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
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.