Dear Bhaskar You are an equally perceptive individual so I shall not directly reply to your comments.
It is yet to be confirmed that IC(SG) has imposed those penalties or cleared so many cases. On 14-Oct-2009 I (coincidentally Manoj Pai was also present) had filed an RTI to the CIC asking for these sort of details. The CIC has not replied to me - the PIOs are still passing the buck to each other, and they lay the blame squarely at IC(SG)'s door - as he was the IC in charge of digitisation of CIC records. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarma...@...> wrote: > > Dear Sarbajit, > My comments below to your points. U are an intellegient/sharp person so I > donot wish to fall in debate. Myself and Mr. Monoj Pai were observing his > hearing on 1st Feb 2010 as citizens. I find following to yr points which are > written next to your points and he is giving eqaul oportunity for appaleant > and also the PIO to sbustabciate there own case. I wanted to meet you while > I was in Delhi but had very little time left with me. > > *IC Shailesh cleared arouund appeals/complaints 7057 as on 30 Jan 2010 and > levied penalty amounting to 18.06 Lacs as on 1st Feb 2010 on 101 PIOs.* > ** > Regards > Bhaskar > > > > On 1/28/10, sarbajitr <sroy1...@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Bhaskar, > > > > Since this is about IC(SG)'s proposal let me make a few comments. > > > > 1) I sat in once during IC(SG)'s hearings. I observed that usually he does > > not allow the appellant to speak - in front of me he asked two appellants to > > keep quiet and not to interrupt him. He directly puts a few questions to the > > PIO and proceeds to dictate the orders - then he does a big favour by giving > > a kutcha copy printout to the appellant on the spot. > > > > ** We did not notice what you noticed. He did not prevent any appalant in > substabciating his case if it the he has asked "information". He gives > orders immidately and that is fine and is signed. > * > > > 2) IC(SG)'s hearings proceed very fast (spaced only 5 or 10 mins apart) > > for 2 reasons. a) his orders are "settled" before the matter is taken up at > > hearing - IC(MA) is said to be another such character. b) He is unable to > > decide complex cases - and in such matters he invariably allows the public > > authority to write up the final order (usually before the hearing). He is > > also notorious for issuing "penalty show cause notices" at the drop of a hat > > - this leaves the appellant quite satisfied initially - then invariably > > drops the penalty in private such orders never being posted on CIC website). > > > > ** Issueing show cause notice is a clause in the Act , for PIO to submit why > he should not be penalised and needs to be done.* *And complex cases takes > naturally more time but today all commissioners even simple cases they donot > dispose of fast. > * > > > 3) On the occasion I sat in on his hearing, IC(SG) disallowed me from > > assisting one of the parties who sought my assistance during the course of > > his hearing. > > > > ** The appalent has to agree that you are assisting in the case and just > interfering in the hearing as a spectator I donot think it to be correct.* > > 4) Finally, IC(SG) is and was an agent / condom of various vested > > interests - you can call them "mafias" and his holier than thou public image > > cannot conceal the fact that he gives short shrift to any applicant whose > > information demand would conflict with that of his benaami bosses (who got > > him appointed to CIC). > > > > ** Thanks for informing about condom bussiness, appriciie your social > consultency intelligence of recognising the condom users. But I dissagree > with your observation. * > --- In [email protected] <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>, Bhaskar > Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@> wrote: > > > > Dear Sarabjit, > > Most of the cases are simple in nature. Cronic cases do take time and even > > my cases in mumbai some times it takes time. But we observed and monitored > > the process by being present and noting the timeings of hearinmg it was in > > the range iof 8 to 13 mts.Except one or two cases. Most of the information > > commissioners donot come in time to the commissions, so hearing timings is > > less. > > > > Bhaskar Prabhu > > > > > > On 1/27/10, sarbajitr <sroy1947@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > As this is the only thread this week which is even remotely connected to > > > RTI - sigh ! > > > > > > 1) In my experience, at least 30 minutes is required to *PROPERLY* > dispose > > > of a RTI Appeal at the CIC on HEARING basis. (Most of my matters usually > > > exceed 30 minutes). Many of these cases require multiple hearings - my > cases > > > usually average 3 hearings per order. So I would say that about 10 - 15 > > > appeal decisions per day is about the maximum what a good IC can be > expected > > > to do consistently. This translates to about 250 orders per IC per month > or > > > about 2500 decisions per year (incl holidays /other breaks). > > > > > > 2) As per CIC causelists, CIC(WH) hears 5 cases per day (spaced 30 mins > > > apart), IC(AT) about 8 (spaced 15 mins apart) and IC(MLS) about 14 > (spaced > > > 20 min apart). The other ICs dont put up their causelists and should be > > > sacked. > > > > > > 3) There is thus absolutely no basis for Shailesh Gandhi to state that > an > > > IC should be deciding 4000 appeals per year. We have all seen the > pathetic > > > quality of his cyclostyled decisions. 4000 means deciding cases in an > > > anti-citizen manner - without affording hearing to appellants and by > > > clubbing multiple cases together. > > > > > > 4) The meat of the Indian Express story was Shailesh Gandhi's admission > > > that he was appointed through a flawed process "Even I was appointed > through > > > a flawed process.". > > > > > > --- In [email protected] <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com><rti_india% > 40yahoogroups.com>, Bhaskar > > > Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Malay, > > > > This what we have been insisting in Mumbai and maharashtra., they > should > > > > clear atleast 4000 appeals and complaints per year per commissioner. > We > > > > keeping continuous pressure IC in Mumbai on the same matter. > > > > > > > > Bhaskar Prabhu > > > > Mahuiti Adhikar Manch > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
