Jump to content
  • 0
vinaykala

'affected person ' under rti act

Question

vinaykala

Dear sir,

 

please define 'affected person' under rti act.

 

How does he differ from any citizen seeking info

 

vinay kala

 

mar 01,09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
sandeepbaheti
please define 'affected person' under rti act.

 

The definition is not provided in RTI Act. Whether or not a person is an affected person is a question of fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
vinaykala

dear sir,

 

thanksl

 

i too felt affected person is not defined in act but sec41d talks of reasons to be assigned to affected persons under the act

 

vinay kala

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Dr. M. Faiyazuddin

aggrieved person and affected person. Is there any difference between the two?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
jps50

In this case of 4.1.d, it would be a person who has been directly affected by the decision of PA and mostly he would be the applicant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
colnrkurup

An information falling under the RTI Act can be sought by any cityzen of India, so long as it does not fall under the excemptions and third party information. But information falling under the ambit of Section 4(1)(d) can be sought ONLY by the affected persons. Hope it is clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
vinaykala

dear sir,thanks,

 

I UNDERSTAND THAT INFO ON REASONS FOR ACTIONS CAN ONLY BE SOUGHT BY AFFECTED PERSON UNDER 41D . OTHERS CITIZENS CAN SEEK INFO ONLY AND NO REASONS.

 

WOULD THIS BE A CORRECT UNDERSTANDING?

 

VINAY KALA MAR 02 09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
colnrkurup

To certain extend. You may go through posts of this forum which spell out about information falling under 4(1)(d). Anyway let me clarify it lit bit. Provide reasons..... as per 4(1)(d) does not mean that the PIO give to the affected persons his reasons for everything. The reasons for its administrative or quasijudicial decisions if it is already held in any form (Not on imagination) can be obtained by the affected person. If it is sought by a person who has no concern with and not affected by the reasons, the PIO can refuce such information stating that "You are not affected person"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
vinaykala

DEAR SIR,

 

I WANT TO KNOW THE DEFINITION OF 'AFFECTED PERSON' UNDER RTI ACT.

 

FROM THE ENGLISH WORD I GATHER IT WOULD MEAN A PERSON WHO IS AGGREIVED BY A

 

CERTAIN ACTION

 

FOR EXAMPLE , AS IN MY CASE, IF SOMEONE IS RUNNING A GUEST HOUSE ON MY PROPERTY AGAINST MY PERMISSSION AND THE GOVT BODY GIVES HIM LIENSE FOR THE SAME I WOULD BE AN AFFFECTED PERSON

 

IS THIS CORRECT?

 

SECONDLY WOULD A GOVT BODY DECISION BE RECOGNISED AS A QUASI JUDICIAL DECISION AS DEFINED UNDER SEC 19(1) (d).

 

THIRDLY IN A CASE CITED ABOVE CAN I SEEK REASONS FOR GIVING REGISTRATION TO THE ILLEGAL GUEST HOUSE FROM THE GOVT BODY UNDER SEC 19(1)(d)?

 

4. LASTLY SIR,

 

IN A SECOND APPEAL I HAD FILED AGAINST THE EMPLOYER I SOUGHT REASONS FOR THE MALAFIDE ACTS OF THE EMPLOYER LIKE DELIBERATELY DELAYING RELEASE OF PENSION DUES, INT ON DUES AND DELAY IN GIVING MANDATORY GIFTS.

 

IN A VIDEO CONFERING APPEAL INTERVIEW THE PIO STATED THAT THE REASONS WERE NOT ON RECORD AND HENCE THE CIC OVERRULED MY REQUEST FOR INFO ON REASONS BUT ORDERED PERUSAL OF FILES FOR INFO I SOUGHT WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE ORDER.

 

MY QUERY IS

 

1. IF REASONS FOR GRANT OF THE REGISTRATION OF THE GUEST HOUSE OR ANY LICENSE ETC ARE NOT ON BUT THE PAPERS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT ARE INCORRECT AND MISLEADING AND UNTRUE THEN CAN THE DEPARTMENT BE ASKED TO

CITE REASONS FOR THEIR ACTIONS UNDER SEC 19(1)(d) SO THAT THE INCORRECT DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR GRANT OF A LICENSE ETC ARE BROUGHT TO LIGHT ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
vinaykala

dear sir,

 

i had started a thread on the question ofthe definition of an 'affected' person within the meaning of sec 4 of the rti act.

 

also what would a quasi judicial decision mean.?

 

vinay kala sep 8,10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
vinaykala

dear sir,

 

thanks.

 

but what is a quasi judicial decision ?

 

vinay kala sep 09,10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

Vinay,

 

You are a old member of this portal.

 

Please use the customised google search bar available at the top of this page and search for "quasi judicial" - you will get many threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
vinaykala

dear sir,

 

tried the google search bar by typing 'quasi judicial'

 

did not get any response.

 

regards vinay kala sep 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • Bhawnachwl
      By Bhawnachwl
      ble
    • ganpat1956
      By ganpat1956
      A Supreme Court lawyer has moved the Central Information Commission seeking information on the procedure of the recruitment of class III and IV employees in the Delhi High Court after it was denied by its administration.
       
      Advocate Kamini Jaiswal approached the CIC contending that orders of the High Court Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer (First Appellate Authority) refusing to part away with the information was a violation of the Right to Information Act and also her Fundamental Rights.
       
      She alleged that information had been denied for erroneous reasons and none of the exemption available under Section 8 of the Act allows the authority not to part away with the information sought.
       
      The lawyer had filed the application before the Public Information Officier on September 22, 2006 seeking information regarding number of class III and class IV employees recruited by the Court from the year 1990 to 2006 and the procedure followed for their recruitment.
       
      The High Court PIO while denying the information held that information pertaining to those decisions which were taken administratively or quasi-judicially would be available only to the affected parties.
       
      The lawyer then approached Appellate Authority challenging the PIO order contending that the High Court (Right to information) Rules were inconsistent with the provision of the Right to Information Act and it should be held void.
       
      But the Appellate Authority refused to accept the contention of the lawyer and dismissed her appeal. Now the lawyer has moved Central Information Commission against this order.
       
      CIC moved on recruitment procedure of High Court .:. NewKerala.Com, India News Channel

Announcements



×

Important Information

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