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
MANOJ B. PATEL

Provide Bank CCTV footage to appellant

Recommended Posts

MANOJ B. PATEL

An employee of respondent bank rudely behaved with appellant's wife and manager of bank verbally apologized for that.The appellant had sought the information regarding CCTV footage for a particular slot of time which was denied by the CPIO stating that information sought could not be construed as information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

 

Commission directed the CPIO to provide the name and designation of concerned employee of bank and footage of CCTV. Both the CPIO and FAA advised the appellant to file a complaint in the matter.

CIC_SH_A_2014_001317_M_159194.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Ultimately, no penalty against PIO & FAA though there is deliberate denial with wrong interpretation. Atleast, this time Hon SH has given an opinion which is usual in his decisions no malafide denial.

Is this not malafide denial ? Why should appellant travel from Mumbai to New Delhi for CIC hearing, who will compensate him/her for such denial ? Is this extra expenditure not due to misinterpretation ? Is there any certainity that CCTV footage is still stored at this time ? O.K. what about other replies which were not even raised or commented by IC ? Are they not necessary for a speaking order ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

R/Sir, all queries raised by you are totally correct but who will convey it to the concerned IC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Hon Manoj,

Do you think that Hon IC is not aware of all this. You can awake a man if he is really sleeping but can not wake a man who pretend such sleep.

It is his policy not to impose fines or state any thing about recommendations of punishment anywhere in his decisions.

May be he is having a Magic mirror in his pen that confirms that PIOs never deny information on malafide intentions.

 

Be happy that he has given a favourable decision to appellant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL

Sir, only retired justices should be appointed as IC, not retired top IAS, IPS officers of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Hon Manoj.

Who should decide that ?

Is there any stipulations in Act ?

Is there a guarantee that litigants who are true,honest are getting due justice in Courts ?

Does this great act require such knowledge of Constitution for delivering a decision ?

Are the past decisions delivered by only legal experts in SIC/CIC ?

Are you not hurting our great leaders Hon.Karira, Hon Hd and making such comments after posting so many CIC decisions ?

If we wanted to break our head, any stone serves the same purpose.

(Sorry moderator saab. I have not seen the thread and posted and now felt that I am trespassing )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
harinder dhingra

Relax Learned Mr G L N Prasad Sir,

 

 

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

    • 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