This should be first brought with proof or prima facie case to the notice of the concerned Information Commissioner. There are two possibilities, the IC may not be aware of all this or the charges may be wrong. After informing about this, we shold wait for reply for a reasonable period. But without any proof, we cannot blame any body in the Registry of any IC.
We have been listening such charges or suspicion about some Registars/ staff of other IC's etc. then why target to one IC only. Either we should have some proof or should try to get some by way of conducitng an sting or otherwise.
Often, the Appellants complaint that their submissions, though relevant to the case, have not found mention in the CIC orders. If that be so, the order might be different. That has happened in some cases of mine decided by Shri M L Sharma and Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, both ICs. In addition to this, in one case, Mr. Sharma, IC wrote in his order that the Appellant was not present while I was present during the hereing and also signed the attendance sheet. On being drawn the attention of IC towards this in a letter sent to the than CCIC, Shri M L Sharma, IC regretted for the mistake.
In other case, Ms. Annapurna Dixit wrote in her order that the Appellant came late and therefore she heard the respondent first. (Case No. 2009/000446). The fact was that she only called the Respondent at the scheduled time of hearing while I, along with my advocate Mr. Ashok Chaitanya, was also waiting in the waiting room after signing the attendance sheet. When we raised protest against this at the gate of IC's room and in the corridor, we were called for hearing but by that time, the Respondents, CPIO and FAA of NSD, AIR left.
In the aforesaid case, I received order over after 25 days on filing an RTI application dated 5th Jan. this year to know the status of the case. Otherwise, CIC was silent in the case for almost about over two months. I still suspect that the order was issued in the back date after receiving the RTI application and this suspicion has also been brought to the notice of the Dy. Registrar and the Hon'ble IC. I had to file two more RTI's dated 16.7. and 13.9 this year to know the status of my case and after that, my case of non-compliance progressed. Eventually, the CPIO was let-off condoning the delay in providing the information and dropped the penalty proceedings agaisnt the PIO while the delay was not an issue in my appeal. The issue was denial of information by stating that I am seeking information which he feel is not needed by me. My appeal for review of the decision was rejected stating that there there was no mistake of facts of error of law. Though, I wanted to go to High Court, but that is not an easy task and I still intend to appeal in the Delhi HC. I am also not sure about the fruitfulness of my appeal in HC as the concerned PIO is retiring next month. After that, the execution of any penalty order will almost be impossible.
The question is why such silly mistakes always goes against the Appellants/ Complainants? Why the PIO's are not the victims of such human errors.
One querry-
Can the proceedings at the CIC can be audio-taped without disturbing the proceedings? if not, that should be allowed. Though, I think, that this can be done as the hearings are in open Court but the taping should be without any disturbances in the proceedings. Other suggestion, the proceedings should be video-recorded. Both steps will also help the CIC as there will be no chance of forgetting the submissions of either party. To get information on this, an RTI application can be submitted.
It has also come to the notice that some cases of non-compliance of IC orders are pending in his/ her office for months say over six.
From: Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, 22 November, 2010 2:17:59 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: [HumJanenge-YG] TOI: Gujarat: Info panel flayed over pending cases
Dear Vishal thanks for this news post.
"A further probe revealed that some of Gandhi's office staff were hand in glove with various departments,"
For once Arvind Kejriwal now has the guts to say openly what I have been saying all along. Namely that IC(Shailesh Gandhi)'s registry and especially all those private interns he hires and pays for are corrupt and hand in glove with various undesirable forces. Incidentally I had complained to the CIC about a nice little racket in IC(SG)'s registry whereby "FIRs for cash" was in progress, but as usual no action although it seems to have stopped for the moment.
Anyway who "probed" IC(SG) ??
Sarbajit
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:17 AM, vishalkudchadkar
<v_kudz@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/Info-panel-flayed-over-pending-cases/articleshow/6966074.cms#ixzz15yY2EOM2
A large gathering of RTI activists from across the state and many of its users assembled for a public hearing at the Mehndi Nawab Jung Hall in Paldi to protest against the rising pendency of cases in the information commission. The participants had expressed worries over the neglect of appeals made under RTI with various departments.
The RTI public hearing resounded with vitriol and sloganeering against the Gujarat state information commissioners, who, the activists alleged, had done little to solve the rising pendency of cases in the commission. Many went on to the stage and even obstructed the day's proceedings. The participants were angry because none of the commissioners bothered to attend the public hearing.
Setting the ball rolling was RTI activist and Magsaysay award winner Arvind Kejriwal, who claimed that the very fact that information commissioners have kept themselves away from the hearing was proof that they were guilty of the delay caused. "We had a similar public hearing in Delhi where we invited Shailesh Gandhi, one of the central information commissioner's. Gandhi admitted that he never knew people were so angry with him . Orders issued were not honored by departments, fines imposed were not collected, appeals made to the commission were stashed away. A further probe revealed that some of Gandhi's office staff were hand in glove with various departments," he said.
Likewise, Kejriwal insisted that such 'public hearings' be organized in the presence of information commissioners to iron out differences with the applicants in an amicable way. "We'll lodge a protest before the commission in the coming week," says RTI activist Bharat Jhala.
While giving a flip side view lawyer Mukul Sinha said, "RTI Act was never meant for activists. It's an administrative tool to help the common man access information which he could not have procured via a complex mesh of laws and rules. My biggest grouse with information commissioners is that they have done little in terms of penalizing officers. Instead of imposing hefty fines, the officers' service records should have an adverse remark, only then would they comply with the RTI laws."
The meet also presented Vinod Pandya's RTI application which showed that in the 2009-10, of the 1,631 cases analysed, nearly 697 orders were issued by the Gujarat information commission and that none was honored. "Some 663 RTI applications were rejected on technical or merit grounds, while 204 applications were returned. The pendency of cases was close to 7,100. Between January and August this year 2,380 orders were passed, of these only 27 penalties were imposed.
No comments:
Post a Comment