Re: [HumJanenge] Re: IC Sushma Singh and her strange orders...

I appreciate the action of the appellant/ complainant against the KIC. Such action will check the autocratic working of ..........

From: Vikram Simha <vikramsimha54@yahoo.co.in>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 19 May 2012 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: IC Sushma Singh and her strange orders...

One such Case of remanding Made by KIC Scic Mr AKM Nayak has Been Challenged in Karnataka high court . The Appeal has been admitted But is yet to be listed because of Summer Holidys to the Courts N vikramsimha , KRIA Katte , #12 Sumeru Sir M N Krishna Rao Road , Basvangudi < Bangalore 560004. --- On Thu, 17/5/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote: From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: IC Sushma Singh and her strange orders... To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com> Date: Thursday, 17 May, 2012, 9:28 AM Mr Sarbajit, Under which clause of the RTI Act does the IC have the power to remand back to the FAA, even after the FAA has passed an order ? She is just delegating her powers (read "passing the buck") - which is in direct contravention of the Delhi HC order in your own case (DDA matter).  Instead of complimenting her, you should be filing a contempt of court petition. RTIwanted From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:11 AM Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: IC Sushma Singh and her strange orders... Dear KariraIn both the examples you have cited, IC(SS) demonstrates how as a"seasoned bureaucrat" she is PRO-CITIZEN to ensure that applicant getsEITHER his information (EVENTUALLY) or a "reasoned DEPARTMENTAL orderwhich can be adjudicated on in appeal (either again before the CIC ..recall that Archana Pande case .. or in the High Court).This is a good strategy on her part to ensure that  FAAs cannot getaway with passing vague orders. She deserves to be complimented forthis.SarbajitOn May 15, 11:14 am, C K Jam <rtiwan...@yahoo.com> wrote:> IC Sushma Singh is known for her copy/paste orders (in spite of Mr Sarbajit claiming that she is a seasoned bureaucrat)> seems to be now going overboard in her zeal to dispose matters before her and reduce pendency ! Looks as if disposal is the other word fro remanding back:>> (Asking FAA to decide on Penalty)>> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2011_001982_T_8214...>> 4. Having considered the submissions of the CPIO and the appellant, the> Commission observes that there is a delay of 42 days in providing of requisite> records to the appellant. The documents requested on 9.6.2011 after inspection,> were provided only on 22.7.2011.  The FAA, CESTAT is hereby directed to> consider the submissions of Shri Mohinder Singh, CPIO and identify the person> responsible for the delay and recover the penalty amount from him. If both are> responsible, the penalty should be recovered on pro-rata basis from both Shri> Mohinder Singh, CPIO and Shri Pramod Kumar, Deemed CPIO.>> 5. Penalty of Rs. 10,500/- (Rupees ten thousand five hundred only) for the> delay of 42 days @ Rs. 250/- per day is imposed u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005,> which shall be recovered in 5 monthly instalments of Rs. 2,100/- (Rupees two> thousand one hundred only) either from both Shri Mohinder Singh, CPIO and> Shri Pramod Kumar, deemed CPIO on pro-rata basis or from any one of them,> identified responsible for the delay, by the FAA, from their pay and allowances> from the month starting June, 2012 to October, 2012.>> ===================>> (Remanding back even when FAA has passed an order)>> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SS_A_2012_000243_M_8265...>> 4. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, it is the contention of> the appellant thateven after passing of the order by the FAA dated 5.7.2011,> directing the CPIO to provide the information sought by the appellant in respect> of Point 3(b)(iii), 3(b)(iv), 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vi), complete and correct information> has not been provided to him by the CPIO in his letter dated 12.8.2011. The> CPIO on the other hand submits that he had complied with the directions of the> FAA.> 5. In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by the appellant with the replies> provided to him by the CPIO, the matter is remitted back to the FAAwith the> direction to provide information by passing a speaking order in respect of Point> 3(b)(iii), 3(b)(iv), 3(b)(v) and 3(b)(vi), by treating the second appeal filed before> the Commission as first appeal, within three weeks of receipt of this order.>> Can someone clarify whether she is "Information Commissioner" or "Remanding Commissioner" ?>> RTIwanted