[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