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
D.T.RATHAVA

New File- #STRANGE DECISION

Recommended Posts

D.T.RATHAVA

D.T.RATHAVA has just uploaded #STRANGE DECISION!

 

High court decision against SIC STRANGE DECISION.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rameshverma

Unable to comprehend, how a well meaning decision of Supreme Court has been tagged as strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL
Unable to comprehend, how a well meaning decision of Supreme Court has been tagged as strange

 

Welcome to RTI INDIA PORTAL. Thank you for choosing RTI INDIA PORTAL.

 

Please click the following link and read through the topics:

 

RTI Information

 

Please do not post in to multiple forums or start multiple threads. You need to study links on home page of this website and then start drafting RTI for common problem of specific issues etc. You can post draft RTI application on this portal so that our members can refine it. Thus you will be having working knowledge of RTI over a period of time. Please also visit this website often and peruse queries and replies by our members, which will make you comfortable with RTI.

 

Dear Member, in addition,

 

If you are interested in reading the whole RTI Act please go to the following link:

 

403 Forbidden

 

To explore about RTI kindly refer following links

 

(A) Download RTI Forms

(B) How to Become RTI Activist

© How to file RTI Online

(D) Centre / State RTI Rules and Fees

(E) Case laws of RTI

 

With Regards & Best Wishes.

Manoj B.Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

R/rameshverma, Mr. Rathava has written " High court decision against SIC STRANGE DECISION". means strange decision by SIC (State Information Commissioner) and not by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

With Due apologies to Shri DT Rathava, SC judgment is not strange and in the past there were several active discussions on the subject as to whether Members in the interview board has to be disclosed under RTI Act or not.

During the discussions, even Hon.Karira has expressed his opinion that Public Authorities may deny information with the reason that may endanger lives of the interview members .

The Judgment is not strange. While uploading such decisions , members may add one liner in their post (as Hon.Karira always done in the past) on why th at decision is strange /weird.

 

Sorry Hon.Manoj, when SC has given a verdict, there is no need to find further mistakes in SIC/HC decisions. They (HC) were also correct, as there were decisions that the list of interviewing panel may be revealed after the interviews are over. Now SC felt that such revealing of names may endanger lives of the committee members. Both are correct in their own circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D.T.RATHAVA

R/PRASAD SIR,Thank you to advise me next time sure take in mind

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
      State commission cracks down on information officers who delay providing information to citizens
      The state information commissioner recently levied a fine of Rs9,750, to be recovered from the salary of SP Sangane, divisional joint registrar, co-operative housing societies, for delaying information sought under the RTI.
       
       
      Tarun Ghia, a Mumbai resident, had demanded copies of the orders of appointment of chartered accountants and certified auditors to audit co-operative housing societies, on January 23, 2006. Ghia was provided the required information on April 20 — 84 days after the application. Under the Act, only 30 days to provide information is permissible and another 15 days to intimate the applicant about photocopying charges. But even after counting those days, there was still a delay of 39 days.
       
       
      Ghia then filed a complaint and, in the hearing before the state information commissioner, Sangane cited administrative reasons such as the ongoing assembly session, large number of appeals, urgent notices and the chief officer going on sick leave as causes of delay. State Information Commissioner Suresh Joshi, however, said the reasons did not justify a 39-day delay.
       
       
      In another case, Gaurang Vora sought information regarding MMRDA projects that required trees to be chopped or replanted, through the RTI Act. The information was delayed by 29 days. SR Nandargikar, superintendent engineer and engineering and information officer, MMRDA was fined Rs7,250 (Rs 250 per day of delay). “I’m quite satisfied with the action that the commissioner has taken but the need of the hour is 10 chief information commissioners in the state,” Vora said.
       
       
      Suresh Joshi, chief information commissioner, Maharashtra, said: “We look at the gravity of the case and then impose a fine or order departmental proceedings. If it’s a tehsildar in Gadchiroli, who has very little administrative exposure, then we are lenient and may issue a warning but if it’s a corporator in Pune or Mumbai, who is well aware of administrative responsibilities, we take stricter action.”

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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