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
ganpat1956

Ball in the high court

Recommended Posts

ganpat1956

At least three parties have moved the High Court against orders of KIC.

 

*Poornaprajna House Building Cooperative Society refused details of sites allotted and the seniority/eligibility list of its members on the ground that it was an autonomous body and not a Public Authority.

 

The Commission rejected the claim as all cooperative societies have been acknowledged as PA by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Besides, the government had acquired lands for the society for “public purpose.

 

*DCC Bank, Bidar declined details of recruitment during 2005-06 and the list of borrowers given one time settlement. The Commission overruled the Bank’s objection that the applicant was not a member/director or employee and held that every citizen had a right to information. It also held that substantial concessions by way of lower interest rates and writing off of principal amount are shown to borrowers under one time settlement.

 

These concessions involve public funds. Hence, citizens have a right to know if the discretionary powers given to the management have been used rightly.

 

*Sri Basaveshwara Veerashaiva Vidyavardhaka Sangha declined details of the grant-in-aid received from the government by educational institutions run by it, stating that only some institutions were aided. The applicant contended that the Sangha had received loans and other development assistance from the State and the Centre. Hence, it is a Public Authority and liable to share the information sought.

 

Deccan Herald - Ball in the high court

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lav_agrawal

Cases u/s 8(1)(j) of the right to information act

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • crusader
      By crusader
      I want to know that I have got information from Nagar nigam, Can I use it as an evidence in the court of law? What are the provisions related to that?
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission


       
       

      Decision No.292/IC(A)/2006
      F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00588


       

      Dated, the 21st September, 2006


       
       

      Name of the Appellant : Sh. Sharabh Dubey, 11/7 Civil Lines, Kanpur –208 001. (U.P.)
      Name of the Public Authority: The British India Corporation Limited, 14/136 Civil Lines, P.B. 77, Kanpur-208 001.
      DECISION
       
      Facts of the Case:
       

      The appellant is an employee of the respondent. He was transferred to another Unit of the company. The office order was challenged by him in the Court, which adjudicated on the matter. Subsequently, he has filed a few more petitions on service related matters in the Court. In this backdrop, he has sought documents relating to the legal opinion obtained by the respondent, file notings by the senior officials on the issue of transfer, letters/correspondence with other officials, etc.
      The CPIO has denied the information and sought exemption u/s 8(1)(d) & (g) of the Act.
      The case was heard on 12.9.06. The appellant could not be present. The CPIO and the appellate authority were present. In the course of hearing, the CPIO showed a copy of the petition filed by the appellant in the Court, whic hcontained almost all the documents asked for by him. The CPIO contended that the documents asked for by the appellant relate to the various petitions filed by him in the Court. He, therefore, pleaded that the disclosure of the documents might adversely affect the disputed cases. Hence, the relevant documents are treated as confidential.
       
      Commission’s Decision:
       

      There is a dispute between the appellant and the company on service matters, including transfer of the appellant to another unit. The matter is pending before the Court for adjudication. There is every possibility that the appellant would get opportunity for his effective defense. The information sought is in the interest of the seeker. And, as such, there is no overriding public interest, u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act, for disclosure of the information.
      The appeal is therefore dismissed.
       

      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