- 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
By Priya De
A biennial study conducted by Satark Nagrik Sangathan and Centre for Equity Studies has revealed a grim picture of RTI Act implementation with waiting time at information commissions running in years and commissions in several states becoming non-functional owing to unfilled vacancies. The study has found that if an RTI appeal were to be filed in West Bengal state information commission on November 1, 2017, it would be disposed of in 2060 – after 43 years. In Kerala, it would take six years six months and Odisha 5 years 3 months. The main reason for such a long waiting time is the reduced number of information commissioners that commissions are working with.
The report has brought out, what it calls a “concerning trend”. The information commissions, which are the last resort for the common man to complain against wrongful denial of information, are increasingly returning cases. The highest number of cases have been returned by CIC, followed by Gujarat, Assam and Uttarakhand.
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
BLOCK IV, OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI 110067
22nd September, 2006
Appeal No.112 /ICPB/2006
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 â€“ Section 19.
Appellant: Shri Dhruba Charan Naik
Public authority: Department of Post, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneshwar. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices & CPIO. Shri S.K. Kamila, Director Postal Services â€“ Appellate Authority.
By an application dated 21.3.2006 addressed to the CPIO, the appellant has requested for information regarding percentage of marks obtained by the last candidate (category wise i.e. OBC/SC/ST) of selected candidates of open market for filling up vacancies of Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants for the recruitment years 1994, 1995 and 1996 separately,
pertaining to Sundargarh Postal Division. It appears that the CPIO declined to furnish the information and accordingly he appealed to the AA. By a decision dated 2.5.2006, the AA directed the CPIO to furnish the information sought for by the appellant and accordingly, the CPIO furnished certain information on 9.5.2006, which according to the appellant was incomplete and therefore, he filed an appeal before the Post Master General, who has advised him that the second appeal lies before this Commission and accordingly, the appellant has filed
this appeal on 25.6.2006. Comments were called for from the CPIO in which the CPIO has furnished full information and it is also stated that similar information has been sent to the appellant. On receipt of the comments and reply, the appellant has written to the CPIO on 17.8.2006, seeking for certain clarification and endorsing a copy of the said letter, the appellant has sought time to file his rejoinder after receipt of clarifications from the CPIO.
From the reply furnished to the appellant as per the comments, I find that whatever information that the appellant had sought, the same has been furnished to the appellant. In his letter dated 17.8.2006 addressed to the CPIO, the appellant has not questioned the information
furnished but has asked for not only additional information but also raised various queries un connected with the information sought and provided. A far as this appeal is concerned, since the information sought has been provided, the appeal stands closed.
3. Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.