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

IG in dark over RTI application status

Recommended Posts


As reported by Ajanta Chakraborty in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 10 November 2010:

IPS officer's letter puts govt in a fix - The Times of India


IPS officer's letter puts govt in a fix


KOLKATA: Mamata Banerjee's blue-eyed officer has put the Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee government in a fix.


Nazrul Islam, known to be a no-nonsense officer from the Bengal cadre and hand-picked by Mamata as executive director (security) Railway Board, has shot off a letter to the CM and his home department.


He has sought to know why the government has not paid him Rs 50,000 as ordered by the West Bengal Information Commission (WBIC). He also wants an explanation on the vigilance inquiry against him, based on an anonymous letter alleging that Islam had amassed disproportionate assets. The other important question is whether the state government has adhered to a high court order deducting Re 1 from the salary of the vigilance commissioner who had conducted the inquiry.


Islam first upset the government with a controversial book on his experience as an IPS officer trying to keep the force "insulated from the CPM's political machinery." And now his letter has put Writers' Buildings in a fix.


It's the first question that is bothering the government most. Writers' Buildings is in no mood to pay up the Rs 50,000 compensation. "The home department has sought the law department's views whether there is provision for moving court against the commission's order," said a home department official. State legal remembrancer and law secretary K Y S Manhas was tight-lipped. "This is our internal matter. We cannot talk about it," he said. Former state information commissioner Arun Bhattacharya, who has recently retired, said, "I remember passing such an order, but can't say whether the government can move court against it."


WBIC passed the order a year ago when Islam was ADG (traffic). On June 4, 2007, Islam had filed his RTI petition seeking information on the vigilance inquiry against him. When he received no reply in the next 30 days, Islam filed his second petition in August 2007, but the commission didn't hear his matter. Islam had sent nearly two dozen reminders, but in vain. He then moved Calcutta High Court and on August 27, 2009, the court directed WBIC to dispose of the appeals within four weeks.


Finally, the commission started proceedings and passed the order on December 15, 2009, censuring the home department: "The commission considers that the home department being one of the most important departments shall have to pay a price for such procrastination."


Islam had moved court against his own vigilance case and on June 25, 2008, Justice S P Talukdar directed the state government to pay Re 1 as compensation to Islam for initiating an "illegal" vigilance inquiry. It also asked the government to hold the officer responsible for initiating the "illegal" case against Nazrul, then Inspector General (welfare). During the hearings, Prasad Roy, then state home secretary, conceded that the vigilance inquiry had not been initiated as per law making the court dub the vigilance probe as "inherently illegal."


The judge directed that the compensation (Re 1) be deducted from the salary of the errant officer and be paid to Islam in four weeks. Following the order, the state government issued a cheque of Re 1 to Islam in July the amount had come from the state treasury and the government chose not to identify the individual responsible for Islam's harassment.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

At each step the Govt is trying to make it tough to Mr Nazrul Islam to taste victory. In the process, it is high time the Govt realises that it is only exposing itself. It is better for the Govt to accept its mistake honourably. But does any Govt do so?!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Similar Content

    • Shree Vathsan
      By Shree Vathsan
      I had sought details of loan and copies of agreement entered with World Bank, JICA etc. of IT Expressway Chennai (created in partnership with Govt of TN) However the PIO has replied that they have moved out of world bank loan and taken loan from other banks details of which cannot be disclosed under 8(1) d of RTI Act citing "commercial confidence".
      However the IT Expressway is a public limited company having entered into agreement with Govt of TN and others for developing and maintaining a particular stretch of road.
      Kindly help me frame a good first appeal.
      Sent from my SM-J510FN using RTI INDIA mobile app
    • shrivar1212
      By shrivar1212
      I require help on co-operative issue. I had filed the RTI with the PIO, Dy registrar of co-op societies seeking information on affairs of society.
      The PIO has replied stating that the information I am seeking is available with co-operative society. My query is:
      1] Can PIO direct an applicant to private body for information?
      2] The society in question comes under the jurisdiction of the PIO, since PIO is public authority and co-operative society a private body, is it not duty of PIO to seek information from society and give it to me? How can PIO direct me back to society? This is RTI application, either I have to appeal or I have to forego. I cannot complaint against reply. So I want to approach FAA, under what grounds can I?
      3] What kind of violation PIO has committed by directing me back to private society? 
      4] Does co-operative society come under the purview of RTI ACt?
      Your views are appreciated. I am fighting lone battle with corrupt system. 


  • Create New...

Important Information

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