Subject: Re: Observations on CIC-Shailesh Gandhi's Orders. Sir
Before passing comments on other people's orders kindly clean up your HTML code and resubmit it properly for our group's consideration. S D Sharma --- In [email protected], "G R Vora" <frcf_...@...> wrote: > > > > 27.12.2008 > > Dear friends, > > Sub.:-- My observations on CIC - Shailesh Gandhi's Orders. > > > In earlier months, I studied about 100 orders of other CICs (passed between > 1.1.2006 to 30.6.2006), and about 60-70 orders of Maharashtra's Chief SIC, to > understand the extent of their adherence to the RTI Act. In this context, my > observations about your orders are as below: > > Positive points: > > 1. Your orders are much more systematic and transparent. They show better > adherence to the Act are clearly mentioned. > 2. Crucial dates are written i.e. date of Application, of PIO's reply, of > First Appeal, of F-AA's reply, and of filing second appeal. > 3. Orders are well reasoned. > 4. Appellant are warned against filing multiple RTI Applications (over 60 in > nos.) just to 'teach a lesson' to the officers. > 5. PIOs are frequently given show cause notices for non-compliance to Sec. 7 > (1). > > > Scope for improvement: > > 1. The point "Appellant's Grounds for 2nd Appeal" needs to be inserted after > the "Appellate Authority ordered". (Your orders are broadly divided as: > a. Info sought & PIO's reply > b. Appellate Authority ordered > c. Relevant facts emerging from hearing > d. Decision. > If "Appellant's Grounds of 2nd Appeal" is mentioned in your order, then you > may comment on those grounds of appeal in your order, thus satisfying the > Appellant and improving the quality of your order, and enhancing continuity > of the appeals process. > > 2. PIO should at least be reprimanded for the following errors: > (i) giving incomplete reply and disobeying AA's Order. (w.r.t Decision No. > -----/00221/SG/144 dated 5.11.2008) > (ii) delayed transfer of Application to another Public Authority. > (iii) not providing "file notings' (Decision No. ------/01141/SG/119 dated > 22.10.2008) > (iv) giving unclear reply. (D.No. ------00921/SG/155 dated 5.11.2008) > (iii) delay of some days in replying -- say 20 days. > > 5. The number of days delay should be explicitly mentioned in your order > after the date of PIO's reply, along with a reprimand if not penalty. > > 8. AA should be reprimanded for passing orders 60 days and 90 days late. > (D.No. -----/00523/SG/156 dated 5.11.2008 and D.No. -----/01044/SG/0157 dated > 5.11.2008) respectively. Also in D.No. -----/00932/SG/162 dated 5.11.2008). > > > If the above omissions in your orders are corrected, then it would send a > stronger message to the PIOs and AAs that their callous attitude towards RTI > implementation shall not be tolerated. > > Shaileshbhai, you are already setting excellent precedents in terms of > expeditious clearing of appeals and complaints, and transparent and > systematic ways of passing orders for all the Info Commissioners in India. We > hope you will consider our above suggestions and raise the benchmark for RTI > implementation even higher. > > Our sincere best wishes are with you always. We shall continue to study his > orders and revert with constructive feedback, and we shall also encourage our > fellow activists to do so. > > Regards. > > > > WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE, IF WE CARE. > > G R Vora > Plot - 275/3, Gope Nivas, Sion E, Mumbai-22. > Ph - (022) 24091193 / 9869 195785 > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
