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
  • 0
sunil sri

using of letter head

Question

sunil sri

dear all,

 

recently i asked information on the letter head of a simity but the same was denied on the following grounds:

 

not a natural citizen ;

 

letter head cannot be used.

 

However, i came to know that cic in its judgement has permitted the companies to seek information by using letter head.

 

let me know, whether i can appeal by using the recent judgement.

 

also please provide me the judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
nile0611

The reply to your query is in the featured thread "Can a Secretary ask for information"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
mpai
dear all,

 

recently i asked information on the letter head of a simity but the same was denied on the following grounds:

 

not a natural citizen ;

 

letter head cannot be used.

 

.

 

May I ask you the name of the PA and the PIO if possible. I would rate this PIO as a difficult person. When there are no prescribed formats for application etc. he has no business in tell you to that letter heads cannot be used. As long as the letter head contains your contact details, phone number etc. and you sign the application in your own name, it legit.

 

Further Section 6(2) clearsly states that "An applicant makin request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him."

If possible, let me have the address of this PA, I will file multiple RTI Applications seeking information like copy of rules which state Letter heads cannot be used etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
sunil sri

Thanks Karira,

 

Your hardwork in this regard is excellent. However, I am now more specifically writing my question as "Whether an Secretary of Employees Sahkari Simity, can seek information under RTI Act by asking information on letter head of said Simity"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

Yes Sunil Sri, the Secretary can.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
mpai
Thanks Karira,

 

Your hardwork in this regard is excellent. However, I am now more specifically writing my question as "Whether an Secretary of Employees Sahkari Simity, can seek information under RTI Act by asking information on letter head of said Simity"

Karira has already replied to your query. However, I would still like to know the name of the Public Authority that dared to say that Letter Heads are not allowed under RTI Act.

 

Kindly give me the name of the PA along with the PIO details etc. Would like to file an RTI Application with them on my own letter head right away.

 

Manoj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Shrawan

The CIC in two of the recent decision has denied the information as the complainant has sought the information on behalf of the organization, of which he is a secretary, stating that the information seeker is not covered Under Section 3 of the Act.

 

Check up them here: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/2924-post20.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
ganpat1956

From the minutes of the meeting held at CIC on 01 Aug,2006, the following approach to such cases can be found: "On whether a company or a corporation or a partnership firm or an association has a right to access information under the RTI Act, it was decided that cases would be dealt within the framework of legal ramifications arising from judicial pronouncements."

 

In a few of the cases decided during last month also, the CIC has taken a liberal view of the term "citizen" while applying it to the office-bearer of an association/society/union

 

1. http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_16052007_02.pdf

2. http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_17052007_04.pdf

 

However, in a few appeals decided by the CIC Prof. Ansari the liberal interpretation of the term citizen has not been applied. With such conflicting decisions over the interpretation of the term "citizen" , it will be prudent for the applicants to apply in their individual names till the matter gets settled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

One good solution would be to apply on a letter head, but the signature should be of a person without mentioning his designation or post. This way the applicant can always claim that he has applied a s a "citizen" and that the letter head is being used only for the purpose of giving a address and number for reply.

There is a decision of the CIC which allowed such a appeal.

I will search for it and post it here.

 

As Ganpat pointed out, better to be prudent in such matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
maneesh

In RTI there is no format and as mpai has rightly said there is no bar in asking information on a letter head.

 

On lighter side, ;)

If we all start filling RTI application to teach a lesson to "DIFFICULT" PIO then all babus will be replying on RTI application and very well justify their existence. And for those application status we might get a reply, that all babus are busy replying RTI, You request will be considered on top priority when the job of RTI application is over
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
p.esakkimuthu

When using letter heads, you must state your name over which you have to sign.In one case when I sought the information saying my name and designation of office bearer of trade union, the PIO declined to furnish information. I appealed to the Appellate Authority stating that the designation and name of the union are part of my address and they indicate only address portion, the Appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
mpai
I appealed to the Appellate Authority stating that the designation and name of the union are part of my address and they indicate only address portion, the Appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority

 

You are lucky to have managed to elaborate to the AA. Over a half a dozen cases in June, have ruled against Office Bearers of Association and appeal was rejected as they did not satisfy Section 3 of the RTI Act.

 

Take care next time

 

Manoj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
karira

Here is another decision which makes this whole issue even more confusing.

 

Please see:

 

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_12032007_16.pdf

 

In the comments, it is stated that earlier similar information sought by M/S Arjun Industries Ltd. was rejected on the ground that a company was not a citizen and that fee had not been paid in the prescribed mode by a decision dated 21.9.2006. Appeal

against the decision was also rejected by the AA by an order dated

20.10.2006. Therefore, both the CPIO and AA have disposed of the case in time.

 

DECISION

 

2. Without going into the correctness of the decisions of AA/CPIO in

regard to the application filed by M/S Arjun Industries Ltd., since the

present application has been filed by the appellant as an individual, even though in the capacity as the MD of M/S Arjun Industries Ltd., the same decision cannot be applied in respect of the present application. Therefore, if the information sought by her is not exempt in any of the provisions of RTI Act, the CPIO will furnish the information within 15 days.

 

Viewers are also requested to read the following thread:

 

http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/ask-rti-query/328-can-secretary-ask-any-information.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
ganpat

sunil please send me also the cic order which allowed the company to use the letter head for seeking information (Posting of mail ids is against RTI India - Forum Rules - hence deleted)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
ambrish.p

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
Answer this question...

×   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

    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission


       
       

      Decision No.296/IC(A)/2006
      F. No.CIC/MA/A/2006/00607
       
      Dated, the 21st September, 2006


       
       

      Name of the Appellant : Sh. G.P. Pathak, 152/A, Wright Town, Jabalpur
      Name of the Public Authority: Commissionerate of Income Tax-I, Central Revenue Building, Napier Town, Jabalpur
      DECISION
       
      Facts of the Case:
       

      The Lokayukta of M.P. conducted a search under the prevention of Corruption Act and seized cash, jewelry and other assets, worth over Rs.30 lakhs from the appellant. Under the law, these assets were taken under the custody of the DIT. In this backdrop, the appellant had asked for a copy of ‘Note of Satisfaction’ written by the Commission of Income Tax.
      The CPIO has refused to provide the information and sought exemption u/s 8(1)(h) of the Act. The appellate authority has upheld the decision of the CPIO
      The case was heard on 20.9.2006. The appellant could not be present. The CPIO was present, who provided a detailed background of the case. He mentioned that the case is under investigation as the extent of unaccounted assets and the amount of tax evasion are yet to be determined.
      The CPIO showed the copy of the ‘note’ asked for by the appellant. It contains such details as the source of the information and actions taken by the officials, who are identifiable in the note. He, therefore, pleaded that the disclosure of details would endanger the life of officials associated with the process of seizure of assets.
       
      Commission’s Decision:
       

      The disclosure of information sought would identify the officials who were associated with the conduct of raid and seizure of un-accounted assets, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The matter is also under investigation to determine the extent of tax evasion. The CPIO has, therefore, correctly applie dexemption u/s 8(1)(d) & (h) of the Act, from disclosure of information.
      The appeal is therefore dismissed.

      Sd/-
      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner


    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Central Information Commission




      Decision No.300/IC(A)/2006
      F. Nos.CIC/MA/A/2006/00436
      CIC/MA/A/2006/00488
       
      Dated, the 22nd September, 2006


       

      Name of the Appellant : Sh. Hemant Kumar Jain, Prop. M/s Alpha Exports, 419/B, Panchratna, Opera House,Mumbai – 400 004.
      Name of the Public Authority: Commissionerate of Income Tax-7(CIT), Room No.611, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai– 400 020.
      DECISION
       

      The appellant sought the following information from the CPIO of the CIT:“the certified copy of the income tax returns, Balance Sheets alongwith annexures and Assessment Orders for financial years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 and information,in respect of M/s White Diamond Industries Limited having its PAN No.AAACW0337R, ward No.Adl/JCIT Rg.7(3).”
      The CPIO denied to furnish the information on the ground that information sought relate to third party and also there is no public interest involved in disclosure of the information. The appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO.
      In an umpteen number of cases, the Commission has observed that I.T and property returns filed by persons are personal information of third parties and therefore these should not be disclosed u/s 8(1)(j) of the Act. Likewise, income tax assessment orders, though an outcome of public action, contain both personal details of assessees as well as commercial confidence nature of information. Hence, these documents should not be disclosed u/s 8(1)(d) of the Act.
      The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

      Sd/-
      (Prof. M.M. Ansari)
      Information Commissioner


Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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