[HumJanenge] Re: Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records IC(SG)

           Dear Sarabjit,

           Although i had decided not to join issues with you, but I could'nt resist this one...

           While you have leveled charges against Mr. Gandhi, I wonder if you have any evidence. As far as I know

           (a) Private interns employed by Mr. Gandhi are law students. It is a practise adopted in almost all courts including High Courts and I think in SC also.

           (b) You claim these students taking home scanned files, I wonder why? What would they do with those files? Can the sarkari babus also not takes the files home? Most staff  at CIC is contract staff you must remember!!! Can they also not do it rather they must be doing it?

          (c)  I have attended a few hearings before SG and I could observe that his orders have RTI petitions/Response of CPIO/ AA authority's response pre typed. I do not see anything wrong in this..In 99% of cases he gives his decisions instantly and he dictates his orders during the appeals instantly. In few cases, where he reserves his orders, he provides an elaborate reasoning of his orders unlike other ICs, who says one thing during hearing and say another in their orders.

          (d) Infact, other ICs, take defensive positions on behalf of CPIO during hearings. There are wise men and women who deny information u/s 7(9)..I wonder if you had temerity of writing against them...One IC said during hearing that RTI is extra work for public authorities and they do not like doing that...I asked her paying income tax is an unproductive expense for me and can she get an exemption for me from it????

          (e) Pen drives/CDs full of information being given by SG to NCPRI pals..I don't know..Maybe you have proof...Similarly there could be other ICs leaking the information...But I wonder if there is any confidential information in CIC, which is worthy of leak??

Regards.

Girish Mittal

          

           

Dear Mr Mittal

 
If you go through the CIC's old minutes of meetings, you would find
somewhere that Shailesh Gandhi assumed the responsibility of
digitising the entire CIC. I'm sure that you would recall that prior
to his becoming IC, Mr SG had been constantly promoting digitisation
as the universal panacea to solve all the CIC's ills. The reason why
digitisation has slowed down is precisely because of the poor example
SG's own digitisation had set. Let me recount a few of these.
 
1) Private interns paid for from SG's own funds taking home scanned files.
 
2) Private RTI consultants being provided scanned copies of plaints
pending before SG, draft orders being prepared in consultation with
P/As prior to hearings so that SG would only have to "fill in the
blanks" by looking at his computer screen during hearings etc.
 
3) Pen drives / CDs full of information obtained by Mr SG being given
free of cost to Mr SG's NCPRI pals.
 
and so on
 
Sarbajit

Re: [HumJanenge] Public Grievance concerning Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar

The CVC is unlikely to anything. Almost four years ago, I made a formal complaint to the CVC about corruption in RAW. I personally met the CVC, Mr Pratyush Sinha. Later, a delegation from the Citizens Forum against Corruption comprising Prashant Bhushan, Arvind Kejriwal and Admiral Tahliani met the CVC. He did nothing. After an order  by the CIC to reveal what action was taken and copies of file notings,  they sent a a photo copy of the complaint with the following remarks endorsed on it:-

Most of it distorted and mischeivious. The application too seems pseudonymous. May be filed.

 Sd/- Sudhir Kumar, 21.11.2007. 

 Maj Gen VK Singh

On 21 July 2012 14:26, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/21/12, J. P. Shah <jpshah50@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Why not lodge complaint with Central Vigilance Commission for corrupt
> practices in CIC.
>
>
>
> -J. P. SHAH 9924106490
> http://www.jps50.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: s.mishra <s.mishra@nic.in>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 9:43 AM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Public Grievance concerning Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar
>
>
> To:
>
> Shri. Satyananda Mishra
> Chief Information Commisisoner of India
> Central Information Commission (at New Delhi)
>
> BY EMAIL
>
> 21-July-2012
>
> Respected Sir
>
> I am caused to represent about the perverse and arbitrary listing of cases
> before your goodself for disposal when it concerns high level Respondents
> and the role of Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar in this.
>
> I am caused to represent to you by a letter addressed to yourself by one Mr.
> C.J.Karira dated 16.July.2012 which I have appended below, and which makes
> pointed allegations against Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar and other CIC officers, but
> mainly against Mr.Shreyaskar.
>
> As the details of "status" of complaints and appeals at the Central
> Information Commission is in the public domain, the citizens are pained to
> observe that your Registry is deliberately delaying hearing the appeals and
> complaints involving high profile Respondents. It is an open secret that Mr.
> Pankaj Shreyaskar is the person to be approached in the CIC to ensure that
> cases are delayed, files are lost or frivolous objections are raised. It is
> also an open secret that Mr.Shreyaskar, who has curiuosly been posted in
> Delhi at the CIC since as long as I can remember, was brought in by
> Mr.Wajahat Habibullah for the purpose of obfuscating and delaying high
> profile RTI requests when the previous officer, Dr. Munish Kumar, declined
> to be as pliable as Mr.Habibullah desired.
>
> By way of example, let me cite an instance concerning Mr. Subhash Chandra
> Agrawal. In Feb/March 2011 Mr. Agrawal filed 3 or 4 2nd Appeals to you and
> also Smt. Sushma Singh. . Smt. Sushma Singh disposed of Mr. Agrawal's 3
> cases within 3 months. On the other hand Mr. Aghrwal's matter before
> yourself concerning the National Advisory Council was delayed for over 15
> months and was only disposed of last week.
>
> Another such example is how Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar and Mr. Habibullah between
> them ensured that 2nd appeals aganst the CBI concerninmg the QUATTROCHI
> investigations were never listed for disposal and files wre repeatedly
> "lost" and CIC's computer records tampered with. After Mr. Habibullah
> demitted office, the "ruling powers" were contrained to ensure that CBI was
> taken out of RTI ambit to preclude the QUATTROCHI files from being disclosed
> under RTI process.
>
> The inescapable conclusion is that something is very rotten in the Registry
> Section(s) of the Central Information Commission. Kindly take urgent steps
> to resolve such problems for the future. As a precondition, it would be
> desirable if Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar's excessively long stay in Delhi at the
> Commission is shortened in the larger public interestand so that reform can
> go through.
>
> I would be obliged if this email is acknowledged.
>
> yours sincerely
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> B-59 Defence Colony
> New Delhi 110024
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
> Date: Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] "Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records
> IC(SG)
> To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
>
>
>
>
> To:
> Mr
> Satyananda Mishra
> Chief
> Information Commissioner
> Central Information
> Commission
> August
> Kranti Bhawan
> New Delhi
>
>
>                                                         Date: 16 July
> 2012
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> RE: LONG PENDING COMPLAINTS IN THE
> CENTRAL INFORMATION
>       COMMISSION
>
> Sir,
> for the last one year and on several occasions, I have brought to your
> notice
> my various Complaints which are long pending in the Commission.
>
> Although
> you have given verbal instructions to various officers and staff, in my
> presence, to list these on a priority basis, it seems that your officers and
> staff are continuously trying to delay the listing of these complaints on
> one
> pretext ore the other.
>
> The
> long pending Complaints are:
>
> S. No. Appeal/Complaint Nr. Filing Date Public Authority

> 1.  CIC/SM/A/2011/901282 19-01-2010 AllahabadHigh Court

> 2. CIC/SM/A/2011/901284 19-01-2010 Andhra Pradesh High Court
> 3. CIC/SM/A/2011/901286 19-01-2010 Guwahati High Court
> 4. CIC/SM/A/2011/901287 19-01-2010 Chattisgarh High Court

> 5. CIC/SM/A/2011/901288 19-01-2010 GujaratHigh Court

> 6. CIC/SM/A/2011/901290 20-01-2010 Himachal Pradesh High Court
> 7.  CIC/SM/A/2011/901293 21-01-2010 Jharkhand High Court
> 8. CIC/SM/A/2011/901295 21-01-2010 MP High Court

> 9. CIC/SM/A/2011/901285 23-01-2010 MadrasHigh Court

> 10. CIC/SM/A/2011/901289 24-01-2010 Orissa High Court

> 11. CIC/SM/A/2011/901316 24-01-2010 PatnaHigh Court

> 12. CIC/SM/A/2011/901147 03-03-2010 Punjab & Haryana High Court
> 13. CIC/SM/A/2011/91299 16-03-2010 Rajasthan High Court

> 14. CIC/SM/A/2011/901300 25-04-2010 SikkimHigh Court

> 15. CIC/SM/A/2011/901302 25-04-2010 Uttarakhand High Court
>
>
> As
> you can see from the above table, these have been pending for more than two
> and a half years !
>
> If
> anyone in the Commission had bothered to open these complaints and even
> glanced
> at them casually, he would have realized the effort I have put in to prepare
> these complaints – each Complaint took me at least 3 to 4 days.
>
> Firstly,
> these Complaints were "lost" by Mr
> Pankaj K P Shreyaskar, when he was Dpty. Registrar to the Ex CIC, Mr Wajahat
> Habibullah.
>
> I
> was asked to resubmit the Complaints. The resubmitted
> Complaints were once again "lost". These were finally registered by Mr
> Vijay Bhalla, the present Dpty. Registrar.
>
> I
> have tried my best to meet everyone from the Chief Information Commissioner
> in
> the Commission (including ex Chiefs Mr Habibullah and Mr Tiwari and
> yourself),
> Secretary (the past Secretary and the present Secretary), The Additional
> Secretary, Registrars, Designated Officers and Clerks, repeatedly and on
> several occasions even outside the Commission. I have written innumerable
> letters, emails and repeated reminders. But nothing has happened.
>
> Since
> you became the Chief Information Commissioner in January 2011, I have met
> you in
> person, several times on this issue as well as sent written letters and
> reminders. Based on these, you have issued instructions to your officers and
> staff – but they have even disobeyed and
> disregarded your own instructions.
>
> On
> December 28, 2011 while conducting a hearing against Ten High Courts on
> Section
> 4 suo moto disclosure, in the presence of at least twenty people,
> you instructed Mr Akash Deep Chakravarti, Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar and Mr
> Vijay
> Bhalla – to read these complaints, prepare a comparative chart and put up
> before you within 15 days.
> More than six months have passed, but they have still not done so.
>
> During
> my last conversation with Mr Vijay Bhalla, about a month ago, I was informed
> that if he lists these long pending Complaints, Mr Akash Deep Chakravarti
> and
> Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar are threatening him that there will be "Contempt of
> Court", since there is a stay order from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
> relation to WP(C) 3530 of 2012, Order dated 23.05.2011 .
>
>
> I
> have personally read that stay order from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and
> it
> is obvious that the both Mr Chakravarti and Mr Shreyaskar are trying to
> shelter
> behind this particular stay order so that they can hide their inefficiency,
> lethargy and corrupt practices.
>
> The
> stay order has nothing to do with the subject matter of my above long
> pending
> Complaints and it is clear that both Mr Chakravarti and Mr Shreyaskar have
> neither read any of my Complaints and nor have they understood the stay
> order
> from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
>
> The
> only conclusions I can draw from this bitter
> experience is:
>
> 1.   That
> your officers and staff are corrupt and amenable to extraneous influences
> since they have intentionally lost these complaints twice and have also
> disobeyed your repeated instructions.
>
> 2.   Your
> officers and staff and Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar in particular, have some
> malicious vendetta against me because of which they are intentionally
> and deliberately trying to block the listing of these Complaints since 30
> months.
>
> 3.   The
> officers and staff of the Commission are influenced by the "name and fame"
> of the complainant, since I have proof that other Complaints against the
> same public authorities, which have been filed much later than my
> complaints,
> have already been listed, heard and orders passed. Your officers and staff
> are
> therefore discriminating against me on the basis of some unknown
> reasons.
>
> 4.   Your officers and staff are disobedient to the extent that they do not
> even follow and obey your own instructions.
> Under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act 2005,"the general superintendence,
> direction and
> management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission"vests in
> you. It is a sad that the officers and staff of the Commission fail to abide
> by the instructions of even the Chief Information
> Commissioner himself, who is the head of the Commission.
>
> 5.   The
> Central Information Commission does not follow the "first come first served"
> principle in listing of Complaints. Your officers and staff are lethargic
> and
> oblivious of this principle of fair play OR are corrupt

> to the extentthat they list matters pertaining

> to appellants/complainants because they have been "influenced" and "bought
> over" by vested interests.
>
> I am present in Delhi
> on the 18th July 2012 for a hearing of four cases by your good self
> and request you for a personal meeting to resolve this issue once and
> for all.
>
> Sadly,
> I have to state that this is the last attempt I am making to get these long
> pending cases listed and heard, because as you would have realized by now,
> the
> whole experience has been totally frustrating, bitter and a waste of time
> for
> me. Rather than waste my limited resources on the corrupt, inefficient,
> lethargic, incompetent, disobedient and
> insubordinate officers and staff of the Commission, it would be better
> if I spent them on training Citizens and PIOs in using the RTI Act properly
> and
> correctly - at least they have ears !
>
>
> Thanking
> You,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:15 PM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] "Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records
> IC(SG)
>
>
> CIC/SG/A/2012/000643
> http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2012_000643_19270_M_84898.pdf
>
> Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar,
> CPIO & Director
> Central Information Commission
>
> "The Appellant states that he is extremely disappointed with the way
> the Commission is working. He states that he has sent these complaints
> number of times and any of his communication are being reported to be
> lost. He expresses is anguish that if CIC cannot keep its records
> properly how can, it set example for Public Authorities. The PIO
> states that this is the only instance which is being reported and
> there are no other instances which have been reported to the
> Commission. The Commission recommends to the Secretary of the
> commission to ensure that communication received from Appellant are
> not lost and recorded properly."
>
> Only 1 instance of CIC records not being maintained properly. <rol>
> Q: Why didn't SG
>  inquire into Pankaj Shreyaskar's bizarre statement.
> Ans: Because for many years IC(SG) was responsible for digitisation of
> the CIC's records.
>
> Sarbajit

[HumJanenge] David Cameron criticised for attacks on Freedom of Information Act

Identical situation to what is happening in India :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jul/16/david-cameron-freedom-of-information 

David Cameron criticised for attacks on Freedom of Information Act

Information commissioner says remarks criticising act may be encouraging 'bad behaviour' among civil servants 

The information commissioner has accused David Cameron and other members of the political establishment of launching a damaging attack on the Freedom of Information Act which he says is encouraging civil servants to obscure the government from proper scrutiny.

Christopher Graham said public condemnation of the law from the prime minister, Tony Blair and the former cabinet secretary Lord O'Donnell was "driving bad behaviour" and possible illegal activity in Whitehall. He said the coalition may have abandoned its promise to be the most transparent ever because of the pressures of power.

His words are part of a robust defence of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which allows members of the public to request and examine records of meetings between civil servants and ministers. Critics have claimed it is restricting the way that ministers and civil servants communicate.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Guardian, Graham also claimed that:

• His office had found evidence of the destruction of public documents in government but was powerless to prosecute because of a legal loophole;

• Private providers that are moving into previously public services such as welfare-to-work companies should also be covered by the act;

• He suspects the use of private emails in Whitehall to avoid public scrutiny is widespread.

Speaking days before the publication of a long awaited justice select committee report into freedom of information, he said: "There has been a recent and loud cri de coeur from the establishment about freedom of information, and no doubt the establishment wishes it could go back to its old ways.

"There are some very powerful voices saying it [the act] has all been a horrible mistake. Specifically, Tony Blair, Gus O'Donnell [the former head of the civil service] and the prime minister himself," he said before adding the name of Simon Jenkins, the former Times editor and Guardian columnist.

Graham claimed that their criticisms of the act were encouraging the use of unofficial, private email addresses and verbal briefings, which would in turn make government less accountable.

"So long as senior politicians and mandarins and distinguished former editors of the Times go around saying that freedom of information legislation is all terrible, they are driving bad behaviour because more junior figures in the civil service will assume that you can't write anything down and that government can only be done by word of mouth. It is the enemy of good government," he said.

Blair has said his administration's support for the act in 2000 was his biggest mistake in government, claiming it has stopped honest discussions between ministers and their close aides. O'Donnell has also voiced concerns while Cameron two months ago criticised the "endless discovery process" of responding to freedom of information (FIO) requests.

Two years ago, Cameron promised that the government would be "the most transparent ever".

Graham said that there has been a noticeable and dangerous drift away from FOIs.

"The coalition government is keen on transparency and open data but at the same time I get the sense they are much less enthusiastic about FOI than when they came in. Possibly, it's all a bit hard to live with in government," he said. "Sometimes the full story is in the background papers and minutes of meetings rather than just raw data."

Graham, who moved to the post two years ago from the Advertising Standards Authority, has been engaged in two major clashes with the coalition government – the decision to veto the release of the NHS risk register, which is an assessment of the planned changes to the health service, and the refusal of Department for Education (DfE) to concede that Michael Gove was wrong to use his wife's private email address to communicate with aides, circumventing FOI legislation.

The decision by Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, to use the ministerial veto in May was the second time coalition ministers had overruled information tribunal decision this year.

Graham, a former Liberal councillor in Liverpool, said: "That particular veto has raised a question which is still unresolved, which is what were the exceptional circumstances in this case? We need to know, if only to save the cost of these cases for the public purse."

Lansley's efforts to keep the report hidden had resulted in a bigger row than if it had been released, Graham said.

"Looking on I thought: 'Why take all this incoming [fire] in defence of what is a rather arcane principle?'" he said.

Gove, the education secretary, has admitted using the email address of his wife, the Times journalist Sarah Vine – in correspondence known as the Mrs Blurt emails – to conduct government business. Following the culture secretary Jeremy Hunt's disclosure to the Leveson inquiry that he used his Gmail account to communicate with aides, Graham says the practice was widespread.

"I would be amazed if this kind of behaviour was confined to one or two corners of government. I think that it is standard behaviour of the political class," he said. He criticised the decision of the DfE to challenge his ruling asking for the Gove emails to be disclosed.

"Maddeningly, the [DfE's] appeal won't come on until the autumn. I have absolutely no doubt that the appeal will be rejected.

"There is no case for saying that private emails on government business should not be considered to fall within the FOI Act and trying to get round that is just silly," he said.

Graham said he and staff had found evidence that civil servants had destroyed or hidden information that should or could have been released under FOI, but had not been able to prosecute because the law allowed for six months to build a case, which was not enough.

"We have encountered evidence that material wasn't on the record when it should have been and it had been gotten rid off after the request was made, which is an offence under section 77 of the act.

"But prosecution under the present law is difficult because it must be completed within six months of being brought to the commissioner. I flagged up this problem to the justice committee and will see how they respond," he said.

Private companies that are being introduced into public spheres, such as welfare-to-work companies and police agencies, need to come within the Freedom of Information Act, said Graham, to ensure public scrutiny.

"No one seems to be thinking through what the result of 'big society' initiatives are. The irony is that you may get greater efficiency but you could end up with less accountability," he said.

As the coalition reorganises public services, it is creating new agencies but is failing to leave them exposed to the act, he said.

"The new National Crime Agency will not be a public authority under FOI but it is taking on responsibilities from the Borders Agency and the National Police Improvement Agency which were covered by FOI. Accountability is escaping under the door – and I don't know if this is deliberate or unintended," he said.

Re: [HumJanenge] Public Grievance concerning Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar

On 7/21/12, J. P. Shah <jpshah50@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Why not lodge complaint with Central Vigilance Commission for corrupt
> practices in CIC.
>
>
>
> -J. P. SHAH 9924106490
> http://www.jps50.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: s.mishra <s.mishra@nic.in>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 9:43 AM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] Public Grievance concerning Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar
>
>
> To:
>
> Shri. Satyananda Mishra
> Chief Information Commisisoner of India
> Central Information Commission (at New Delhi)
>
> BY EMAIL
>
> 21-July-2012
>
> Respected Sir
>
> I am caused to represent about the perverse and arbitrary listing of cases
> before your goodself for disposal when it concerns high level Respondents
> and the role of Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar in this.
>
> I am caused to represent to you by a letter addressed to yourself by one Mr.
> C.J.Karira dated 16.July.2012 which I have appended below, and which makes
> pointed allegations against Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar and other CIC officers, but
> mainly against Mr.Shreyaskar.
>
> As the details of "status" of complaints and appeals at the Central
> Information Commission is in the public domain, the citizens are pained to
> observe that your Registry is deliberately delaying hearing the appeals and
> complaints involving high profile Respondents. It is an open secret that Mr.
> Pankaj Shreyaskar is the person to be approached in the CIC to ensure that
> cases are delayed, files are lost or frivolous objections are raised. It is
> also an open secret that Mr.Shreyaskar, who has curiuosly been posted in
> Delhi at the CIC since as long as I can remember, was brought in by
> Mr.Wajahat Habibullah for the purpose of obfuscating and delaying high
> profile RTI requests when the previous officer, Dr. Munish Kumar, declined
> to be as pliable as Mr.Habibullah desired.
>
> By way of example, let me cite an instance concerning Mr. Subhash Chandra
> Agrawal. In Feb/March 2011 Mr. Agrawal filed 3 or 4 2nd Appeals to you and
> also Smt. Sushma Singh. . Smt. Sushma Singh disposed of Mr. Agrawal's 3
> cases within 3 months. On the other hand Mr. Aghrwal's matter before
> yourself concerning the National Advisory Council was delayed for over 15
> months and was only disposed of last week.
>
> Another such example is how Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar and Mr. Habibullah between
> them ensured that 2nd appeals aganst the CBI concerninmg the QUATTROCHI
> investigations were never listed for disposal and files wre repeatedly
> "lost" and CIC's computer records tampered with. After Mr. Habibullah
> demitted office, the "ruling powers" were contrained to ensure that CBI was
> taken out of RTI ambit to preclude the QUATTROCHI files from being disclosed
> under RTI process.
>
> The inescapable conclusion is that something is very rotten in the Registry
> Section(s) of the Central Information Commission. Kindly take urgent steps
> to resolve such problems for the future. As a precondition, it would be
> desirable if Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar's excessively long stay in Delhi at the
> Commission is shortened in the larger public interestand so that reform can
> go through.
>
> I would be obliged if this email is acknowledged.
>
> yours sincerely
>
> Sarbajit Roy
> B-59 Defence Colony
> New Delhi 110024
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
> Date: Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] "Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records
> IC(SG)
> To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
>
>
>
>
> To:
> Mr
> Satyananda Mishra
> Chief
> Information Commissioner
> Central Information
> Commission
> August
> Kranti Bhawan
> New Delhi
>
>
> Date: 16 July
> 2012
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> RE: LONG PENDING COMPLAINTS IN THE
> CENTRAL INFORMATION
> COMMISSION
>
> Sir,
> for the last one year and on several occasions, I have brought to your
> notice
> my various Complaints which are long pending in the Commission.
>
> Although
> you have given verbal instructions to various officers and staff, in my
> presence, to list these on a priority basis, it seems that your officers and
> staff are continuously trying to delay the listing of these complaints on
> one
> pretext ore the other.
>
> The
> long pending Complaints are:
>
> S. No. Appeal/Complaint Nr. Filing Date Public Authority
> 1. CIC/SM/A/2011/901282 19-01-2010 AllahabadHigh Court
> 2. CIC/SM/A/2011/901284 19-01-2010 Andhra Pradesh High Court
> 3. CIC/SM/A/2011/901286 19-01-2010 Guwahati High Court
> 4. CIC/SM/A/2011/901287 19-01-2010 Chattisgarh High Court
> 5. CIC/SM/A/2011/901288 19-01-2010 GujaratHigh Court
> 6. CIC/SM/A/2011/901290 20-01-2010 Himachal Pradesh High Court
> 7. CIC/SM/A/2011/901293 21-01-2010 Jharkhand High Court
> 8. CIC/SM/A/2011/901295 21-01-2010 MP High Court
> 9. CIC/SM/A/2011/901285 23-01-2010 MadrasHigh Court
> 10. CIC/SM/A/2011/901289 24-01-2010 Orissa High Court
> 11. CIC/SM/A/2011/901316 24-01-2010 PatnaHigh Court
> 12. CIC/SM/A/2011/901147 03-03-2010 Punjab & Haryana High Court
> 13. CIC/SM/A/2011/91299 16-03-2010 Rajasthan High Court
> 14. CIC/SM/A/2011/901300 25-04-2010 SikkimHigh Court
> 15. CIC/SM/A/2011/901302 25-04-2010 Uttarakhand High Court
>
>
> As
> you can see from the above table, these have been pending for more than two
> and a half years !
>
> If
> anyone in the Commission had bothered to open these complaints and even
> glanced
> at them casually, he would have realized the effort I have put in to prepare
> these complaints – each Complaint took me at least 3 to 4 days.
>
> Firstly,
> these Complaints were "lost" by Mr
> Pankaj K P Shreyaskar, when he was Dpty. Registrar to the Ex CIC, Mr Wajahat
> Habibullah.
>
> I
> was asked to resubmit the Complaints. The resubmitted
> Complaints were once again "lost". These were finally registered by Mr
> Vijay Bhalla, the present Dpty. Registrar.
>
> I
> have tried my best to meet everyone from the Chief Information Commissioner
> in
> the Commission (including ex Chiefs Mr Habibullah and Mr Tiwari and
> yourself),
> Secretary (the past Secretary and the present Secretary), The Additional
> Secretary, Registrars, Designated Officers and Clerks, repeatedly and on
> several occasions even outside the Commission. I have written innumerable
> letters, emails and repeated reminders. But nothing has happened.
>
> Since
> you became the Chief Information Commissioner in January 2011, I have met
> you in
> person, several times on this issue as well as sent written letters and
> reminders. Based on these, you have issued instructions to your officers and
> staff – but they have even disobeyed and
> disregarded your own instructions.
>
> On
> December 28, 2011 while conducting a hearing against Ten High Courts on
> Section
> 4 suo moto disclosure, in the presence of at least twenty people,
> you instructed Mr Akash Deep Chakravarti, Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar and Mr
> Vijay
> Bhalla – to read these complaints, prepare a comparative chart and put up
> before you within 15 days.
> More than six months have passed, but they have still not done so.
>
> During
> my last conversation with Mr Vijay Bhalla, about a month ago, I was informed
> that if he lists these long pending Complaints, Mr Akash Deep Chakravarti
> and
> Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar are threatening him that there will be "Contempt of
> Court", since there is a stay order from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
> relation to WP(C) 3530 of 2012, Order dated 23.05.2011 .
>
>
> I
> have personally read that stay order from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and
> it
> is obvious that the both Mr Chakravarti and Mr Shreyaskar are trying to
> shelter
> behind this particular stay order so that they can hide their inefficiency,
> lethargy and corrupt practices.
>
> The
> stay order has nothing to do with the subject matter of my above long
> pending
> Complaints and it is clear that both Mr Chakravarti and Mr Shreyaskar have
> neither read any of my Complaints and nor have they understood the stay
> order
> from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
>
> The
> only conclusions I can draw from this bitter
> experience is:
>
> 1. That
> your officers and staff are corrupt and amenable to extraneous influences
> since they have intentionally lost these complaints twice and have also
> disobeyed your repeated instructions.
>
> 2. Your
> officers and staff and Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar in particular, have some
> malicious vendetta against me because of which they are intentionally
> and deliberately trying to block the listing of these Complaints since 30
> months.
>
> 3. The
> officers and staff of the Commission are influenced by the "name and fame"
> of the complainant, since I have proof that other Complaints against the
> same public authorities, which have been filed much later than my
> complaints,
> have already been listed, heard and orders passed. Your officers and staff
> are
> therefore discriminating against me on the basis of some unknown
> reasons.
>
> 4. Your officers and staff are disobedient to the extent that they do not
> even follow and obey your own instructions.
> Under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act 2005,"the general superintendence,
> direction and
> management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission"vests in
> you. It is a sad that the officers and staff of the Commission fail to abide
> by the instructions of even the Chief Information
> Commissioner himself, who is the head of the Commission.
>
> 5. The
> Central Information Commission does not follow the "first come first served"
> principle in listing of Complaints. Your officers and staff are lethargic
> and
> oblivious of this principle of fair play OR are corrupt
> to the extentthat they list matters pertaining
> to appellants/complainants because they have been "influenced" and "bought
> over" by vested interests.
>
> I am present in Delhi
> on the 18th July 2012 for a hearing of four cases by your good self
> and request you for a personal meeting to resolve this issue once and
> for all.
>
> Sadly,
> I have to state that this is the last attempt I am making to get these long
> pending cases listed and heard, because as you would have realized by now,
> the
> whole experience has been totally frustrating, bitter and a waste of time
> for
> me. Rather than waste my limited resources on the corrupt, inefficient,
> lethargic, incompetent, disobedient and
> insubordinate officers and staff of the Commission, it would be better
> if I spent them on training Citizens and PIOs in using the RTI Act properly
> and
> correctly - at least they have ears !
>
>
> Thanking
> You,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:15 PM
> Subject: [HumJanenge] "Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records
> IC(SG)
>
>
> CIC/SG/A/2012/000643
> http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2012_000643_19270_M_84898.pdf
>
> Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar,
> CPIO & Director
> Central Information Commission
>
> "The Appellant states that he is extremely disappointed with the way
> the Commission is working. He states that he has sent these complaints
> number of times and any of his communication are being reported to be
> lost. He expresses is anguish that if CIC cannot keep its records
> properly how can, it set example for Public Authorities. The PIO
> states that this is the only instance which is being reported and
> there are no other instances which have been reported to the
> Commission. The Commission recommends to the Secretary of the
> commission to ensure that communication received from Appellant are
> not lost and recorded properly."
>
> Only 1 instance of CIC records not being maintained properly. <rol>
> Q: Why didn't SG
> inquire into Pankaj Shreyaskar's bizarre statement.
> Ans: Because for many years IC(SG) was responsible for digitisation of
> the CIC's records.
>
> Sarbajit

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records IC(SG)

Dear Guptaji

Further to my previous email

1) Attached here is a PDF file of a webpage. The young lady (Gitanjali
Balakrishna) who interned under SG proudly describes (in her LinkedIn
CV) how she drafted decisions for IC(SG). Many members on this group
can confirm what I saw with my own eyes of SG's style -
Interns/Consultants have prepared the order in advance. Only the last
3 or 4 lines are personally typed in / dictated by SG - who often gave
a printout on the spot (along with a consolatory cup of Nescafe tea /
coffee). SG simply refuses to take arguments which run contrary to
what has been pre-prepared for him. In effect 20 year old girls like
Gitanjali, Shibani Ghosh etc were running SG's office - hardly what
the RTI Act envisages.

2) I also refer you to an old post of mine on HJ dated 30.12.2011
addressed to CIC(SM) concerning a case where IC(SG) (or the private
consultants WHO SG MUST TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR) had contracted to
penalise 2 junior "deemed PIOs" (instead of the actual offenders) in
UT(A&N) Admin. The case no. is CIC/SG/A/2011/002839 . Can Mr SG
explain why there is no order in this case on the CIC website after my
complaint to CIC(SM).

For the record

A) After I complained about SG's "cash for FIRs" scam, he stopped
B) After I complained about SG's "penalise deemed PIOs" racket he
stopped (for some time).

Sarbajit


On 7/21/12, M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> These are very serious charges and prima facie evidence about these should
> be provided.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 12:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005"
> records IC(SG)
>
> Dear Mr Mittal
>
> If you go through the CIC's old minutes of meetings, you would find
> somewhere that Shailesh Gandhi assumed the responsibility of
> digitising the entire CIC. I'm sure that you would recall that prior
> to his becoming IC, Mr SG had been constantly promoting digitisation
> as the universal panacea to solve all the CIC's ills. The reason why
> digitisation has slowed down is precisely because of the poor example
> SG's own digitisation had set. Let me recount a few of these.
>
> 1) Private interns paid for from SG's own funds taking home scanned files.
>
> 2) Private RTI consultants being provided scanned copies of plaints
> pending before SG, draft orders being prepared in consultation with
> P/As prior to hearings so that SG would only have to "fill in the
> blanks" by looking at his computer screen during hearings etc.
>
> 3) Pen drives / CDs full of information obtained by Mr SG being given
> free of cost to Mr SG's NCPRI pals.
>
> and so on
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 7/21/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mr. Roy,
>>
>> It is wrong to say that Ex IC SG was responsible for digitising
>> the CIC. He can be responsible for his own registry, which he has
>> converted
>> into paperless office.
>>
>> In fact, he has been pushing the digitising the entire
>> commission, which has now been stopped in most registries.
>>
>> I know you love to blame SG for everything wrong happening with
>> RTI in India, but please make your arguments laced with little bit of
>> facts...
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> Girish Mittal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar,
>> CPIO & Director
>> Central Information Commission
>>
>> "The Appellant states that he is extremely disappointed with the way
>> the Commission is working. He states that he has sent these complaints
>> number of times and any of his communication are being reported to be
>> lost. He expresses is anguish that if CIC cannot keep its records
>> properly how can, it set example for Public Authorities. The PIO
>> states that this is the only instance which is being reported and
>> there are no other instances which have been reported to the
>> Commission. The Commission recommends to the Secretary of the
>> commission to ensure that communication received from Appellant are
>> not lost and recorded properly."
>>
>> Only 1 instance of CIC records not being maintained properly. <rol>
>> Q: Why didn't SG inquire into Pankaj Shreyaskar's bizarre statement.
>> Ans: Because for many years IC(SG) was responsible for digitisation of
>> the CIC's records.
>>

[HumJanenge] Re: Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records IC(SG)

Dear Guptaji

Since I hardly file RTIs nowadays, you may request CIC to provide
these and many other charges which were hurled between SG and his
brother/sister ICs concerning the role / legitimacy of private
interns and private consultants by SG during closed door meetings. So
"closed door" that CIC officers were asked to leave during these
stormy sessions.

Sarbajit

On Jul 21, 12:14 pm, "M.K. Gupta" <mkgupta...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> These are very serious charges and prima facie evidence about these should be provided.
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy...@gmail.com>
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 12:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records IC(SG)
>
> Dear Mr Mittal
>
> If you go through the CIC's old minutes of meetings, you would find
> somewhere that Shailesh Gandhi assumed the responsibility of
> digitising the entire CIC. I'm sure that you would recall that prior
> to his becoming IC, Mr SG had been constantly promoting digitisation
> as the universal panacea to solve all the CIC's ills. The reason why
> digitisation has slowed down is precisely because of the poor example
> SG's own digitisation had set. Let me recount a few of these.
>
> 1) Private interns paid for from SG's own funds taking home scanned files.
>
> 2) Private RTI consultants being provided scanned copies of plaints
> pending before SG, draft orders being prepared in consultation with
> P/As prior to hearings so that SG would only have to "fill in the
> blanks" by looking at his computer screen during hearings etc.
>
> 3) Pen drives / CDs full of information obtained by Mr SG being given
> free of cost to Mr SG's NCPRI pals.
>
> and so on
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 7/21/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >    Mr. Roy,
>
> >           It is wrong to say that Ex IC SG was responsible for digitising
> > the CIC. He can be responsible for his own registry, which he has converted
> > into paperless office.
>
> >           In fact, he has been pushing the digitising the entire
> > commission, which has now been stopped in most registries.
>
> >           I know you love to blame SG for everything wrong happening with
> > RTI in India, but please make your arguments laced with little bit of
> > facts...
>
> >           Regards.
>
> >           Girish Mittal
>
> >    Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar,
> >    CPIO & Director
> >    Central Information Commission
>
> >    "The Appellant states that he is extremely disappointed with the way
> >    the Commission is working. He states that he has sent these complaints
> >    number of times and any of his communication are being reported to be
> >    lost. He expresses is anguish that if CIC cannot keep its records
> >    properly how can, it set example for Public Authorities. The PIO
> >    states that this is the only instance which is being reported and
> >    there are no other instances which have been reported to the
> >    Commission. The Commission recommends to the Secretary of the
> >    commission to ensure that communication received from Appellant are
> >    not lost and recorded properly."
>
> >    Only 1 instance of CIC records not being maintained properly. <rol>
> >    Q: Why didn't SG inquire into Pankaj Shreyaskar's bizarre statement.
> >    Ans: Because for many years IC(SG) was responsible for digitisation of
> >    the CIC's records.

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records IC(SG)

These are very serious charges and prima facie evidence about these should be provided.  

---

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records IC(SG)

Dear Mr Mittal

If you go through the CIC's old minutes of meetings, you would find
somewhere that Shailesh Gandhi assumed the responsibility of
digitising the entire CIC. I'm sure that you would recall that prior
to his becoming IC, Mr SG had been constantly promoting digitisation
as the universal panacea to solve all the CIC's ills. The reason why
digitisation has slowed down is precisely because of the poor example
SG's own digitisation had set. Let me recount a few of these.

1) Private interns paid for from SG's own funds taking home scanned files.

2) Private RTI consultants being provided scanned copies of plaints
pending before SG, draft orders being prepared in consultation with
P/As prior to hearings so that SG would only have to "fill in the
blanks" by looking at his computer screen during hearings etc.

3) Pen drives / CDs full of information obtained by Mr SG being given
free of cost to Mr SG's NCPRI pals.

and so on

Sarbajit

On 7/21/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
>    Mr. Roy,
>
>          It is wrong to say that Ex IC SG was responsible for digitising
> the CIC. He can be responsible for his own registry, which he has converted
> into paperless office.
>
>          In fact, he has been pushing the digitising the entire
> commission, which has now been stopped in most registries.
>
>          I know you love to blame SG for everything wrong happening with
> RTI in India, but please make your arguments laced with little bit of
> facts...
>
>          Regards.
>
>          Girish Mittal
>
>
>
>
>    Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar,
>    CPIO & Director
>    Central Information Commission
>
>    "The Appellant states that he is extremely disappointed with the way
>    the Commission is working. He states that he has sent these complaints
>    number of times and any of his communication are being reported to be
>    lost. He expresses is anguish that if CIC cannot keep its records
>    properly how can, it set example for Public Authorities. The PIO
>    states that this is the only instance which is being reported and
>    there are no other instances which have been reported to the
>    Commission. The Commission recommends to the Secretary of the
>    commission to ensure that communication received from Appellant are
>    not lost and recorded properly."
>
>    Only 1 instance of CIC records not being maintained properly. <rol>
>    Q: Why didn't SG inquire into Pankaj Shreyaskar's bizarre statement.
>    Ans: Because for many years IC(SG) was responsible for digitisation of
>    the CIC's records.
>

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Attn. Mr. Girish Mittal

Today, my wife has not made tea for me and I had to go without that.  I blame Shri Shailesh Gandhi for not making my wife understand that she should respect her husband and this is our tradition also. An as RTI activist and Info Commissioner, it was his duty to inform about this to my wife.

---

From: Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 9:32 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: Attn. Mr. Girish Mittal

       Dear Sarabjit,

       I don't know your background, but I suspect you have long experience in government....I am sure you would make a popular(with govt) IC as you know very well how to       twist facts and blatantly claim written words as unwritten and unwritten as written....

      It seems you are feigning ignorance of how our courts functions..Inspite of well laid down rules and procedures, people can get away by doing anything and everything...especially our judicial and quasi judicial authorities...And people like you, who take every opportunity to attack soft targets like SG, have no courage to take on those mighty and powerful.

     I have understood your agenda and would not like to join issues with you on this or any other issue any more.

     Regards.

    Girish Mittal

       

Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records IC(SG)

Dear Mr Mittal

If you go through the CIC's old minutes of meetings, you would find
somewhere that Shailesh Gandhi assumed the responsibility of
digitising the entire CIC. I'm sure that you would recall that prior
to his becoming IC, Mr SG had been constantly promoting digitisation
as the universal panacea to solve all the CIC's ills. The reason why
digitisation has slowed down is precisely because of the poor example
SG's own digitisation had set. Let me recount a few of these.

1) Private interns paid for from SG's own funds taking home scanned files.

2) Private RTI consultants being provided scanned copies of plaints
pending before SG, draft orders being prepared in consultation with
P/As prior to hearings so that SG would only have to "fill in the
blanks" by looking at his computer screen during hearings etc.

3) Pen drives / CDs full of information obtained by Mr SG being given
free of cost to Mr SG's NCPRI pals.

and so on

Sarbajit

On 7/21/12, Girish Mittal <rtng.mittal@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mr. Roy,
>
> It is wrong to say that Ex IC SG was responsible for digitising
> the CIC. He can be responsible for his own registry, which he has converted
> into paperless office.
>
> In fact, he has been pushing the digitising the entire
> commission, which has now been stopped in most registries.
>
> I know you love to blame SG for everything wrong happening with
> RTI in India, but please make your arguments laced with little bit of
> facts...
>
> Regards.
>
> Girish Mittal
>
>
>
>
> Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar,
> CPIO & Director
> Central Information Commission
>
> "The Appellant states that he is extremely disappointed with the way
> the Commission is working. He states that he has sent these complaints
> number of times and any of his communication are being reported to be
> lost. He expresses is anguish that if CIC cannot keep its records
> properly how can, it set example for Public Authorities. The PIO
> states that this is the only instance which is being reported and
> there are no other instances which have been reported to the
> Commission. The Commission recommends to the Secretary of the
> commission to ensure that communication received from Appellant are
> not lost and recorded properly."
>
> Only 1 instance of CIC records not being maintained properly. <rol>
> Q: Why didn't SG inquire into Pankaj Shreyaskar's bizarre statement.
> Ans: Because for many years IC(SG) was responsible for digitisation of
> the CIC's records.
>

[HumJanenge] Re: Attn. Mr. Girish Mittal

Dear Girish

I am truly disappointed by your reply.

You have shown that you are no better than an "RTI activist" who
struts about until called upon to defend his position, whereupon they
simply run away and claim the moral high ground through the (bought
off) media or controlled groups like HJ-YG .

You stated previously that there is a SC judgment on vacation of
interim stay orders. I was very surprised to learn about this since I
track these things. I asked you for it. You sent me the judgment. I
read it and clearly explained (precisely and legally) why your
conclusions were incorrect.

Now you can only accuse me of twisting words and facts. A a person who
first stepped into the SC in my teens (and have being arguing in
person from that age) I am probably much better suited to interpret SC
judgments (spoken / unspoken) than you are. As somebody who had
assisted over 200 poor persons to successfully secure justice from SC,
I can assure you that I have excellent knowledge of how higher courts
work, and I share this knowledge freely with everyone (I have never
taken a paise from anyone for such social work). It is another matter
that I adopt a highly conservative strategy/interpretation to ensure
that my "win-loss" ratio is excellent, which conservative strategy is
misinterpreted as being pro-Govt. by foolish RTI activists to defame
me.

FYI, I have never been in Govt.

FYI, I have taken on MANY high and mighty persons successfully. For
instance I was instrumental in getting Mr. Pramod Mahajan to resign
from Union Cabinet. The fact that he was from BJP was not relevant for
me.

Insofar as Mr. Gandhi is concerned, my dissatisfaction with him stems
from the incidents of 11-August-2008 and subsequently. I have placed
these facts in public domain on many occasions. On 11-August 2008 at
about 4 PM, Shailesh Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal, myself and another
person (very well known RTI personality) spoke to each other for quite
some time outside Mr. Habibullah's office in August Kranti Bhawan. The
next month Mr. Gandhi became an IC. SG is not a "soft" person/target -
IMHO he is a weak/morally bankrupt person who was bought off and he is
a disgrace to the RTI users fellowship. He had the chance to redeem
himself in office by his orders. Had he done so I would have been the
first person to let bygones be bygones and supported him. Instead he
carried on in his reckless fashion, ignorant arrogance (very deadly
combination and desire for constant self publicity.

Ball is in your court.

Sarbajit

On Jul 21, 9:02 am, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>        Dear Sarabjit,
>
>        I don't know your background, but I suspect you have long experience
> in government....I am sure you would make a popular(with govt) IC as you
> know very well how to       twist facts and blatantly claim written words
> as unwritten and unwritten as written....
>
>       It seems you are feigning ignorance of how our courts
> functions..Inspite of well laid down rules and procedures, people can get
> away by doing anything and everything...especially our judicial and quasi
> judicial authorities...And people like you, who take every opportunity to
> attack soft targets like SG, have no courage to take on those mighty and
> powerful.
>
>      I have understood your agenda and would not like to join issues with
> you on this or any other issue any more.
>
>      Regards.
>
>     Girish Mittal
>
>    arbajit roy <sroy...@gmail.com> Jul 20 12:52AM -0700
>
>    Dear Girish
>
>    I think that you have not read your cited decision carefully.
>
>    Firstly, the Court has not gone into ex-party stays and delays as a
>    question of law. Hence there is no settled law on this point emanating
>    from this decision. In fact FINAL para 59 makes it abundantly clear
>    that this decision does NOT settle any law on this (or any other)
>    question of law.
>
>    Secondly, this decision DILUTES Article 226(3) of the Constitution. It
>    introduces ADDITIONAL requirements for vacation of ex-parte ad-interim
>    stays in para 47 like "as expeditiously as possible" and suggests
>    securing indemnities for mesne profits etc.. By this logic
>    "expeditiously" in RTI Act means that applicants should get
>    information within 1 or 2 weeks. Why dont you cite this decision to
>    every CPIO you apply to ?
>
>    As anyone knows the general practice in the High Courts is that after
>    an ex-parte stay is granted, and the other parties enter appearance,
>    after a token discussion the ex-parte stay is simply extended.
>
>    Vacation of ex-parte stays granted by High Courts is precisely defined
>    in Article 226. Till you have a substantial decision on this please
>    don't waste our time which such inapplicable judgments
>
>    In any case, Shailesh Gandhi has apparently gone into 226(3) in his
>    counter-affidavit in Aakashdeep's WP. Lets see how Justice Sanghi
>    deals with it (within 2 weeks). I am sure that Shailesh being so
>    legally knowledgeable would know that Aaakshdeep must get the matter
>    listed before the Court within 2 weeks or else he can move a IA for
>    contempt against Aakashdeep.
>
>    http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1242743/
>    http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1385257/
>    http://indiankanoon.org/doc/648042/
>    http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/552281/
>
>    and so many more
>
>    Sarbajit
>
>    Girish Mittal wrote:

Re: [HumJanenge] Public Grievance concerning Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar

Why not lodge complaint with Central Vigilance Commission for corrupt practices in CIC.

 

-J. P. SHAH 9924106490  
http://www.jps50.blogspot.com/

  

---

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: s.mishra <s.mishra@nic.in>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 21 July 2012 9:43 AM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Public Grievance concerning Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar

To:

Shri. Satyananda Mishra

Chief Information Commisisoner of India

Central Information Commission (at New Delhi)

BY EMAIL

21-July-2012

Respected Sir

I am caused to represent about the perverse and arbitrary listing of cases before your goodself for disposal when it concerns high level Respondents and the role of Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar in this.

I am caused to represent to you by a letter addressed to yourself by one Mr. C.J.Karira dated 16.July.2012 which I have appended below, and which makes pointed allegations against Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar and other CIC officers, but mainly against Mr.Shreyaskar.

As the details of "status" of complaints and appeals at the Central Information Commission is in the public domain, the citizens are pained to observe that your Registry is deliberately delaying hearing the appeals and complaints involving high profile Respondents. It is an open secret that Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar is the person to be approached in the CIC to ensure that cases are delayed, files are lost or frivolous objections are raised. It is also an open secret that Mr.Shreyaskar, who has curiuosly been posted in Delhi at the CIC since as long as I can remember, was brought in by Mr.Wajahat Habibullah for the purpose of obfuscating and delaying high profile RTI requests when the previous officer, Dr. Munish Kumar, declined to be as pliable as Mr.Habibullah desired.

By way of example, let me cite an instance concerning Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal. In Feb/March 2011 Mr. Agrawal filed 3 or 4 2nd Appeals to you and also Smt. Sushma Singh. . Smt. Sushma Singh disposed of Mr. Agrawal's 3 cases within 3 months. On the other hand Mr. Aghrwal's matter before yourself concerning the National Advisory Council was delayed for over 15 months and was only disposed of last week. 

Another such example is how Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar and Mr. Habibullah between them ensured that 2nd appeals aganst the CBI concerninmg the QUATTROCHI investigations were never listed for disposal and files wre repeatedly "lost" and CIC's computer records tampered with. After Mr. Habibullah demitted office, the "ruling powers" were contrained to ensure that CBI was taken out of RTI ambit to preclude the QUATTROCHI files from being disclosed under RTI process.

The inescapable conclusion is that something is very rotten in the Registry Section(s) of the Central Information Commission. Kindly take urgent steps to resolve such problems for the future. As a precondition, it would be desirable if Mr.Pankaj Shreyaskar's excessively long stay in Delhi at the Commission is shortened in the larger public interestand so that reform can go through.

I would be obliged if this email is acknowledged.

yours sincerely

Sarbajit Roy

B-59 Defence Colony

New Delhi 110024

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] "Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records IC(SG)
To: "humjanenge@googlegroups.com" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>

To:                                                                    

Mr Satyananda Mishra                                          

Chief Information Commissioner                           

Central Information Commission                            

August Kranti Bhawan                                          

New Delhi                                                           

 

                                                                                Date: 16 July 2012

 

Dear Sir,

 

RE: LONG PENDING COMPLAINTS IN THE CENTRAL INFORMATION

      COMMISSION

 

Sir, for the last one year and on several occasions, I have brought to your notice my various Complaints which are long pending in the Commission.

 

Although you have given verbal instructions to various officers and staff, in my presence, to list these on a priority basis, it seems that your officers and staff are continuously trying to delay the listing of these complaints on one pretext ore the other.

 

The long pending Complaints are:

 

S. No.	Appeal/Complaint Nr.	Filing Date	Public Authority
1.	CIC/SM/A/2011/901282	19-01-2010	Allahabad High Court
2.	CIC/SM/A/2011/901284	19-01-2010	Andhra Pradesh High Court
3.	CIC/SM/A/2011/901286	19-01-2010	Guwahati High Court
4.	CIC/SM/A/2011/901287	19-01-2010	Chattisgarh High Court
5.	CIC/SM/A/2011/901288	19-01-2010	Gujarat High Court
6.	CIC/SM/A/2011/901290	20-01-2010	Himachal Pradesh High Court
7.	CIC/SM/A/2011/901293	21-01-2010	Jharkhand High Court
8.	CIC/SM/A/2011/901295	21-01-2010	MP High Court
9.	CIC/SM/A/2011/901285	23-01-2010	Madras High Court
10.	CIC/SM/A/2011/901289	24-01-2010	Orissa High Court
11.	CIC/SM/A/2011/901316	24-01-2010	Patna High Court
12.	CIC/SM/A/2011/901147	03-03-2010	Punjab & Haryana High Court
13.	CIC/SM/A/2011/91299	16-03-2010	Rajasthan High Court
14.	CIC/SM/A/2011/901300	25-04-2010	Sikkim High Court
15.	CIC/SM/A/2011/901302	25-04-2010	Uttarakhand High Court

 

 

As you can see from the above table, these have been pending for more than two and a half years !

 

If anyone in the Commission had bothered to open these complaints and even glanced at them casually, he would have realized the effort I have put in to prepare these complaints – each Complaint took me at least 3 to 4 days.

 

Firstly, these Complaints were "lost" by Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar, when he was Dpty. Registrar to the Ex CIC, Mr Wajahat Habibullah.

 

I was asked to resubmit the Complaints. The resubmitted Complaints were once again "lost". These were finally registered by Mr Vijay Bhalla, the present Dpty. Registrar.

 

I have tried my best to meet everyone from the Chief Information Commissioner in the Commission (including ex Chiefs Mr Habibullah and Mr Tiwari and yourself), Secretary (the past Secretary and the present Secretary), The Additional Secretary, Registrars, Designated Officers and Clerks, repeatedly and on several occasions even outside the Commission. I have written innumerable letters, emails and repeated reminders. But nothing has happened.

 

Since you became the Chief Information Commissioner in January 2011, I have met you in person, several times on this issue as well as sent written letters and reminders. Based on these, you have issued instructions to your officers and staff – but they have even disobeyed and disregarded your own instructions.

 

On December 28, 2011 while conducting a hearing against Ten High Courts on Section 4 suo moto disclosure, in the presence of at least twenty people, you instructed Mr Akash Deep Chakravarti, Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar and Mr Vijay Bhalla – to read these complaints, prepare a comparative chart and put up before you within 15 days. More than six months have passed, but they have still not done so.

 

During my last conversation with Mr Vijay Bhalla, about a month ago, I was informed that if he lists these long pending Complaints, Mr Akash Deep Chakravarti and Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar are threatening him that there will be "Contempt of Court", since there is a stay order from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in relation to WP(C) 3530 of 2012, Order dated 23.05.2011 .

 

 

I have personally read that stay order from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and it is obvious that the both Mr Chakravarti and Mr Shreyaskar are trying to shelter behind this particular stay order so that they can hide their inefficiency, lethargy and corrupt practices.

 

The stay order has nothing to do with the subject matter of my above long pending Complaints and it is clear that both Mr Chakravarti and Mr Shreyaskar have neither read any of my Complaints and nor have they understood the stay order from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.

 

The only conclusions I can draw from this bitter experience is:

 

1.   That your officers and staff are corrupt and amenable to extraneous influences since they have intentionally lost these complaints twice and have also disobeyed your repeated instructions.

 

2.   Your officers and staff and Mr Pankaj K P Shreyaskar in particular, have some malicious vendetta against me because of which they are intentionally and deliberately trying to block the listing of these Complaints since 30 months.

 

3.   The officers and staff of the Commission are influenced by the "name and fame" of the complainant, since I have proof that other Complaints against the same public authorities, which have been filed much later than my complaints, have already been listed, heard and orders passed. Your officers and staff are therefore discriminating against me on the basis of some unknown reasons.

 

4.   Your officers and staff are disobedient to the extent that they do not even follow and obey your own instructions. Under Section 12(4) of the RTI Act 2005, "the general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission" vests in you. It is a sad that the officers and staff of the Commission fail to abide by the instructions of even the Chief Information Commissioner himself, who is the head of the Commission.

 

5.   The Central Information Commission does not follow the "first come first served" principle in listing of Complaints. Your officers and staff are lethargic and oblivious of this principle of fair play OR are corrupt to the extent that they list matters pertaining to appellants/complainants because they have been "influenced" and "bought over" by vested interests.

 

I am present in Delhi on the 18^th July 2012 for a hearing of four cases by your good self and request you for a personal meeting to resolve this issue once and for all.

 

Sadly, I have to state that this is the last attempt I am making to get these long pending cases listed and heard, because as you would have realized by now, the whole experience has been totally frustrating, bitter and a waste of time for me. Rather than waste my limited resources on the corrupt, inefficient, lethargic, incompetent, disobedient and insubordinate officers and staff of the Commission, it would be better if I spent them on training Citizens and PIOs in using the RTI Act properly and correctly - at least they have ears !

 

 

Thanking You,

 

 

 

---

From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 4:15 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] "Only 3 complaints lost in CIC since 2005" records IC(SG)

CIC/SG/A/2012/000643
http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2012_000643_19270_M_84898.pdf

Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Shreyaskar,
CPIO & Director
Central Information Commission

"The Appellant states that he is extremely disappointed with the way
the Commission is working. He states that he has sent these complaints
number of times and any of his communication are being reported to be
lost. He expresses is anguish that if CIC cannot keep its records
properly how can, it set example for Public Authorities. The PIO
states that this is the only instance which is being reported and
there are no other instances which have been reported to the
Commission. The Commission recommends to the Secretary of the
commission to ensure that communication received from Appellant are
not lost and recorded properly."

Only 1 instance of CIC records not being maintained properly. <rol>
Q: Why didn't SG inquire into Pankaj Shreyaskar's bizarre statement.
Ans: Because for many years IC(SG) was responsible for digitisation of
the CIC's records.

Sarbajit