Yes, Mr Sarabjit. The order looks fair but I was about to post the scanned images of the copy I had received. No, there is NO differences from the soft copy on the Net. So I am spared that trouble. Anyhow, here is the complaint I had sent to ANT:
Mr Commissioner
1. I am in receipt of the orders in F No CIC/AT/A/2010/000683 and SBI, RBO, Palakkad letter No RBO/Pkd/16-98/3867 dated 10/12/0 posted only on 11/12/10 and delviered on 13/12/10.
2. The following omssions have been noted in your order:
2.1. There were two respondents- the PIO and the FAA and both were present. PIO was present at Palakkad and FAA was present at Thiruvananthapuram. The fact that FAA was present has been omitted.
2.2. The FAA was presnt along with his legal advisor and it was the legal advisor who did all the talking. This is also a fact that has not been brought on record. This is important since the Act provides for the FAA to consider the issues raised in the first appeal and respond and as such ONLY he/she is competant to respond to issues raised at the hearing also. The legal advisor has no role or limited role while processing the 1st appeal and absolutely NO role during the hearing on the 2nd appeal.
3. I also take this opportunity to highlight the fact that another 2nd appeal, involving the same public authority, had been submitted along with the 2nd appeal that was taken up for hearing on 22/11/10. Nothing has been heard of the other 2nd appeal. It needs no reiteration that it would have been good for all if both the 2nd appeals had been taken together. You are requested to investigate the status of the other appeal and take necessary action to dispose it without further delay.
4. You are also requested to take cognisance of the delay in typing the order and posting it (order of 22/11/10, typed on 8/12/10, posted on 15/12/10!)
5. The letter from the PIO is also incomplete as it has just mentioned, in response to information sought at para 1.3 of my application, that the total number of defence pensioners drawing pension from our centralised pension processing centre is 27612 (retired prior to 1/1/06) and all of them are paid the pension as per the new rates. The issue at para 1.2 has not been addressed either by the PIO or the FAA. The three weeks mentioned in the order is over on 12/12/10, reckoning the order being delivered on the day of hearing, that is 22/11/10.
Yours truly
P M Ravindran
1. I am in receipt of the orders in F No CIC/AT/A/2010/000683 and SBI, RBO, Palakkad letter No RBO/Pkd/16-98/3867 dated 10/12/0 posted only on 11/12/10 and delviered on 13/12/10.
2. The following omssions have been noted in your order:
2.1. There were two respondents- the PIO and the FAA and both were present. PIO was present at Palakkad and FAA was present at Thiruvananthapuram. The fact that FAA was present has been omitted.
2.2. The FAA was presnt along with his legal advisor and it was the legal advisor who did all the talking. This is also a fact that has not been brought on record. This is important since the Act provides for the FAA to consider the issues raised in the first appeal and respond and as such ONLY he/she is competant to respond to issues raised at the hearing also. The legal advisor has no role or limited role while processing the 1st appeal and absolutely NO role during the hearing on the 2nd appeal.
3. I also take this opportunity to highlight the fact that another 2nd appeal, involving the same public authority, had been submitted along with the 2nd appeal that was taken up for hearing on 22/11/10. Nothing has been heard of the other 2nd appeal. It needs no reiteration that it would have been good for all if both the 2nd appeals had been taken together. You are requested to investigate the status of the other appeal and take necessary action to dispose it without further delay.
4. You are also requested to take cognisance of the delay in typing the order and posting it (order of 22/11/10, typed on 8/12/10, posted on 15/12/10!)
5. The letter from the PIO is also incomplete as it has just mentioned, in response to information sought at para 1.3 of my application, that the total number of defence pensioners drawing pension from our centralised pension processing centre is 27612 (retired prior to 1/1/06) and all of them are paid the pension as per the new rates. The issue at para 1.2 has not been addressed either by the PIO or the FAA. The three weeks mentioned in the order is over on 12/12/10, reckoning the order being delivered on the day of hearing, that is 22/11/10.
Yours truly
P M Ravindran
Further, I have not mentioned a couple of issues in the complaint as copies of the same complaint have been endorsed to the public authorites also. But that I shall disclose only later. But more importantly, inspite of having given the order in my favour, he has failed to apply Sec 20 and has NOT imposed the mandatory penalties. This is a crime under Sec 219 of the IPC.
regards n bw
ravi
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Ravi
I think you are confusing ANT with IC(MM.Ansari).
> Incidently, if I remember correct, it was Tiwari who has been going around,
> travelling and staying at IOC's expense, giving lectures to IOC officials
> how to 'handle' rti applications.
At the time (2004), RTI Act was not in place, and neither was ANT
>How naive of you! If writing an article or platform speeches were any
>criteria for inherant goodness
("author is a former bureaucrat")
http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_AT_A_2010_000683_M_47495.pdf
What is the specific problem you have with this order ? Ex-facie it
seems that ANT has ruled in your favour on both (?) counts.
Sarbajit
(PS: replying to posts like this don't count in your tally)
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Ravindran P M <pmravindran@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Sarabjit
>
> How naive of you! If writing an article or platform speeches were any
> criteria for inherant goodness then can you criticie any politician ever. it
> is not what people say or write but what they do that counts. I have read
> many reports of the then CIC, kerala harpijg on teh goodness/greatness of
> RTI but I have petitioned personally and collectively to the Gov to remove
> him for his treason. I had also peitioned the Prez to remove wajahat after I
> had received his first order in one of my appeals.
>
> Regarding Tiwari, I have just participated in a hearing through video
> conference and I know that he is also a fraud.
> Incidently there were two appeals against SBI that I had submitted on the
> same day (7/7/2010) but I do not know how Tiwari had taken up only one for
> hearing on 22/11/2010.
>
> Incidently, if I remember correct, it was Tiwari who has been going around,
> travelling and staying at IOC's expense, giving lectures to IOC officials
> how to 'handle' rti applications.
>
> regards n bw
>
> ravi
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Ravi
>>
>> I think you are badly misinformed. Mr. Tiwari should be placed very
>> high on the list of heroes of RTI. It is Mr. Wajahat Habibullah who
>> should head the list of RTI "traitors" with Mr. Shailesh Gandhi coming
>> a very close second.
>>
>> For your information I am attaching an article of Mr Tiwari published
>> in 2004. Please read it.
>>
>> I concede that Mr Tiwari was not very popular among RTI activists.
>> This is because honest, forthright and upright people are not very
>> well like by the weaklings, fools and corrupt. There was a systematic
>> campaign against Mr Tiwari organised by NGOs like the NCPRI who had
>> the free run of Mr Habibullah's office for their misuse.
>>
>> After Mr Tiwari's brief innings as CIC, I am happy top observe that
>> the perception of him has changed. He has played a crucial role as
>> night watchman, and it is hoped that IC-SM carries on in setting RTI's
>> houses in order.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Ravindran P M <pmravindran@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > A N Tiwariji? He is the first on the list of the traitors! The rti act
>> > has
>> > been put on ventilator by the info commissioners and judges.
>> >
>> > regards n bw
>> >
>> > ravi
>> >
>> > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 6:43 PM, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> To all members
>> >>
>> >> I am grateful to this group's owner "PMK" for taking swift action
>> >> against disruptive members. I hope he continues without need for
>> >> further reminders / complaints.
>> >>
>> >> The need of the hour is unity among active concerned citizens.
>> >> Constantly focusing on personality based issues cannot lead to
>> >> anything meaningful or constructive. At the same time it is also
>> >> necessary to send a powerful message that people of India are not
>> >> fools and wont tolerate inefficiency, corruption and deceit by public
>> >> servants.
>> >>
>> >> We must strictly focus on the root causes of the problems that ail RTI
>> >> movement..Let me list the one I see as the biggest problem, (members
>> >> are urged to contribute their own to this list).
>> >>
>> >> 1) The prime problem is that RTI movement is riddled with Mir Jafars
>> >> (or traitors to RTI cause). These quislings who masquerade as
>> >> saints/leaders of RTI are exclusively former govt servants with dodgy
>> >> records/facing corruption charges who resigned or were forced out of
>> >> service. The list of these people is so long, and their command of
>> >> English language and misuse of RTI groups and media so good, that CIC
>> >> A.N.Tiwariji identified this group of 'haramis' as the biggest threat
>> >> to the RTI movement.
>> >>
>> >> Sarbajit
>> >
>> >
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.