- NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
- shows RTI
- 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
DoPT issued clarifications, revisiting its previous instructions on uploading RTI Applications, Appeals and decisions on official website of public authorities vide its OM No. 1/1/2013/IR dated 07/10/2016. DoPT Clarified that the personal details of RTI applicant/appellant should not be disclosed as they do not serve any public interest. It is further clarified that the personal details would include name, designation, address,e-mail id and telephone no. including mobile no. of the applicant.
Copy of the OM can be accessed here >> http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02rti/1_1_2013-IR-07102016.pdf
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Dated, the 20th September, 2006.
Appellant : Shri Anil K. Sahore, 601, Kailash Tower, Near SM Shetty School, Powai, Mumbai â€“ 400 072.
Respondent : Shri Shailindraa K. Singh, PIO, Commandant, Coast Guard Headquarters, National Stadium Complex, New Delhi-110001.
Shri K.R. Nautiyal, Appellate Authority, Dy. Inspector General & Director (Personnel), Coast Guard Headquarters, National Stadium Complex, New Delhi-110001. Shri Anil K. Sahore has filed this appeal against the order dated 9.4.2006 of the Appellate Authority, the D.I.G. & Director(Personnel), Coast Guard Headquarters and the order dated 10.2.2006 of the PIO, Shri Shailindraa K. Singh, Commandant, Coast Guard Headquarters.
The facts of the case are that Shri Anil K Sahore filed his RTI request dated 12.1.2006 for a copy of the Coast Guard Headquarters letter dated 15.3.2005 addressed to the Chairman, Indian Register of Shipping, Mumbai. This letter had originated from, as stated by the appellant, the office of Vigilance Officer, Shri P.S.Rathore of the Coast Guard Headquarters. The PIO rejected the request through his communication dated 10.2.2006, on grounds of the exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Through his communication dated 8.3.2006, the appellant challenged this order before the first Appellate Authority (AA), who, in his order dated 9.4.2006, upheld the contention of the PIO.
The parties were called for a hearing today (i.e. 20.9.2006). The appellant was personally present and the respondents were represented by the Appellate Authority, Shri K.R. Nautiyal, D.I.G. & Director (Personnel) and the PIO, Shri Shailindraa K. Singh, PIO, Commandant, Coast Guard Headquarters.
During hearing, it emerged that apart from the exemptions quoted for non-disclosure of the information by the PIO, there is another important aspect, which is the interest of the third party in this particular case. Section 7(7) and Section 11(1) of the RTI Act enjoin that third party, if involved in a particular matter, must be heard before a decision on disclosure or non-disclosure of an information is taken. Apart from this, there is a need to examine the appellantâ€™s case more carefully in the light of the security implications of such disclosure. It is noticed that these critical aspects of the information requested by the appellant were not examined.
In overall consideration, the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority, Shri K.R. Nautiyal, D.I.G. & Director (Personnel), Coast Guard Headquarters with direction to examine the appellantâ€™s request for information de-novo. The appellant should also be given a hearing by the AA and the case should be decided not later than 4 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of with the above direction.