore.
>
> > The problem is when PIO fails to reply, or he gives "misleading" /
> > "partial" information etc. For years we had all those f***ing NGO
> > "parasites" (actually I use another word) who advised RTI fools to use
> > "complaint" (instead of appeal) because a) "It is quicker" b) "CIC has
> > powers of court" c) "Complaint is not time barred unlike appeal (so
> > all those 2 year old cases can be revived etc). ....
>
> > The recent SC judgment put a stop to all such nonsense, so the NGO
> > HARAMIS (!!!) are now focused on some meaningless observations in SC
> > judgments about how too much time is wasted in RTI, how the Govt will
> > come to a standstill etc....
>
> > There is no need for SC to say that the only appeal for a poor or zero
> > FA decision is a 2nd Appeal to CIC  -- BECAUSE THE RTI ACT SAYS SO AND
> > LEAVES NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.
>
> > IC(SS) is a seasoned bureaucrat, she doesn't make such foolish
> > mistakes. If I blindly had to chose between  supporting an order of
> > hers versus the say of some disgruntled RTI activist, I would chose
> > her order any day.
>
> > Sarbajit
>
> > On Mar 3, 3:16 pm, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> which judgement sir?
> >> the SC judgement says that information cannot be ordered to be
> >> supplied in complaint cases. but i am not saying that she should have
> >> ordered supply of information. she was required to take action on
> >> complaint (whatever rti act prescribes). there is no supreme court
> >> order which says that appellant can be forced to file second appeal
> >> again.
>
> >> On 3/3/12, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Dear Sandeep
>
> >> > When IC(SS) ... and all other ICs .. have a SC judgment allowing them
> >> > to do what they are doing, what purpose will it solve to file a
> >> > Petition to the President of India ?
>
> >> > Sarbajit
>
> >> > On Mar 3, 4:49 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> I wish to inform as to how pendency is cleared by SS. She has not
> >> >> heard any complaint case. she asks all complainants to first use
> >> >> option of first appeal. if there is disattisfaction with order of FAA
> >> >> file fresh second appeal.
> >> >> in some cases, there is no response from FAA and the appellant
> >> >> approaches CIC, then she asks the FAA to give decision. appellant is
> >> >> asked to approach commission again after decision of FAA.
> >> >> by this blatant violation of provisions of RTI act, these so called
> >> >> highly talented ICs clear the pendency of the cases.
> >> >> I am contemplating filing a petition to president of india to seek
> >> >> removal of such commissioners.
> >> >> please give your feedback/comments
>
> >> >> On 3/2/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Dear Nidhi (and group)
>
> >> >> > After my email post to the HJ list specifying that IC(AD) was #2
> >> >> > defaulter,  the CIC has been stung into action. IC(AD)'s registry has
> >> >> > published their pending cases on CIC's website. She claims to have
> >> >> > only 220 Appeals and 150 Complaints pending (ie. about half of what
> >> >> > .IC(SG)'s outstanding is).
>
> >> >> > So it is quite obvious that of the known pendency of the CIC (and
> >> >> > which we must assume to be true), IC-SG is the worst offender in
> >> >> > terms
> >> >> > of pendency at around 850 cases, and even assuming that teh remaining
> >> >> > 5 ICs had an average of 400 cases each (avg. of CIC + AD) then this
> >> >> > works out to 2,000 cases which is almost exactly equal to the info
> >> >> > given to me of "around 2,700" pending cases only.
>
> >> >> > Satyanand's Mishra's own figures damn him. WHY THEN DO WE NEED THESE
> >> >> > 3
> >> >> > EXTRA ICs ? Is it because of all those paid holidays they now get for
> >> >> > study tours / junkets to New Zealand and Scandanavia where a certain
> >> >> > MNC financed NGO is hosting them. ??
>
> >> >> > Sarbajit
>
> >> >> > Sarbajit
>
> >> >> > On 2/27/12, Nidhi Sharma <nidhi2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Dear Sarbajit
>
> >> >> >> I met Mr Satyanand Mishra last week. He stands by the 20,000+
> >> >> >> figure.
> >> >> >> He
> >> >> >> says that is the real pendency with CIC. He has now asked all
> >> >> >> registries
> >> >> >> (ICs) to manually count every case pending with them and file a
> >> >> >> return
> >> >> >> by
> >> >> >> the end of this week so that he can actually react to the media
> >> >> >> reports.
>
> >> >> >> nidhi
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> 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
>
>  CIC_SS_A_2011_901804_M_77481[1].pdf
> 318KViewDownload

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

recently i had a hot discussion with her. she is not aware of rti
rules, regulations etc. she said to me that application forms of the
candidates for selection to public post contains personal information
and cannot be disclosed.
I asked that if this is personal then what is public. she said that i
should not advise her. i firmly believe that she is only making a
mockery of the rti act.
please go through the attached order. I am going to challenge this
order in the punjab and haryana high court. she talks of supreme court
orders but does not seem to know of the crux of the matter.
what should one do when she asks PIO to give an order in complaint
case and the PIO chooses not to reply to this order?
what should one do when the FAA chooses not to give any decision even
after her orders.

On 3/3/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> For one moment forget the SC judgment and recall what we have been
> advising in the group.
>
> No IC, not even IC(SS) can ignore genuine complaint cases, such as
> where PIOs have not been appointed, or where he refuses to accept RTI
> application.etc. I hope you are not saying that she is doing so
> because frankly I dont track CIC goings on and their orders anymore.
>
> The problem is when PIO fails to reply, or he gives "misleading" /
> "partial" information etc. For years we had all those f***ing NGO
> "parasites" (actually I use another word) who advised RTI fools to use
> "complaint" (instead of appeal) because a) "It is quicker" b) "CIC has
> powers of court" c) "Complaint is not time barred unlike appeal (so
> all those 2 year old cases can be revived etc). ....
>
> The recent SC judgment put a stop to all such nonsense, so the NGO
> HARAMIS (!!!) are now focused on some meaningless observations in SC
> judgments about how too much time is wasted in RTI, how the Govt will
> come to a standstill etc....
>
> There is no need for SC to say that the only appeal for a poor or zero
> FA decision is a 2nd Appeal to CIC -- BECAUSE THE RTI ACT SAYS SO AND
> LEAVES NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.
>
> IC(SS) is a seasoned bureaucrat, she doesn't make such foolish
> mistakes. If I blindly had to chose between supporting an order of
> hers versus the say of some disgruntled RTI activist, I would chose
> her order any day.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On Mar 3, 3:16 pm, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> which judgement sir?
>> the SC judgement says that information cannot be ordered to be
>> supplied in complaint cases. but i am not saying that she should have
>> ordered supply of information. she was required to take action on
>> complaint (whatever rti act prescribes). there is no supreme court
>> order which says that appellant can be forced to file second appeal
>> again.
>>
>> On 3/3/12, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Dear Sandeep
>>
>> > When IC(SS) ... and all other ICs .. have a SC judgment allowing them
>> > to do what they are doing, what purpose will it solve to file a
>> > Petition to the President of India ?
>>
>> > Sarbajit
>>
>> > On Mar 3, 4:49 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I wish to inform as to how pendency is cleared by SS. She has not
>> >> heard any complaint case. she asks all complainants to first use
>> >> option of first appeal. if there is disattisfaction with order of FAA
>> >> file fresh second appeal.
>> >> in some cases, there is no response from FAA and the appellant
>> >> approaches CIC, then she asks the FAA to give decision. appellant is
>> >> asked to approach commission again after decision of FAA.
>> >> by this blatant violation of provisions of RTI act, these so called
>> >> highly talented ICs clear the pendency of the cases.
>> >> I am contemplating filing a petition to president of india to seek
>> >> removal of such commissioners.
>> >> please give your feedback/comments
>>
>> >> On 3/2/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Dear Nidhi (and group)
>>
>> >> > After my email post to the HJ list specifying that IC(AD) was #2
>> >> > defaulter, the CIC has been stung into action. IC(AD)'s registry has
>> >> > published their pending cases on CIC's website. She claims to have
>> >> > only 220 Appeals and 150 Complaints pending (ie. about half of what
>> >> > .IC(SG)'s outstanding is).
>>
>> >> > So it is quite obvious that of the known pendency of the CIC (and
>> >> > which we must assume to be true), IC-SG is the worst offender in
>> >> > terms
>> >> > of pendency at around 850 cases, and even assuming that teh remaining
>> >> > 5 ICs had an average of 400 cases each (avg. of CIC + AD) then this
>> >> > works out to 2,000 cases which is almost exactly equal to the info
>> >> > given to me of "around 2,700" pending cases only.
>>
>> >> > Satyanand's Mishra's own figures damn him. WHY THEN DO WE NEED THESE
>> >> > 3
>> >> > EXTRA ICs ? Is it because of all those paid holidays they now get for
>> >> > study tours / junkets to New Zealand and Scandanavia where a certain
>> >> > MNC financed NGO is hosting them. ??
>>
>> >> > Sarbajit
>>
>> >> > Sarbajit
>>
>> >> > On 2/27/12, Nidhi Sharma <nidhi2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Dear Sarbajit
>>
>> >> >> I met Mr Satyanand Mishra last week. He stands by the 20,000+
>> >> >> figure.
>> >> >> He
>> >> >> says that is the real pendency with CIC. He has now asked all
>> >> >> registries
>> >> >> (ICs) to manually count every case pending with them and file a
>> >> >> return
>> >> >> by
>> >> >> the end of this week so that he can actually react to the media
>> >> >> reports.
>>
>> >> >> nidhi
>>
>> >> --
>> >> 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

[HumJanenge] LEARN HOW RTI ACTIVISTS NAILED KRIPYASHANKAR SINGH

LESSON:-  UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL
HOW TO  NAIL  BIG SHARKS:-
 

The man behind Kripashankar Singh's fall

ABSTRACTS OF Sanjay Thirwari

 

We felt that the since Kripashankar Singh is a Congressman and both the state and Centre are being run by Congress governments, the case would never see the light of day.

Can you please tell us how you went about filing so many RTIs?
If one person files so many RTI queries, the authorities are bound to doubt the intention of the applicant. So very smartly, we decided to share various government offices amongst me and some of my friends, who have been with me since 2005.
So while one friend filed a RTI in the school in Jaunpur (Uttar Pradesh) from where Kripashankar claims to have cleared his HSC (higher secondary certificate) from, one of us filed an RTI in the income tax department; another filed an RTI in the Mantralaya (the Maharashtra state secretariat).
When one of us filed an RTI in the collector's office, we found that some crucial papers regarding his property are missing! So on and so forth...that is how we were able to compile the data.
Who are these friends? Can you name them?:) happy
I do not think is it right to name them. Suffice to say they are friends who have been with me for a long time and are interested in social work just like me.
While we did not face any major hiccups, it was not that easy. The whole process was backed by some serious follow-ups.
It appeared that the system was trying to protect and cover Kripashankar's lies rather than being candid about it in the RTI replies.
Despite writing clearly and to the point, the officers would give half-baked replies or an incomplete set of papers. So there was a lot of follow-up that has gone into this.
For instance, we have still not got any reply on the number of chartered flights he has taken and the expenses incurred.
 
 
 

[rti4empowerment] LEARN HOW RTI ACTIVISTS NAILED KRIPYASHANKAR SINGH

LESSON:-  UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL
HOW TO  NAIL  BIG SHARKS:-
 

The man behind Kripashankar Singh's fall

ABSTRACTS OF Sanjay Thirwari

 

We felt that the since Kripashankar Singh is a Congressman and both the state and Centre are being run by Congress governments, the case would never see the light of day.

Can you please tell us how you went about filing so many RTIs?
If one person files so many RTI queries, the authorities are bound to doubt the intention of the applicant. So very smartly, we decided to share various government offices amongst me and some of my friends, who have been with me since 2005.
So while one friend filed a RTI in the school in Jaunpur (Uttar Pradesh) from where Kripashankar claims to have cleared his HSC (higher secondary certificate) from, one of us filed an RTI in the income tax department; another filed an RTI in the Mantralaya (the Maharashtra state secretariat).
When one of us filed an RTI in the collector's office, we found that some crucial papers regarding his property are missing! So on and so forth...that is how we were able to compile the data.
Who are these friends? Can you name them?:) happy
I do not think is it right to name them. Suffice to say they are friends who have been with me for a long time and are interested in social work just like me.
While we did not face any major hiccups, it was not that easy. The whole process was backed by some serious follow-ups.
It appeared that the system was trying to protect and cover Kripashankar's lies rather than being candid about it in the RTI replies.
Despite writing clearly and to the point, the officers would give half-baked replies or an incomplete set of papers. So there was a lot of follow-up that has gone into this.
For instance, we have still not got any reply on the number of chartered flights he has taken and the expenses incurred.
 
 
 

[HumJanenge] Re: No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

For one moment forget the SC judgment and recall what we have been
advising in the group.

No IC, not even IC(SS) can ignore genuine complaint cases, such as
where PIOs have not been appointed, or where he refuses to accept RTI
application.etc. I hope you are not saying that she is doing so
because frankly I dont track CIC goings on and their orders anymore.

The problem is when PIO fails to reply, or he gives "misleading" /
"partial" information etc. For years we had all those f***ing NGO
"parasites" (actually I use another word) who advised RTI fools to use
"complaint" (instead of appeal) because a) "It is quicker" b) "CIC has
powers of court" c) "Complaint is not time barred unlike appeal (so
all those 2 year old cases can be revived etc). ....

The recent SC judgment put a stop to all such nonsense, so the NGO
HARAMIS (!!!) are now focused on some meaningless observations in SC
judgments about how too much time is wasted in RTI, how the Govt will
come to a standstill etc....

There is no need for SC to say that the only appeal for a poor or zero
FA decision is a 2nd Appeal to CIC -- BECAUSE THE RTI ACT SAYS SO AND
LEAVES NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.

IC(SS) is a seasoned bureaucrat, she doesn't make such foolish
mistakes. If I blindly had to chose between supporting an order of
hers versus the say of some disgruntled RTI activist, I would chose
her order any day.

Sarbajit

On Mar 3, 3:16 pm, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> which judgement sir?
> the SC judgement says that information cannot be ordered to be
> supplied in complaint cases. but i am not saying that she should have
> ordered supply of information. she was required to take action on
> complaint (whatever rti act prescribes). there is no supreme court
> order which says that appellant can be forced to file second appeal
> again.
>
> On 3/3/12, sarbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Dear Sandeep
>
> > When IC(SS) ... and all other ICs .. have a SC judgment allowing them
> > to do what they are doing, what purpose will it solve to file a
> > Petition to the President of India ?
>
> > Sarbajit
>
> > On Mar 3, 4:49 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I wish to inform as to how pendency is cleared by SS. She has not
> >> heard any complaint case. she asks all complainants to first use
> >> option of first appeal. if there is disattisfaction with order of FAA
> >> file fresh second appeal.
> >> in some cases, there is no response from FAA and the appellant
> >> approaches CIC, then she asks the FAA to give decision. appellant is
> >> asked to approach commission again after decision of FAA.
> >> by this blatant violation of provisions of RTI act, these so called
> >> highly talented ICs clear the pendency of the cases.
> >> I am contemplating filing a petition to president of india to seek
> >> removal of such commissioners.
> >> please give your feedback/comments
>
> >> On 3/2/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Dear Nidhi (and group)
>
> >> > After my email post to the HJ list specifying that IC(AD) was #2
> >> > defaulter,  the CIC has been stung into action. IC(AD)'s registry has
> >> > published their pending cases on CIC's website. She claims to have
> >> > only 220 Appeals and 150 Complaints pending (ie. about half of what
> >> > .IC(SG)'s outstanding is).
>
> >> > So it is quite obvious that of the known pendency of the CIC (and
> >> > which we must assume to be true), IC-SG is the worst offender in terms
> >> > of pendency at around 850 cases, and even assuming that teh remaining
> >> > 5 ICs had an average of 400 cases each (avg. of CIC + AD) then this
> >> > works out to 2,000 cases which is almost exactly equal to the info
> >> > given to me of "around 2,700" pending cases only.
>
> >> > Satyanand's Mishra's own figures damn him. WHY THEN DO WE NEED THESE 3
> >> > EXTRA ICs ? Is it because of all those paid holidays they now get for
> >> > study tours / junkets to New Zealand and Scandanavia where a certain
> >> > MNC financed NGO is hosting them. ??
>
> >> > Sarbajit
>
> >> > Sarbajit
>
> >> > On 2/27/12, Nidhi Sharma <nidhi2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Dear Sarbajit
>
> >> >> I met Mr Satyanand Mishra last week. He stands by the 20,000+ figure.
> >> >> He
> >> >> says that is the real pendency with CIC. He has now asked all
> >> >> registries
> >> >> (ICs) to manually count every case pending with them and file a return
> >> >> by
> >> >> the end of this week so that he can actually react to the media
> >> >> reports.
>
> >> >> nidhi
>
> >> --
> >> 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

Re: [HumJanenge] Former IB chief among 3 new Information Commissioners at CIC


 
They dont want any of us anywhere near, qualified or not.

Lt Gen SK Bahri (Retd)

From: deodutta rajwade <rajwade49er@yahoo.com>
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>; "WeGunners@yahoogroups.com" <WeGunners@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 2 March 2012 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Former IB chief among 3 new Information Commissioners at CIC

Are outstanding defence service officers qualified for SUCH posts?

From: Vijendra Singh <vijendra5558@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Cc: Karnataka Intiative RTI <thekirti@yahoogroups.com>; RTI Group <KRTIF@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 8:19 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Former IB chief among 3 new Information Commissioners at CIC

Selection comittee did not perform its duties honestly at all. they were dutiful to see that  the govt deptts under the  3 selected govt officers/ I.Cs  never denied  the asked rti information  contrary to rti spirit.
If their ministry / deptt /institution  ever denied the information to rti applicants disrespecting the RTI spirit ; those highest officers  are also responsible for the misdeeds of info refusals  absurdly by their junior officers. So such irresponsible officers must never be selected for pious post of the Info Commissioners.
I am quite sure that the dishonest leaders' committee of manmohansingh, chidambaram, sushmaswaraj  never put this test on the candidates; and they absurdly ,illegally , immorally selected the wrongdoers.
I know well ; and whole the world know well that the  officers of  the  3 deptts  under the 3 selected officers/ IC candidates   refused  several times  to provide the bonafide , discloseable  information  to the RTI seekers absurdly killing the RTI laws and spirit.
Therefore the selection committee has committed sin/ crime knowingly , and conspiringly so that the information can be absurdly, forcibly denied to the rti seekers.
so they have snatched the  FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO SPEECH from the citizens.  Sushmaswaraj has  done more wrong because she was not known as dishonest. But now it is evident that not even a single leader in this country is honest.
God save my India.
vijendra singh ,meerut

On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
 A similar Article But offcourse High lighting Mr Seth Being From Bangalore (or is Residing ?) is Appearing in Todays Deccan Herald.
 Since I Come across Several RTI requests being turned down by PIOs in Banks Mostly on Very Silly issues or Requests which never fall under the Fiduciary Capacity Shelter Clause , It would be a Good Proposition to Keenly Observe this Person if Appointed .
I also Understand by Documents Supplied by CIC itself that IBA which is just an Association has issued letters of caution/instructions to CEO's of all Public Sector Banks of What information should be Parted or not. This Association is not a Public authority
Mr Seth was One of the Managing committee member at that time .
For Breveity i cite one Sample refusal under Fiduciary clause being " the Inward register of RTI Appln's  includes the details of the applications which were submitted by other parties to the CPIO under the act (meaning RTI act)  as this information relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or disclosure of such information would cause unwarrented invasion of the privacy of any individiual  as such information sought cannot be provided
Freinds can offer thier Comments
N vikramsimha , KRIA Koota , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004.


--- On Sat, 25/2/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Former IB chief among 3 new Information Commissioners at CIC
> To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Saturday, 25 February, 2012, 10:43 PM
> http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/former-ib-chief-among-3-new-information-commissioners-at-cic/articleshow/12034174.cms
>
> NEW DELHI: The government has shortlisted a former chief of
> Intelligence Bureau, a banker and a former bureaucrat as
> three new
> Information Commissioners at the transparency panel CIC.
>
> Former IB Chief Rajiv Mathur, former Environment Secretary
> Vijai
> Sharma and Syndicate Bank Chairman and Managing Director
> Basant Seth
> have been shortlisted as new faces at the Central
> Information
> Commission which is overburdened with over 20,000 pending
> appeals
> under the Right to Information Act, official sources said.
>
> A panel headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh which
> included Law
> Minister Salman Khurshid and Leader of Opposition Sushma
> Swaraj
> shortlisted the names of these people recently, they said.
>
> According to the RTI Act, the complete strength of the
> transparency
> panel is a Chief Information Commissioner and 10 Central
> Information
> Commissioners. As of now there are just five Information
> Commissioners
> leaving a shortage of five.
>
> A formal announcement on the appointment would be made
> shortly, they
> said.
>
> Mathur, a 1972 batch IPS officer of Uttar Pradesh cadre, has
> served IB
> for nearly three decades including 15 years in Washington.
> He took
> over the reigns of the agency in January 2009, before
> retiring on
> December 31, 2010.
>
> Sharma, a 1974 batch IAS officer, from Uttar Pradesh cadre,
> was
> secretary in Union Environment Ministry before his
> superannuation in
> December 2010.
>
> He held number of positions in the state including State
> Housing
> Secretary, State Environment Secretary and Chairman of State
> Pollution
> Control Board among others.
>
> Seth who is the CMD of Syndicate Bank, Bangalore has held
> senior
> positions in Small Industries Development Bank and Bank of
> India.
>



--
Vijendra Singh
E-19, Janakpuri,
Ajanta Colony, garh road,
Meerut-250004
UP




Re: [HumJanenge] Re: No delay at CIC. 45 days to hearing/disposal.

which judgement sir?
the SC judgement says that information cannot be ordered to be
supplied in complaint cases. but i am not saying that she should have
ordered supply of information. she was required to take action on
complaint (whatever rti act prescribes). there is no supreme court
order which says that appellant can be forced to file second appeal
again.


On 3/3/12, sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sandeep
>
> When IC(SS) ... and all other ICs .. have a SC judgment allowing them
> to do what they are doing, what purpose will it solve to file a
> Petition to the President of India ?
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
> On Mar 3, 4:49 am, Sandeep gupta <drsandgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wish to inform as to how pendency is cleared by SS. She has not
>> heard any complaint case. she asks all complainants to first use
>> option of first appeal. if there is disattisfaction with order of FAA
>> file fresh second appeal.
>> in some cases, there is no response from FAA and the appellant
>> approaches CIC, then she asks the FAA to give decision. appellant is
>> asked to approach commission again after decision of FAA.
>> by this blatant violation of provisions of RTI act, these so called
>> highly talented ICs clear the pendency of the cases.
>> I am contemplating filing a petition to president of india to seek
>> removal of such commissioners.
>> please give your feedback/comments
>>
>> On 3/2/12, Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Dear Nidhi (and group)
>>
>> > After my email post to the HJ list specifying that IC(AD) was #2
>> > defaulter, the CIC has been stung into action. IC(AD)'s registry has
>> > published their pending cases on CIC's website. She claims to have
>> > only 220 Appeals and 150 Complaints pending (ie. about half of what
>> > .IC(SG)'s outstanding is).
>>
>> > So it is quite obvious that of the known pendency of the CIC (and
>> > which we must assume to be true), IC-SG is the worst offender in terms
>> > of pendency at around 850 cases, and even assuming that teh remaining
>> > 5 ICs had an average of 400 cases each (avg. of CIC + AD) then this
>> > works out to 2,000 cases which is almost exactly equal to the info
>> > given to me of "around 2,700" pending cases only.
>>
>> > Satyanand's Mishra's own figures damn him. WHY THEN DO WE NEED THESE 3
>> > EXTRA ICs ? Is it because of all those paid holidays they now get for
>> > study tours / junkets to New Zealand and Scandanavia where a certain
>> > MNC financed NGO is hosting them. ??
>>
>> > Sarbajit
>>
>> > Sarbajit
>>
>> > On 2/27/12, Nidhi Sharma <nidhi2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Dear Sarbajit
>>
>> >> I met Mr Satyanand Mishra last week. He stands by the 20,000+ figure.
>> >> He
>> >> says that is the real pendency with CIC. He has now asked all
>> >> registries
>> >> (ICs) to manually count every case pending with them and file a return
>> >> by
>> >> the end of this week so that he can actually react to the media
>> >> reports.
>>
>> >> nidhi
>>
>> --
>> 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