Jump to content
akhilesh yadav

Gujarat: SMC took Rs 80 lakh, 14 years for study

Recommended Posts

akhilesh yadav

SURAT: It took 14 years and Rs 80 lakh for the municipal corporation of the world's fourth fastest growing city to check technical feasibility of the state's first balloon barrage bridge based on rubber balloon technology downstream of Tapi.



In a reply to an application filed by Right to Information (RTI) activist Ashok Goyal, Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) admitted that after spending the money, it has still not deleted the project from its list of upcoming prestigious projects. It also stated that the technical and financial viability of the project is being ascertained for taking further decision on the construction of the proposed bridge.



Read at: SMC took Rs 80 lakh, 14 years for study - The Times of India

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Priya De
      By Priya De
      Ahmedabad: An Right to Information (RTI) query has recently shed light on an amusing information about the Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani. The Gujarat CM and BJP leader has no official email address to his credit, as revealed in an RTI reply by the CMO’s office. The people who want to reach out to the state top leader have to reach out to his website cmogujarat.gov.in

      The General Administration Department (GAD), overlooks day-to-day service matters of the bureaucracy and the chief minister’s office. As per an official reply under RTI by GAD's public information officer MB Chauvatiya, the department has claimed that CM Vijay Rupani does not have an ‘official’ email ID. 
    • sidmis
      By sidmis
      Wealth of IAS is covered under RTI
      Reported in Gujarat Global News Network, Ahmedabad, 2008-06-11 15:58:39
      In a significant decision the Gujarat Information Commission has
      allowed access to annual property returns (APRs) of government
      officers to any citizen under the Right to Information (RTI) act.
      The ruling came after activist Harinesh Pandya sought details under
      the RTI of property of IAS officer Rajiv Gupta. Pandya wanted to know
      the details of Gupta's property since he assumed office. He had also
      sought to know the source of income for acquiring the property and
      whether any of property was sold. The Public Information Officer had
      refused to disclose the details on the ground that the information was
      available with them in "fiduciary relationship" and there was no
      larger public interest warranting disclosure.
      Pandya filed appeal before the GAD and the appellate authority too
      upheld the PIO's decision. However the GIC noted that CIC's decisions
      on property disclosure were to bring transparency. But it directed the
      GAD to inform Gupta that the details of his property are being
      disclosed and to hear him.
      Wealth of IAS is covered under RTI
      Here's the text of the GIC's landmark order
      Decision / Order.
      (1) The non-disclosure of Annual Property Returns of the
      officers/employees to the citizens under the Right to Information Act,
      2005 under section 8(1)(e) is untenable.
      (2) However, having regard to the situation that, the said property returns
      may contain some part of personal information, in the present matter,
      the respondent No.1 should, within five days from the receipt of this
      order give a written notice to the concerned officer whose information
      has been sought, that under the directions of this Commission, he
      intends to disclose the information and should invite the concerned
      officer to make his submissions in writing or orally and the respondent
      No.1 shall, in his decision, take into account his submissions. The
      respondent No.1 should give his decision within forty days from the
      receipt of this order.
      (3) As regards information sought as point Nos. (2) & (5) of the appellant’s
      application, the respondent No. 1 should provide partial information,
      which even under the GAD (RTI Cell)’s Circular dated 14-11-2005 can
      be disclosed. Regarding the information, which cannot be provided, as
      the Commission has held that section 8(1)(e) would not be applicable,
      if the respondent No.1 is of the opinion that any other provision in


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy