Jump to content
News Ticker
koteswararaonerella

CIC decision on second appeal hearing on 25-02-2015 through VC

Recommended Posts

koteswararaonerella

my second appeal whose hearing took place on 25-02-2015 through video conference was favourably disposed as the CIC sri.Basanth seth asked to furnish information against two vital points out of five of which two are relating to complaints against the official which he said cannot be permitted as per high scan0003.jpgcourt judgement and the fifth querry is optional one and therefore became infructious thus the whole information which was denied was successfully obtained ., the success goes to our RTI forum.

scan0004.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

Very good sir. Congratulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koteswararaonerella

Thank you my friend Manoj and I am having two more appeals likely to come for haring shortly and I will be able to win with the experience already I got as to how to argue cases in the HEARING before CIC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      While entertaining an application for information made under the Act, the locus standi or the intention of the applicant cannot be questioned and is required to furnish all the information sought by him except what has been exempted under Section 8 therein.
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission


       

      Decision No.286/IC(A)/2006
      F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00453
       
      Dated, the 20th September, 2006


       

      Name of the Appellant : Sh. N. Anbarasan, APPLESOFT, #39,1st, Cross, 1st Main, Shivnagar, W.C. Road,Bangalore – 560 010.
      Name of the Public Authority: Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Customer Service Department, P.B.No.3765, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
       
      DECISION
       
      Facts of the Case:
       

      The appellant had sought the following information from the CPIO of the Indian Overseas Bank:
      “Request/invitation for proposal/quotation, Quotations, Technical bid, Commercial bid submitted by various language software (like Hind isoftware, Tamil software etc.) suppliers related to supply of software to all the Head/corporate offices and sub-ordinate offices/branches.
      Purchase Order/Supply Order placed on various language software suppliers related to supply of software.
      Request/invitation for proposal/quotation, Quotations, Technical bid, Commercial bid submitted by various vendors/dealers related to purchase of computers like PC, Server, Thin client etc. to the Head/Corporate offices and sub-ordinate offices/branches. Minutes/proceedings of the various committees involved in the
      purchase of software/hardware.
      Delivery Challans, Bills/Invoice, orders passed to make the payment, letter of sanction etc. related to purchase of computers like PC, Server, Thin client etc. to the sub-ordinate offices/branches.”
      [*]In his reply, the CPIO informed that information sought is: “Exempted under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act as the information falls under “commercial confidence” and “Trade Secrets” which would harm the competitive position of the third parties and the larger public interest does not warrant such disclosure.”
      [*]The appellate authority has upheld the decision of the CPIO.

      Commission’s Decision
       

      In a recent decision of the Commission, the following was observed: (Decision No.216 dated 31st August 2006):
      “Transparency in functioning of public authorities is expected to be ensured through the exercise of right to know, so that a citizen can scrutinize the fairness and objectivity of every public action. This objective cannot be achieved unless the information that is created and generated by public bodies is disclosed in the form in which it exists with them.
      Therefore, an information is to be provided in the form in which it is sought, u/s 7(9) of the Act. And, if it does not exist in the form in which it is asked for and provided to the applicant, there is no way that proper scrutiny of public action could be made to determine any deviations from the established practices or accepted policies.”
      In view of this, the information sought relate to the public action with regard to the processes that have been followed in purchase of computers and other accessories. Such actions clearly fall under the public domain and therefore exemption claimed u/s 8(1)(d) is not justified.
      The CPIO is, therefore, directed to furnish the information sought within 15 working days from the issue of this decision. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
       


      Sd/-
      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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