Dear Sarbajit,Your 05 Jul 2010 post “ Now IC Deepak Sandhu” got deleted by accident. you wrote: Quote In “Cmdr Lokesh Batra against NCW” we found CIC WH railing against the NCW's poor RTI infrastructure and passing detailed directions to NCW Secretary in July 2009(exercise to be completed in 45 days) http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-28072009-02.pdf Obviously nothing has been done because 1 year later IC Deepak Sandhu lets of this body again for the same excuse of the CPIO (no RTI infrastructure). http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_A_2009_000084_M_37005.pdf Sarbajit unquote Sarbajit, this is not the second time CPIO got away using same excuse that no body listens to him. It is is long history of CPIO getting away with similar excuses. Beside my cases, look at decisions of few following cases. CIC/AD/C/09/00194 dt. April 21, 2009 CIC/WB/C/2008/00613/AD dt. November 19, 2008 CIC/AD/C/09/00231 dt. May 6, 2009 CIC/OP/A/2009/000130‐DS dt. 03 Feb 2010 CIC/WB/C/2008/00433/AD dt. November 17, 2008 Interestingly Shri Yogesh Mehta, CPIO and Law Officer of NCW is also officiating ADM officer's duties for and is boss of lower level officials who are being blamed in many cases for not providing info. It is in the air that a request has gone from NCW to DoPT to extend the deputation period of Shri Yogesh Mehta though against the norms but as a special case. As per buzz he has completed his deputation tenure in NCW. A brief on my cases starting 20 Aug 2008. RTIs are connected with Nithari issue. During all CIC's hearings, cases were presented by me using ppt presentations. Sequence of Decisions. 20 Aug 2008 http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/WB-20082008-01.pdf Quotes (from decision of 20 Aug 2008) “Having heard the arguments and examined the files we are constrained to observe withy deep regret the lack of a functional system in the National Commission for Women in dealing with so important a case that was brought before the NCW by Commodore Lokesh K. Batra. It is strongly recommended under the authority vested in us by Sec 19 (8) sub-section (a) to the Ministry of Women & Child Development that the Ministry institute a regular administrative structure for the Commission, which will then bring its functioning into conformity with the RTI Act, 2005 by instituting a system of maintenance of records in keeping with Sec 4(1), particularly sub-section (a). This exercise may be completed within thirty days of the issue of this decision notice under intimation to Sh PKP Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission.”. Unquote. Further Quote “PIO Shri Yogesh Mehta will, therefore Show-cause as to why he should not be held liable for a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- for the delay between 20.1.2008 when the response became due up to 9.5.2008 when it was actually provided, a delay of 110 days @ Rs. 250/- per day not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. He can do this either in writing by 10th September, 2008 or by personal appearance before us on 29th September, 2008 at 12.30 p.m.” Unquote !2 Sept 2008 (Adjunct) http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/WB-12092008-01.pdf Quotes (from decision of 12 Sept 2008) “However, in addition to the above we have received two complaintsdated 5.9.2008 and 8.9.2008 regarding information provided in compliance of our orders to the application for information considered by us in case numbers CIC/WB/C/2008/00425 & 426. Both these are treated as one fresh complaint and will be registered accordingly. Comments of National Commission for Women may be invited within 15 days thereafter, a copy of which will be endorsed to appellant Cmdre Lokesh K. Batra.” UnquoteNote:No amount of reminders could move Sh PKP Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission to register fresh case in compliance to above orders. Its only after a media release and my visit to CIC the fresh case was registered on 18 Feb 2009, after five months delay in Commission as case No.000044 of 2009. 03 Oct 2008 (2nd Adjunct) http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-03102008-01.pdf Quotes (from decision of 03 Oct 2008) “On the question of penalty, however, written clarification received from PIO Shri Yogesh Mehta simply clarifies that the responsibility for delay in responding to the application is shared. Thus the responsibility for failure to reply to the application of 20.12.07 by 20.1.08 rests clearly with PIO Shri Yogesh Mehta Law Officer. He is, therefore, liable for penalty @ Rs. 250/- a day from 20.1.08 to 6.2.08 amounting to Rs. 4250/-. Because this in turn reached Mrs. Promila Rana on 13.2.08 she is liable for penalty for the balance period i.e. up to 9.5.’08 which will at this rate amount to Rs 21,250/-1 less by amount of penalty levied on PIO, to total a penalty at the maximum of Rs. 25,000/- for failure to supply the information. This will amount to Rs. 20750/- Shri N.P. Gupta, Member Secretary is directed to recover this amount from Shri Yogesh Mehta & Ms. Promila Rana, either directly or through deduction from their salaries beginning 3rd November, 2008, so as not to exceed Rs 5,000/- per month. He will remit the same to Pay & Accounts Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, C-1, Hutments, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi-110011 under intimation to Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar, Deputy Secretary and Joint Registrar of this Commission.” Unquote 28 July 2009 (Case 000044 of 2009) http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/WB-28072009-02.pdf After the above case was registered on 18 Feb 2009, in compliance to CIC decision of 12 Sept 2008 (05 months delay), two hearings were held first on 23 April & 2nd on 10 June 2009 and judgement was reserved till decision dated 28 July 2009 was seen on CIC website before receiving hard copies. During first hearing on 23 April 2009, I proved to CIC that CPIO, NCW had misled CIC by blaming Ms. Promila Rana in this case. The document CPIO blaming deemed PIO, Promila Rana did not concern the case for which was penalised. Shockingly, earlier in May 2009 when I enquired from Shri Pankaj Shreyaskar (PS) if he has received any compliance report from NCW regarding penalty paid by CPIO & deemed PIO, he responded only days before 2nd hearing on 10 Jun 2009 that a submission from CPIO is pending with him (PS) since Nov 2008 for reconsideration. He advised CIC to club this request with my hearing on 10 June in spite of me protesting. The decision of 28 July 2009 has number of factual errors including statements attributed to me which are not mine.Since than my representation dated 08 Oct 2009 against the above decision is being blocked by babu's of the Commission.On 12 June 2009 I had filed an RTI on MoWCD to know the follow up actions taken by the Ministry on CIC's decision of 20 Aug 2008. Outcome- Ministry slept over it till they received my RTI. On 13 July 2009 : MoWCD writes to Secretary NCW to comply with CIC decision of 20 Aug 2008. Read media story below: “Ministry ignores information commission’s order for nearly 10 months” http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/ministry-ignores-information-commissions-order-for-nearly-10-months_100222913.html Second RTI Filed on MoWCD (30 Dec 2009) to know the progress since their letter to NCW on 13 July 2009. Learnt that in spite of reminders sent by Ministry, NCW had not even responded.Now after my 2nd RTI, JS of Ministry has again written to NCW in Jan 2010. RTI on CPIO, CIC dated 31 Dec 2009: Query Sl. (a) :
(a)Please intimate me laid down procedures that are being followed in Central Information Commission (CIC) to ensure compliance of Orders of the Hon’ble Commissioners recorded in their case judgements. In this context please provide me from records of the Commission, a copy of the relevant document on which such procedure is laid down. CPIO response: “There is no such procedure laid down by the Commission except what has been indicated in the decision itself.” Query Sl. (b) : (b)In respect of Case(s) Nos. CIC/WB/C/2008/00425 & 426, in order of 20 August 2008, Hon’ble CIC in his decision had recorded that : Quote “Having heard the arguments and examined the files we are constrained to observe withy deep regret the lack of a functional system in the National Commission for Women in dealing with so important a case that was brought before the NCW by Commodore Lokesh K. Batra. It is strongly recommended under the authority vested in us by Sec 19 (8) sub-section (a) to the Ministry of Women & Child Development that the Ministry institute a regular administrative structure for the Commission, which will then bring its functioning into conformity with the RTI Act, 2005 by instituting a system of maintenance of records in keeping with Sec 4(1), particularly sub-section (a). This exercise may be completed within thirty days of the issue of this decision notice under intimation to Sh PKP Shreyaskar, Jt Registrar, Central Information Commission.” Unquote. Please give brief of actions taken with dates by Shri PKP Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar to ensure receipt of confirmation from MWCD on compliance of Hon’ble CIC’s above directions. In this context, please provide me copies of all correspondence between Commission and MWCD/NCW. CPIO response : “I am to inform that xxxxxxxxxxx “any follow up action except dispatching the decision in file No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00425 & 426 dt. 2008.2008 had not been taken until the date of order of FAA by the undersigned.” With your kind of experience dear Sarbajit, you could even write a book on NCW viz. RTI viz CIC Babus.Regards,Lokesh---------------------------
