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
karira

Rajasthan HC: Penalty justified if no response to Show Cause Notice

Recommended Posts

karira

The Rajasthan HC has ruled that imposition of Penalty by the SIC is justified if there is no response to a Show Cause Notice under sec 20 and nor does anyone appear before the Commission:

 

Perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Information Commission indicates that despite issuance of notice under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, no one was present on behalf of the petitioner before the Information Commission and no reply to that notice was filed by the petitioner. In those circumstances, the Information Commission was left with no other option except to impose penalty upon the petitioner. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Information Commission.

The full judgment in pdf format is attached to this post.

 

 

Penalty can only be imposed if there is reasonable cause for delay....pdf

Commission can impose penalty if no response to show cause notice.PDF

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

    • venugopal
      By venugopal
      My application got delayed and the officer was apparently not responsible but his office assist were.
       
      I learned that in RTI rule 20 only officers are liable for punishment under RTI. Then how those clerks can be held responsible?
       
      There should be a clause to fix the people below ACPIO too.
    • maneesh
      By maneesh
      Days after receiving flak for restrictive use of the penalty clause, the Central Information Commission on Thursday levied maximum penalty under RTI Act against registrar of Benaras Hindu University.
       
      The commission found the Principal Information Officer (in this case the registrar) guilty of denying information to the applicant Dhananjay Tripathi, who sought the inquiry report into the death of his friend Yogesh Roy. A penalty of Rs 25,000 has been imposed.
       
      For the first time, the CIC invoked the penalty clause against the official who was not the original PIO. A junior level official was earlier the PIO but during the hearing of the case the university informed that the registrar is assisting the PIO in the case. Therefore, under the RTI Act, he became liable for punishment as an official senior of the original PIO.
       
      By imposing the maximum penalty allowed under RTI Act, the commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act to deny the information requested without giving any justification as to how these provisions are applicable is “simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information”. The CIC had earlier warned BHU in this regard.
       
      When even after a full bench hearing in presence of BHU Vice Chancellor Punjab Singh, the information was denied to Tripathi, the penalty clause was invoked.
      On Thursday, the Information Commissioner OP Kejriwal also asked the university to provide the copy of the inquiry report to Tripathi within a week.
       
      Roy had allegedly died due to medical negligence and the report is believed to have found merit in this view. However, the university debunked the report that it was not according to the terms of reference. That was done after Tripathi sought a copy of the report under RTI Act earlier this year.
       
      The CIC is also expected to issue an order into the inquiry conducted on the allegation of the application that he was discriminated by BHU for filing the application. Tripathi had alleged that he was denied promotion to the next class on malafide grounds.
       
      CIC sources said that the inquiry officer has finalized its report and an order can be expected on that by end of this week.
       
      RTI: CIC levies max penalty against BHU registrar : HindustanTimes.com

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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