[HumJanenge] Re: Another blunder of Anita Gupta

Dear Friend

You have made a few mistakes in your FAA / RTI request

1) You have repeatedly used the abbreviation "CIC". You have not
previously defined what you mean by it - do you mean "Central
Information Commission", "Chief Information Commissioner" or something
else.

2) You have apparently agreed to a telephone hearing. This is a very
old trick FAAs like AG and Anuradha Chagti use. Never agree to it.

3) The key word is "not maintained". The information may exist, it is
"not maintained". This is a code word given by the CPIO in his reply.
You apparently failed to appeal this ground properly. You lost this
round when you admitted you weren't sure what CPIO wanted to convey
and that he was misguiding you. Had you assailed this ground properly
the case would have been different. Unfortunately many RTI activists
don't understand "babu English" well enough or know the RTI Act well
enough.

4) Since this group exists to help unfortunate persons to improve
themselves, I shall assist you.

"Not Maintained" means that
a) the information sought probably exists, but
i) does not constitute a "record" of the public authority , OR
ii) Is not systematically "indexed" / "catalogued" in a manner and
form to facilitate the CPIO to access it to provide the applicant.

This is a code word to be used as defence by CPIO against eventual
penalty proceedings against the CPIO. The CPIO will claim that it is
not his job to do the indexing and cataloging. Nobody will take
responsibility for it. Ultimately it is the responsibility of either
the Chief Information Commissioner *u/s 12(4)* or the Secretary/CIC -
both of whom are senior to CPIO / FAA.

So you must attack both the Chief Info Commissioner AND the Secretary/
CIC on this point in your 2nd Appeal.

Also kindly request the CIC to inquire into status of detailed First
Appeal Order of Secretary /CIC Mr Haleem Khan on this very issue in
case of Mr. Ravinder Balwani versus CPIO/CIC in CIC/AA/A/2008/188
dated 19.1.2009 - the copy of which has been mischievously removed
from CIC website.

Sarbajit

On 23 July, 21:49, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The great Indian blunder story of Anita Gupta/PKP Shreyaskar continues...
>
> They say that the information asked is not maintained with CIC, while we
> have all have seen the information exists for so many cases, and also
> specifically for the case mentioned inhttp://goo.gl/lX7qm...
>
> Can they lie so blatantly?
>
> Girish Mittal
>
>  AA CIC 19052012.PDF
> 1332KViewDownload

[HumJanenge] Re: Out of turn hearing of former MP

Dear Friend

You are correct that an UNREASONED "out of turn" hearing appears to
have been given.

This is a very well known matter from after the time CIC(SM) was
Secretary at DoPT.

http://www.punemirror.in/index.aspx?page=article&sectid=3&contentid=20101021201010212334142028571b13

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2747717.ece

Incidentally, CIC(SM) also shares some Madhya Pradesh links like Smt.
Bharadwaj (nee Gate).

It seems all sides in the dispute want the matter to be resolved as
soon as possible ;-)

Sarbajit

PS: Please keep posting many more such aberrations , so that all
friends know the state of affairs at CIC where delay and corruption
cuts across all Registries.

On 23 July, 21:29, Girish Mittal <rtng.mit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> Our friend CIC has given out of turn hearing to Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj, a
> former MP(more of Mahabharat fame)
>
> http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2012_000231_M_8739...
>
> According to CIC's own guidelines, for any out of turn hearings, reasons
> are to be recorded on the decision itself.
>
> But the rule is followed in spirit(ghost) rather than in CIC itself!!!
> Kalyug ki Ramayan or Mahabharat...
>
> Regards.
>
> Girish Mittal

[HumJanenge] RECORD KEEPING OF MAILS RECEIVED BY A PUBLIC AUTHORITY (GOVT. OFFICE)

 

Govt. of India has reportedly issued some guidelines on keeping the records about the letters etc. received on e-mail in a public authority. I shall be grateful if any member can circulate these guidelines for the information of all.

[rti4empowerment] SIC Ratnaikar Gaikwas

Believed and seen SIC Ratnaikar Gaikwas has passed some good Judgements in favour of applicants, will know better  when i come face to face when i am called for my hearings, as the saying goes a new broom sweeps well.

L.Almeida.

[HumJanenge] Another blunder of Anita Gupta

The great Indian blunder story of Anita Gupta/PKP Shreyaskar continues...

They say that the information asked is not maintained with CIC, while we have all have seen the information exists for so many cases, and also specifically for the case mentioned in http://goo.gl/lX7qm...

Can they lie so blatantly?

Girish Mittal

[HumJanenge] Out of turn hearing of former MP

Dear Friends,

Our friend CIC has given out of turn hearing to Mr. Nitish Bharadwaj, a former MP(more of Mahabharat fame)

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_A_2012_000231_M_87390.pdf

According to CIC's own guidelines, for any out of turn hearings, reasons are to be recorded on the decision itself.

But the rule is followed in spirit(ghost) rather than in CIC itself!!! Kalyug ki Ramayan or Mahabharat...

Regards.

Girish Mittal

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

This Pankaj is on deputation from other department and one can not be a deputationist for than 5 years   Any body can say about this, why he is nort returning to his parental department

On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 10:01 PM, vinay singh <vinay4299@gmail.com> wrote:

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