- RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
- 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
- The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
- Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
- Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
By Shree Vathsan
The person in the article below is me. I had a corporation official visit my house with the RTI and asking for my whereabouts. However the PIO has sent a reply on 8/5/19 stating that AE Div 170 is the person responsible for inspecting the banners on the particular stretch. It is after finalising this reply that I had got a call from AE Div 170 on 8/5/19 evening and a person visited my house on 9/5/19. The reply sent by PIO dated 8/5/19 was received on 11/5/19.
Further The AE has stated that he has inspected the stretch and removed illegal banners immediately. However I have material evidence that the banners remained in the same place from afternoon till late night. Only the persons who kept the banner had removed them. So can I penalise the PIO for providing false and incorrect information.
By Priya De
The Bombay high court on Thursday issued a notice to state chief information commissioner and stayed his order which had brought all slum societies under the ambit of Right to Information Act (RTI).
The State Chief Information Commissioner had while hearing one matter involving one such slum society passed an order on December 19, 2017 and declared that provisions of RTI Act shall apply to all the societies under SRA. In a significant interim order, the Bombay high court on Thursday issued a notice to state chief information commissioner and stayed his order which had brought all slum societies under the ambit of Right to Information Act (RTI). The HC was hearing a fresh challenge to an order of the State CIC which in one stroke brought thousands of slum societies under the provisions of RTI making them liable to share information akin to a public body.
A slum society in Andheri had moved the HC against a December 2017 order passed by the state CIC and a subsequent order of April 2018 issued by a joint registrar Slum Rehabilitation Authority to it. Andheri Juhu Lane Nav Bharat Cooperative Housing society Limited in its petition questioned the legality and validity of these orders. The SC had in 2013 held that housing societies do not come under RTI and the state info commissioner’s order is contrary to it said, senior counsel Damle before a bench of Justices SS Kemkar and Nitin Sambre. The bench then adjourned the matter for further hearing and stayed the orders.
Section 32 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, is parallel to the provision of Sections 3 and 7 of the RTI Act, said the petition as it covers rights of members to inspect and see “free of cost’’ the society’s office, and is entitled to get, for a fee, copies of audited annual balance sheet, profit and loss account, its committee members’ list as well as list of members, minutes of general meetings and records of society’s transactions.
View full entry