- 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 Shree Vathsan
The person in the article below is me. I had a corporation official visit my house with the RTI and asking for my whereabouts. However the PIO has sent a reply on 8/5/19 stating that AE Div 170 is the person responsible for inspecting the banners on the particular stretch. It is after finalising this reply that I had got a call from AE Div 170 on 8/5/19 evening and a person visited my house on 9/5/19. The reply sent by PIO dated 8/5/19 was received on 11/5/19.
Further The AE has stated that he has inspected the stretch and removed illegal banners immediately. However I have material evidence that the banners remained in the same place from afternoon till late night. Only the persons who kept the banner had removed them. So can I penalise the PIO for providing false and incorrect information.
A Supreme Court lawyer has moved the Central Information Commission seeking information on the procedure of the recruitment of class III and IV employees in the Delhi High Court after it was denied by its administration.
Advocate Kamini Jaiswal approached the CIC contending that orders of the High Court Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer (First Appellate Authority) refusing to part away with the information was a violation of the Right to Information Act and also her Fundamental Rights.
She alleged that information had been denied for erroneous reasons and none of the exemption available under Section 8 of the Act allows the authority not to part away with the information sought.
The lawyer had filed the application before the Public Information Officier on September 22, 2006 seeking information regarding number of class III and class IV employees recruited by the Court from the year 1990 to 2006 and the procedure followed for their recruitment.
The High Court PIO while denying the information held that information pertaining to those decisions which were taken administratively or quasi-judicially would be available only to the affected parties.
The lawyer then approached Appellate Authority challenging the PIO order contending that the High Court (Right to information) Rules were inconsistent with the provision of the Right to Information Act and it should be held void.
But the Appellate Authority refused to accept the contention of the lawyer and dismissed her appeal. Now the lawyer has moved Central Information Commission against this order.
CIC moved on recruitment procedure of High Court .:. NewKerala.Com, India News Channel