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

As I have myself repeatedly said in my previous emails on this
subject, the 5120 figure for Dec 2011 is completely bogus, and is an
"accounting fiction" to adjust about 3,000 cases where orders have
been passed and sent to appellants long back, but not published /
reflected in CIC's earlier disposals.

The actual receipts of IC(AD) that month would be about 10-12% of teh
CIC's workload considering that IC(SG) will now require about 3
"normal" babus to replace him.

Sarbajit

On 3/4/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
> Please see: http://www.cic.gov.in/Reports/MPR-Dec11.htm
>
> 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:
> http://www.cic.gov.in/PendencyList/Pending-AD-A-Feb2012.pdf
> and
> http://www.cic.gov.in/PendencyList/Pending-AD-C-Feb2012.pdf
>
>
> 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:
> http://www.cic.gov.in/PendencyList/Pending-SM-AandC-Jan2012.pdf
>
> As of end of Jan 2012, 5 cases shown pending against my name.
> Now see:
> http://www.cic.gov.in/PendencyList/Pending-SM-AandC-Feb2012.pdf
> 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:
> http://www.cic.gov.in/PendencyList/Pending-SM-AandC-Jan2012.pdf
> As of end of Jan 2012, 2091 cases pending in Registry of CIC(SM).
> Now see:
> http://www.cic.gov.in/PendencyList/Pending-SM-AandC-Feb2012.pdf
> 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 !
> See: http://www.rti.india.gov.in/result_decision_categorywise1.php
> 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