Jump to content
News Ticker
Shrawan

Right to Information Act 2005 – Clarifications & Instructions

Recommended Posts

apaul

I was going thru the RTI 2005- Clarifications and Instructions. There it had been mentioned that the redressal of grievances is outside the purview of RTI. Call it the beauty of RTI or the specific nature of refund related grievances in the Income Tax Department, about 50% of the applications are the so called grievances, which are being settled thru RTI in the office of CPIO.

 

Similar is the case as narrated by ganpat1956 (hope i remeber the user name correctly) about NRI able to get a refund by making an application under the RTI.

 

Just a thought.........

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pulivarthi Narasimhulu

Some of the State Information Commissioners are instructing the PIOs to redress the grievance of the applicant while delevering the decision. But some Commssioners are closing the hearings by declaring that the redressal of the grievance is not under the purview of RTI Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
premeet01245

thanks for information

 

 

Deleted external links

 

WARNING: By posting external links as your signature, you are indulging in surrogate advertising in your posts. Any further violation will result in an immediate and permanent ban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
charger

although RTI act is not meant for solution of a problem but more then 90 % of applications related to personal problems and it help a lot to such applicants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ketan Modi

Dear All,

Though format of RTI has not been prescribed in Maharashtra RTI Act, 2002, the old one had prescribed format. Even in Gujarat RTI Act, 2005 the format has been prescribed. For the benefit of the community I am uploading the Maharashtra formats and encourage members to use this one if your state RTI does not have a prescribed format. I am using these formats for all my application addressed to Central PIOs. Happy information seeking.

Ketan Modi

Format 6(1).doc

Format 19(1).doc

Format 19(3).doc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pcbali

RTI should be used to redress the grievances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
krishma

The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4, sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 5, sections 12, 13, 15,16, 24 , 27 and 28 shall come into force at once, and the remaining provisions of this Act shall come into force on the one hundred and twentieth day of its enactment.

 

Whereas the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic;

 

And whereas democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed;

 

And whereas revelation of information in actual practice is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bhandaridilip

Thank your for providing an important and useful aspect of the law, which one may not have noticed by reading the act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yogi M. P. Singh

Hon'ble members. In view of your friend, opinions, consent and advices can be sought if it is in material form held by public authority. Redressal grievances can made under R.T.I. Act 2005, if grievance arised due unholy practice of PIOs under Transparency act. Grievances arisingout due to conflicting information on same subject, to check the authenticity of information made available under R.T.I. Act 2005 and others likewise. Those grivances which is filed before P. A. can not be redressed under trasparency act but its proccessing for redressal can be sought under R.T.I. Act 2005. Those opinions, consents, advices sought to take policy decisions and formed the part of record of pubic office can be sought under transparency act. If a public authority writes the reason of its decision whether it may be administrative or quasi-judicial can be sought under R.T.I. Act 2005. All the informations which can be sought by parliament or state assembly under any law for the time being in force then those informations can be sought by citizens of India under R.T.I. Act 2005. Division bench of S.C.I. headed by former C.J.I. Justice K. G. Balkrishnan categorically stated in its order that whatever information can be sought by a P.A. from another P.A. same can be sought by a citizen under section 6(1) of R.T.I. Act 2005.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
valeria

I have read your term and condition of RTI, you have mention really nice information which is very helpful for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yogi M. P. Singh

Hon'ble members. R.T.I. Act 2005 was enacted by government of india to enhance transparency and accountability in the working of public authority. But maximum appointment of inefficient retired bureaucrats as C.I.C. & I.Cs. subverted entire R.T.I. Act 2005. It is ridiculous that transparency panel whose job is to be instrumental in providing information to information seekers itself has been stumbling block in furnishing information to seekers as ipsofacto obvious. Thanks to RTI INDIA for raising the problems of information seekers effectively and shielding the transparency act otherwise corrupt executives , bureaucrats and judicial members had made it mere a heap of useless papers. We all RTI Activists are grateful to RTI INDIA website for fighting to safeguard the interest of RTI Activists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sharmajee

Supreme court judgment in CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011, [Arising out of SLP [C] No.7526/2009], in the matter of

Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. , have allowed inspection of answersheets......

 

 

Acceptance of RTI application/appealMisc.Copies of evaluated Answer Papers are not to be made available to the candidate or others. As and when answer papers are evaluated, the authority conducting the examination and the examiners evaluating the answer paper stand in fiduciary relationship to each other. Hence in fiduciary relationship the disclosure of such information is exempted under section 8(i)(e). Further it is purely a personal information, the disclosure of which has no relation to any public interest or activity and this has been covered under section 8(1)(i) of the Act (Appeal No.ICPB/A-2/CIC/2006 dated 6th Feb 2006 Case of Ms. Treesa Irish Vs Keral Postal Circle)

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yogi M. P. Singh

Hon'ble members. Judgement delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in civil appeal No. 6454 of 2011 in the matter of C.B.S.E. & Anr versus Aditya Bandopadhyay & others have allowed inspection of inspection of answersheets.................is laudable by the RTI Activists from all corners of the country and Hon'ble Sharma Ji your effort is also praiseworthy. Hon'ble friends, on the other side of screen transparency panel (CIC) whose job is to be instrumental in providing access information itself made the mockery of provisions of R.T.I. Act 2005 by wrongly defining the fiduciary relationship in appeal no. ICPB/A-2/CIC/2006 dated 6-2-2006 case Treesa Irish versus Keral postal circle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jiakoars

thanks friend,

nice post and topic. it will helpful for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sharadphadke

THIS POSTING IS FOR CLARIFICATION OF Section 2, Section 6, Section 7 and Section 28 of the RTI Act.

 

We are discussing issue of complaint against SC & HC for not following Section 4. Similarly this issue is in relation to "Specific" format of Application kept by Bombay High Court. My points:

1.) Central RTI Act has no specific format.

2.) Maharashtra has heading Appendix - A Rule 3 heading and general information of Information seeker. I have not came across any Public Authority "INSISTING" for this particular format and they provide information to your application.

3.) If the application is rejected for some reason it [application] is returned to information seeker "With the fee paid"

4.) Bombay High Court has "Form-A" similar to Maharashtra Rules, but PIO of High Court or lower courts rejects the application if not in format but do not return the "ORIGINAL" application and fee.

5.) H C has power to to make rules, we have no objection for this, they can make for them self.

 

Now my query is "Your application is not in format under Rules for RTI 2009 and hence application is rejected" Does this reply fits in term of information? For providing this reply they use your prepaid envelop with postage of Rs 25/- min.

As per rule 20 postage or RTI information fee can be accepted by way of court fee stamps but prepaid envelop is used to ask for payment of 5 or 10 Rs. cost of information even though Rs. 20/- court fee stamps are send with the application with the request to return excess stamps.

On going through Bombay High Court web some where statement of RTI Applications is published there it is observed almost 60 to 70% applications are rejected. This means all these people have lost their RTI fees plus postage cost amounting to min Rs. 25/- Regd. A.D. postage.

 

How to tackle this type of PIO? I need this information to put query on Rules for lower court also.

 

Moderators please move the thread if posted in wrong thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karira

There is no way except to get the RTI Rules of the High Court struck down as illegal and arbitrary.

Till that happens, just stick to the existing RTI Rules and the prescribed application format / pre paid envelope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koteswararaonerella

At the first place we should all thank Mr.Shrawan Pathak for his detailed guidelines on filing RTI applications/appeals wherein he has also given reference to some of the CIC decisions also which can be referred to in case of any doubt.

Secondly most of the RI applications from the working officials of both state and centra and also pensioners are about their grievances 1.Reasons leading to his non promotion, service problems which will not be replied inspite of several representations.At one stage he has to ask as to what is "POSITION OF DISPOSAL OF MY REPRESENTATION AND KINDLY PROVIDE THE RELAVENT FILE NOTINGS".SOME OFFICIALS in public related departments like Electricity,Revenue,TELEPHONES etc., will be refusing to give clear details of our applications for our clarification and then we have to invoke RTI to find out since how long the official is working in this office, Are there any tenuers(in case of very long stays like 10 yrs or more ) for the said post etc., and this cannot be called his personal information since we are not asking what is his fathers name ,place, caste etc., which is PERSONAL.Thus though Act says it is not meant for redressal of grievances but in 90% of cases it is being used for that purpose only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmolPatel

Thanks for detailing all the aspects of Right To Information Act 2005.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koteswararaonerella

Good luck Mr.Patel go ahead and be useful to the society as a GOOD RTI ACTIVIST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MANOJ B. PATEL
I was going thru the RTI 2005- Clarifications and Instructions. There it had been mentioned that the redressal of grievances is outside the purview of RTI. Call it the beauty of RTI or the specific nature of refund related grievances in the Income Tax Department, about 50% of the applications are the so called grievances, which are being settled thru RTI in the office of CPIO.

 

Similar is the case as narrated by ganpat1956 (hope i remeber the user name correctly) about NRI able to get a refund by making an application under the RTI.

 

Just a thought.........

 

Respected Member, i am not agree with the conend that " Redressal of grievances is outside the purview of the RTI Act".There is a clear provision in section 19(8)(b) of the Act for redressal of grievances to the applicant. The commission is empowered to order for compensation or reimbursement as damages suffered by the applicant.The Gujarat Information Commission has ordered in sevaral cases to pay the applicant/appellant as redressal an ammount of Rs. 5000/-.

In a case of Kishni Devi v Registrar of Co-oprative Societies it was held by Commission that, " the representative of appellant has failed to convince us that she has sufferd any loss or detriment meriting award of costs, since no information sought has been shown to have been withheld. The remedy for any complaint appellant may have, lies in a court of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koteswararaonerella
Respected Member, i am not agree with the conend that " Redressal of grievances is outside the purview of the RTI Act".There is a clear provision in section 19(8)(b) of the Act for redressal of grievances to the applicant. The commission is empowered to order for compensation or reimbursement as damages suffered by the applicant.The Gujarat Information Commission has ordered in sevaral cases to pay the applicant/appellant as redressal an ammount of Rs. 5000/-.

In a case of Kishni Devi v Registrar of Co-oprative Societies it was held by Commission that, " the representative of appellant has failed to convince us that she has sufferd any loss or detriment meriting award of costs, since no information sought has been shown to have been withheld. The remedy for any complaint appellant may have, lies in a court of law.

 

GRIEVANCE REDRESS IS BEYOND THE COMMISSION'S JURISDICTION vide CIC DECISION No.CIC/C/1/2006-CIC Ms MaduBadhri Vs DDA DELHI.You can see the decision in2006 decisions of CIC in the CIC site

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
koteswararaonerella

Sec19(8)9b) require the PA to compensate the complainant for the losse or detriment if any suffered and it did not specify redressal of grievances through RTI.It appears you have not clear about REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES ,take the case of an employee who did not get his PROMOTION ALONG WITH HIS BATCH MATES which is a GRIEVANCE and for this he should his applications/petition/complaint with the concerned officer and not to resort to RTI directly.After filing coimplaint and if there is NO RESPONSE THEN HE CAN INVOKE RTI TO FIND OUT THE POSITION OF DISPOSAL OR ASK FOR NOTE SHEETS OF FILES IN WHICH HIS CASE WAS DEALT.

 

- - - Updated - - -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dhanne

Its right letter or ye galat hai hai to plzz right letter send to me bro.....

1418552485536.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest CTFORGK

Is this for Bihar state public authority/ PIO ,

for which state you are asking ?

It appears fully perfect to be /can be , adopted / used for central .

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

    • momita
      By momita
      The CBDT has told the EC that disclosing the verification of election affidavits by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) under the Right to Informatio is not “feasible” since it would be in contravention of Section 138 of the Income Tax Act.
      The Commission, in letters written to CBDT in November 2017 and April this year, had sought clarification on whether the poll panel could allow the public to access reports on the verification of election affidavits by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
      The EC, The Indian Express has learnt, is of the view that since a verification report is not an investigation report, its disclosure should not be restricted under Section 24 of the RTI Act, which exempts certain organisations from being covered under this law. This includes the Director General of Income Tax (DGIT).
      The Commission has further argued that such disclosures are in the interest of voters and will empower aggrieved or interested persons (such as losing candidates) to file a complaint or an FIR against the elected lawmaker under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for providing false information in the election affidavit.
      But in its response sent last month, the CBDT has told the EC that disclosing the verification report is not “feasible” since it would be in contravention of Section 138 of the Income Tax Act. Section 138 prescribes a general prohibition on furnishing any information with regard to an assessee under the IT Act. It has also mentioned that such disclosures are punishable.

      View full entry
    • momita
      By momita
      The Commission, in letters written to CBDT in November 2017 and April this year, had sought clarification on whether the poll panel could allow the public to access reports on the verification of election affidavits by the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
      The EC, The Indian Express has learnt, is of the view that since a verification report is not an investigation report, its disclosure should not be restricted under Section 24 of the RTI Act, which exempts certain organisations from being covered under this law. This includes the Director General of Income Tax (DGIT).
      The Commission has further argued that such disclosures are in the interest of voters and will empower aggrieved or interested persons (such as losing candidates) to file a complaint or an FIR against the elected lawmaker under Section 125A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 for providing false information in the election affidavit.
      But in its response sent last month, the CBDT has told the EC that disclosing the verification report is not “feasible” since it would be in contravention of Section 138 of the Income Tax Act. Section 138 prescribes a general prohibition on furnishing any information with regard to an assessee under the IT Act. It has also mentioned that such disclosures are punishable.

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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