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.mb@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
