If we want qualititive decisions, ICs should devote time to know the facts of the cases. Decisions cannot be given in a casual manner to clear the pendency.
Mr. Prabhu, please spell reason of your opposition to increase the number of ICs to the limit given in RTIA.
I m really surprise to see such reaction to a serious matter by a 'devoted' RTI activit.
Others r also requested to inform their opinion on the issue. How the pendency can be cleared.
One other way is to impose more penalies, If penalty is imposed on one PIO, thne write message shall go to al least 10 other PIO/Public Authorities resulting lesser appeals and complaints.
Those who disagree with me, are most welcome to write with reasons.
From: raja bunch <bunch_raja@yahoo.co.in>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 18 December, 2010 8:19:59 PM
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] PENDENCY AT CIC
| Bhaskar,vacancies must be filled.Let the cases be disbursed as fast as possible.Justice delayed it justice denied.Other states should also fill. Rgds Bunch
--- On Sat, 18/12/10, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] PENDENCY AT CIC
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Date: Saturday, 18 December, 2010, 10:43 AM
Dear All, There is no necessary to increase Informatuion Ciommissioners but let them increse disposals, which is possible. Yours in RTI service Bhaskar
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 7:13 PM, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, RTI activist has received the following information from the CIC on the pendency of cases in reply to his RTI application. Figures mentioned herein speak for themselves about the dire need to increase the strength of Information Commissioners at CIC. STATUS OF PENDING CASES AT CIC | S. No. 1 | Information Commissioner (Shri/Ms) 2 | 6 months to one year 3 | Over 12 months 4 | Total (column 3 & 4) 5 | Up to 3 months 6 | 3-6 months 7 | Grand Total 8 | | 1. | A. N. Tiwari | 90 | 27 | 117 | 790 | 295 | 1202 | | 2. | Shailesh Gandhi | 0 | 03 | 03 | 738 | 49 | 787 (Col 6&7) | | 3. | Annapurna Dixit | 02 | 02 | 04 | 1000 | 38 | 1040(Col. 4,6,7) | | 4. | Dr. M A Ansari | 0 | 5 | 05 | 443 | 44 | 487 (Col. 6&7) | | 5. | M L Sharma | 0 | 6 | 06 | 1314 | 3134 | 4448 (col. 6&7) | | 6. | Satyanand Mishra | 234 | 07 | 341 | 536 | 341 | 1111 (col 3, 5&6) | | 7. | Sushma Singh | 23 | 23 | 46 | 595 | 84 | 702 (col (3,5&6) | | 8. | Deepak Sandhu | 230 | 09 | 239 | 1200 | 450 | 1880 (col.3,5&6) | | 9. | Wajahat Habibullah | 327 | 270 | 597 | 879 | 535 | 2011 Total pendencyi against col. 3,4,6&7) | | 10. | Total | | | | | | 13,668 | 1. Total pending cases – 13,668 2. Vacancies of ICs 04 – One more shall occur after the retirement of Shri A N Tiwari. 3. Cases pending less than 3 months - 54.84% 6 months - 91.20% 3-6 months - 36.36% Over 6 months- - 8.80% 6-12 months - 6.61% - Over 12 months - 2.19% Notes- 1. Cases of Shri Wajahat Habibullah are yet to be distributed. 2. Cases of Dr. M A Ansari have been transferred to others ICs. 3. Cases of Shri A. N. Tiwari will be transferred to others after his retirement. (Though utmost care has been exercised in putting the figures, the author is not responsible for any inadvertent mistakes and the figures supplied by the CIC to Mr. Rakesh Gupta shall be treated as final. Totals have been given in the same format as has been informed by Mr. Rakesh Gupta)
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.