Jump to content
News Ticker
  • 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
RAVEENA_O

New File- CIC : Delhi & District Cricket Association under RTI

Recommended Posts

MANOJ B. PATEL

I think R/Sabharwal786 has yesterday posted this decision of the CIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Learned Ms. Raveena Madam,

 

Kindly do enlighten how it is a public authority when two members of three members Bench of Hon'ble CIC has not declared DDCA as a public authority under RTI Act 2005.

 

I am not aware of legal status in such cases where two members decline to take a decision and the third one takes the decision.

 

harinder dhingra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Learned Ms Raveena Madam,

 

I am only meaning to have your opinion as undersigned complaint is pending before three bench of Hon'ble SIC Haryana and order is reserved since 28th Nov 2014 and was apprehendeding something of that sort and that is why this query of mine before you.

 

Kindly respond.

 

hd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

Normally id there is a split like this, the case should have been sent to a larger bench of 5 or 7 Commissioners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Yes Learned Mr. Karira Sir, they should have but they have not done it.

 

My understanding is that DDCA is not a public authority under RTI Act 2005 as per the instant decision of Hon'ble CIC.

 

hd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira
Yes Learned Mr. Karira Sir, they should have but they have not done it.

 

My understanding is that DDCA is not a public authority under RTI Act 2005 as per the instant decision of Hon'ble CIC.

 

hd

 

Why don't you call up IC SA and check with him. He has a legal background and can definitely throw light on what happens in such a case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

I tried when I met him on last Monday Sir but could not get proper answer.

 

hd

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

    • armyguy
      By armyguy
      This RTI is a powerful tool to expose major policy decisions. Recently a major breakthrough happened with effort in Delhi to privatize water supply in the city.
       
      Apparently, this was a proposed World Bank funded effort. The proposal was on since the mid nineties in complete secrecy. However, some news leaked out in to the press, and an RTI petition was filed asking for the files on this process.
       
      At first there was a lot of resistance, but finally the files were made public, and the story was shocking. Apparently, the World Bank was arm twisting and almost dictating policy to the government. The process of privatization (or any government work) takes place with bids by bidding companies. There is a two layered process, where first in this case the top six companies would be selected, and then in the second round, the best among them would be selected. Here, in the first round, Pricewaterhouse-Coopers, the well known consulting firm, had a bid that came in tenth. By law, they should have been eliminated. But the world bank insisted that PWC be considered. At first the government protested, but with continuous pressure relented, and declared PWC to be selected in the top six by declaring it to be an Indian company! In the next round, again PWC fared badly, with only a 67% score, and a terrible proposal. Again the world bank pressurized the government (by asking it to remove the people who evaluated the proposal), and forced the government to declare the PWC bid as the winner. Again, the government capitulated to pressure.
       
      It wasn’t just this, but the entire process of water privatization in this proposal was rather absurd, and would have affected millions of people adversely.
       
      Bowing to public pressure (after the dealings were revealed due to the RTI petition), the government scrapped the project completely.
    • ganpat1956
      By ganpat1956
      The rules framed by the court deter those who seek information about its workings, reports Avinash Dutt

      When the Right to Information (RTI) Act came into force in October 2005, lawyers who had been fighting for transparency in India’s higher judiciary were apprehensive that the courts might not be very forthcoming with information about their working. Many RTI activists also had their doubts about the courts’ willingness to part with information. The RTI rules framed by the Delhi High Court have confirmed their worst fears. They say that the rules completely dilute the provisions of the RTI.
       
      Under the RTI Act, heads of different government institutions are allowed to frame their own rules to implement its provisions. “The High Court rules defeat the entire purpose of the Act,” says the senior Supreme Court lawyer, Prashant Bhushan. RTI campaigner Shekhar Singh agrees. “Rules framed by the court violate the law,” he says.
       
      The Central Information Commissioner, Wajahat Habibullah, who is in-charge of overseeing the Act’s successful implementation, also has reservations about the rules. “I largely agree with Singh’s observation on the RTI rules formulated by the Delhi HC,” he said. Habibullah differs with Singh on some points, but he also feels that the HC rules need to be amended.
       
      Shekhar Singh elaborates why: one of the rules framed by the HC states that if an applicant seeks any information from a Public Information Officer (PIO) that is not under the officer’s jurisdiction, the information will not be provided. Nor will the fees paid by the applicant be refunded. “This is in violation of the act, which stipulates that such applications must be transferred to the correct PIO within five working days,” Singh points out.
       
      The violations, says Singh, don’t stop here. The Delhi HC rules state: “Decisions, which are taken administratively or quasi judicially, information therefore, shall be available only to the affected persons.” The Delhi HC Press Information Officer cited this rule as the reason for the HC’s refusal to divulge information about class III and Class IV recruitments done in the court in the last 16 years (see box). In fact, says Singh, “The act obligates the public authority to suo motu provide all administrative and quasi judicial decisions to the affected party but does not prohibit it from being given to anyone else.”
       
      The RTI campaigners also object to the HC’s stipulation of mandatory forms and the fees that go with it. The Central Information Commission has ruled that RTI forms should be made available to applicants who need them but should not be made mandatory. The HC has pegged the fee at Rs 500 per application. “Though the court is authorised to fix the fee, but the act also says that it should be reasonable. The rate is unreasonably high,” Singh says.
       
      However, Singh does not see the HC rules as all bad. He points out that one rule is actually an improvement over the RTI Act. The Delhi HC rules give the applicant an opportunity to appear in person and present his case before the PIO, something which the Central Information Commission does not mandate.
       
      Tehelka - The People's Paper

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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