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
  • 1
firdaus

Transfer of RTI Application to avoid giving information

Question

firdaus

RTI was filed upon the State Education Board seeking a copy of the "Combined Marksheet" of Std-12 final Board exam results of a particular school. There is no doubt whatsoever that the information requested is maintained by the State Education Board. Despite this being so, to avoid giving information, the State Education Board transferred my RTI Application to the school. As the school has never ever furnished any information even in the past, there is no chance whatsoever that the school will furnish this information to me because it is going to expose a major scam.

what recourse do I have in such a case where, the State Education Board "transfers" my application despite possessing the information themselves ?

(1) should I file complaint with SIC U/s 18 against the PIO of the State Education Board ?

(2) should I wait till the school replies/fails to supply the information and then go through the 1st Appeal and 2nd Appeal process and then upon still no info. Being supplied approach High court ?

With the 2nd Appeals taking 18-24 months to come up for hearing, it appears that the authorities are abusing RTI Act to delay giving of information for at least 18-24 months !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 1
Sunil Ahya

if your concern is that second appeal takes time to come up for a hearing then complaints u/s. 18 would also take the same amount of time to come up for a hearing because Information Commissions do not take complaint u/s. 18 out of turn by-passing the second appeal queue.

It is advisable that you wait for 30 days from the date of transfer of your RTI application to the school and then file a first appeal followed by a second appeal if necessary. Typically Information Commissions require that an applicant should exhaust all remedies available to him before rushing to / approaching the Commission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Prasad GLN

What you want is information.  It may be difficult to trace that old information in Board concerning one in thousands of schools , when your issue is related to that particular school, and it has come from Board, school has to furnish the information.

Just focus on information alone and do not take small deviations here and there seriously.  

Wait for school response and go for first appeal.  After all the difference may be maximum 10 days.  Going for first appeal locally and making follow up is much easier to you.

Before all this first download RTI Act in your mother tongue in A4 page one side and go through fundamental sections like 2h, 6,7,8,11..18 ,19,20.

Filing a complaint can not bring you intimation.  At the most that section may permit you to pray action against PIO and IC can not ask PIO to provide information in case of complaint under SEC.18.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
firdaus

Thank you for your opinions Sir.

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
Answer this question...

×   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
      In our opinion no. Information which is forbidden by law or information of a nature, if disclosed, would defeat the provisions of any law or disclosure whereof is opposed to public policy, cannot be regarded as lawful and is to be ignored and no disclosure thereof can be made or directed to be made.- HC
      Once a purposive interpretation is given to Section 8, it will be found that information forbidden to be published [Section 8(1)(b)] and information available in fiduciary relationship [Section 8(1)(e)] is exempt.
      In our opinion, even though there is no express order of any court of law forbidding publication of marks [as is the want of Section 8(1)(b)] but the effect of bringing the regime of grades in place of marks and of dismissal of challenge thereto, is to forbid publication/disclosure of marks. Similarly, in the evaluation process prescribed by appellant, for guidance of its examiners, marks are only to arrive at a grade, perhaps as aforesaid to acquaint the examiners with the grading system and as a transitory stage in the shift from marks to grades.
    • karira
      By karira
      As reported by Kalinga Times Correspondent in kalingatimes.com on 26 April 2008:
      KalingaTimes.com: Orissa Transport Minister in false affidavit row
      Orissa Transport Minister in false affidavit row
       
      Sambalpur (Orissa), April 26: Yet another Orissa minister has been found to have filed false affidavit adding to the woes of the ruling Biju Janata Dal-Bharatiya Janata Party coalition.
       
      State Transport and Commerce Minister Jayanarayan Mishra, who belongs to the BJP, has been found guilty of providing false information about his educational qualification while filing nomination in the 2004 Assembly polls.
       
      Information gathered under Right to Information (RTI) Act has revealed that contrary to the information filed in an affidavit, Mishra has not passed his Bachelors Degree.
       
      Allegations over the issue was first made by Sambalpur Bikash Manch (SBM) and to substantiate its allegation it sought information under RTI.
      Although information obtained under RTI has proved the allegation correct, the Minister remains unfazed and said that he would prove his point in the right forum.
       
      In the affidavit Mishra had declared that he had passed his graduation examination from Burla NAC College under Sambalpur University in 1984.
       
      But information provided by the PIO cum Principal of Burla NAC College on application under RTI by Convenor of SBM Debasis Purohit has said the minister completed his Intermediate in Arts (IA) during the period 1981-83.
       
      It has further said that although Mishra pursued his Bachelors Degree (BA) in the year 1984 to 1986 with History and Political Science it was unaware about the Minister completing his Degree.
       
      However, the college has also said that it was not in a position to provide any information about passing of BA by Mishra as records relating to the same is no more available in the college.
       
      However, in his affidavit submitted with the nomination papers, Mishra has informed that he has passed completed his graduation from Burla NAC College in 1984. But the question remains is how could he complete his graduation a year after passing IA as it requires two years of attending college before being allowed to appear for the BA examination.
       
      Meanwhile, the issue has provided fodder for the State Youth Congress President Rohit Pujari, an aspirant for Sambalpur Lok Sabha seat.
       
      In a statement to the media, Pujari has demanded resignation of Mishra and urged the Election Commission to initiate action against the Minister.
       
      A similar incident had occurred earlier when Minister of State for Labour Pradipta Kumar Naik had quit his post allegedly filing an affidavit giving wrong information. A case was also registered against him in this connection. Naik, however, had later come out clean.

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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