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
sidmis

Bikaner collector fails to reply under RTI, fined

Recommended Posts

sidmis

Bikaner collector fails to reply under RTI, fined as reported in Times of India, TNN, JAIPUR: Jun 5, 2010, The chief information commissioner (CIS), Rajasthan, S D Kaurani, has imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on district collector of Bikaner for failing to answer some questions under the RTI. The matter relates to an application filed by one Sripal Jain on December 11, 2008 seeking information regarding deployment of election officers in Bikaner (west) assembly segment during the 2008 Vidhan Sabha polls. The applicant had sought information like names of poll duty employees, whose duties were cancelled, on what ground duties were cancelled, details of the officers who performed their duties, details of employees on duty in all the seven assembly segments of Bikaner during the 2008 assembly polls. The CIS has directed the Bikaner collector to deposit the amount within 30 days and extract the amount from the official responsible for the lapse. Besides, the commissioner has asked the collector to give all information sought by the applicant within the next 10 days. Bikaner collector fails to reply under RTI, fined - Jaipur - City - The Times of India

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 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