Jump to content
akhilesh yadav

J&K: Reveal 60- year old Info under RTI

Recommended Posts

akhilesh yadav

Srinagar, May 25 : The Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) of J&K State Information Commission G R Sufi has directed District & Sessions Court Baramulla to reveal a 60 -year- old information to an information seeker under State Right to Information Act (J&K RTI Act 2009). The CIC has taken a strong note of non compliance of section 4 (1) (b) of State RTI Act by the District & Sessions Court Baramulla as the court (public authority) has failed to digitize its court records from the last 6 years since the RTI Act 2009 is enforced in J&K State. Details available with Early Times reveal that a 2nd appeal was filed by one Abdul Ahad Bhat, a resident of Raram Tangmarg against District & Session Judge, Baramulla (PIO). Showkat Hussain, Administrative Officer in the office of District & Session Judge, Baramulla and the appellant attended the hearing before Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) G R Sufi of State Information Commission (SIC). Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed an RTI application before PIO office of the District & Session Judge, Baramulla on 13-02-2014, seeking copies of Parcha-Decree , Tasfia nama related to case titled Rahim & Mohammad and Ali & Khaliq v/s Gaffar Mir S/o Razak Mir R/o Rarem Tangmarg district Baramulla. The case was filed before Sub Judge Baramulla in the year 1956 and the decision was announced in November 1959. PIO District and Sessions Court Baramulla passed an order on 13-03-2014. On item 1 of information, PIO has been unable to give information as the appellant had not given specific particulars of the case, neither date of institution or date of decision was given. Similarly on point 2, information was denied by the PIO on the plea that information being as old as 58 years and as no exact date has been given, hence it was not possible to provide information. The facts of the other items of information are also same, i.e., details like no. and nature of the case / decision was not given.


Read at: Reveal 60- year old Info under RTI - Early Times Newspaper Jammu Kashmir

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Some are born lucky.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • karira
      By karira
      As reported by Abhinav Garg in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 13 February 2011:
      IIT can't deny JEE record: High Court - The Times of India
      IIT can't deny JEE record: High Court
      NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court in an important ruling recently has held that a candidate appearing for the prestigious JEE or GATE conducted by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) has the right to access information or records relating to the exam under the RTI Act.
      Dismissing a petition filed by IIT Delhi against an order of the Central Information Commission, Justice S Muralidhar recently asked the institute to provide information to applicants Navin Talwar and Sushil Kohli who had sought a copy of the 'Optical Response Sheets' or the answer sheets in their RTI plea to IIT-D.
      The IIT had claimed immunity from disclosure on the ground that its brochure inviting applicants to appear for the JEE or GATE makes it clear it won't entertain any queries related to ORS, and by filing the RTI the applicants had violated this precondition.
      The IIT claimed any qurstion on marks obtained, if entertained, will only lead to demands for regrading and retotalling, even though the institute doesn't entertain any correspondence on it.
      But High Court brushed aside the objections, reminding IIT-D of the supremacy of the transparency Act over any other rule.
      "The right of a candidate, sitting for JEE or GATE, to obtain information under the RTI Act is a statutory one. It can't be said to have been waived by such candidate only because of a clause in the information brochure for JEE or GATE. In other words, a candidate doesn't lose his or her right under the RTI Act only because he or she has agreed to sit for JEE or GATE," the court observed.
      Talwar, a candidate who had taken the JEE last year and Kohli, whose daughter appeared for GATE, filed an RTI plea seeking copies of the ORSs and subject-wise marks of each of the candidates.
      On being rebuffed by the public information officer of IIT-Delhi, the duo appealed before the Central Information Commission, which ruled in their favour.
    • karira
      By karira
      As reported by Jeeva in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 18 February 2011:
      Denial of RTI info amounts to deficiency in service: Forum - The Times of India
      Denial of RTI info amounts to deficiency in service: Forum
      CHENNAI: Applicants can now approach consumer courts (apart from the state or central information commission) for compensation in case they are denied information by a public authority to applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
      Delivering a landmark order to this effect recently on a complaint filed by R Rajakumar of Pudukottai, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in Thoothukudi asked a constituent college of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University to pay Rs 20,000 compensation to the complainant for failing to reply to his RTI application.
      In October 2009, Rajakumar filed a petition with the university under the RTI Act seeking information pertaining to the copy of applications of women BSc computer science students received by St Mary's College, a constitutent of the university, in 2006-07. He affixed a court fee stamp of Rs 10 towards the application fee but didn't get a reply within the stipulated 30 days.
      He then moved the district consumer forum saying he had paid the prescribed fee and hence he should be treated as a consumer. And the failure to reply to his queries would amount to deficiency in service, he argued and prayed for compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.
      The university said the complainant could not be considered a consumer as the fee paid by him was fixed by the government for information under the RTI Act. The consumer forum did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint, it said adding that the complainant could only prefer an appeal with the appellate authority under the RTI Act.
      The university also said it had forwarded Rajakumar's RTI application to St Mary's college but that the college said the information had already been furnished to the complainant in May 2009 and hence it wasn't necessary to give it again.'
      Forum president M Ramachandran and members GP Bhadra Thulasi and S Leonard Vasanth said they had the jurisdiction to hear the complaint since it was a case of deficiency in service.
      The National Consumer Disputes Redessal Commission had already made a ruling to this effect in SP Thirumala Rao Vs Municipal Commissioner, Mysore City Municipal Corporation case, they added.
      Holding the college liable for deficiency in service, the forum said it had to provide the information even if the same had already been provided as the complainant had filed a fresh RTI application with the prescribed fee.


  • Create New...

Important Information

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