Dear Bhaskar 1) Who is the "we" ?
2) Why should "we" ask in in RTI for monthly disposal and penalties? This is to be proactively disclosed u/s 4. Why does IC(SG) not upload all his orders - especially the penalty orders - and the reasons for NOT awarding penalty ? 3) Instead ask we should ask our friend(s) to digitise and upload the CIC records of interest to citizens AND NOT ONLY THOSE WHICH MR. SHEKHAR SINGH WANTS DIGITISED. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarma...@...> wrote: > > Dear Sarbajit, > I confirm what I say. But from this month we are going to for monthly > diposal and penalties of each commissioner. An may also other records that > they keep. > > In service for RTI. > > Bhaskar > > > On 2/2/10, sarbajitr <sroy1...@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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] <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>, Bhaskar > > Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@> 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 <sroy1947@> 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><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><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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
