Monthly Archives: December 2013

Joint Inspection of unauthorised construction in MCD under RTI Act

UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION IN MCDThe commission has not allowed joint inspection of properties under MCD by using RTI Act provisions where the contention of inspection was  to expose unauthorised construction in the larger public interest and that it’s an exercise to disclose conspiracy between the Officers of MCD and constructers.

Inspection of the ‘information’ would certainly not include private ‘house property’ as it would lead to interpretation of section 2 (f) and 2 (j) in too liberal a fashion. It is only the report/document/sample generated after inspection and which is within the domain of the public authority that can be accessed under the provisions of the RTI Act. ‘Any material in any form’ may not be equated with the term ‘material in ANY FORM’ as such comparison is odious and evidently overreaches the legislative intent. Read more ›




You may be denied info for good 4 years if you give extra 2 Rupees in RTI

2 Rupees in RTIHow important is 2 Rupees in RTI? If you go by the latest decision of CIC, the CPIO thinks it is. The information was denied for depositing extra two rupees for obtaining the information from Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata. The complaint was lodged at CIC against the CPIO. CIC however, referred the matter to First Appellate Authority (FAA) who disposed of the appeal upholding that RTI applicant should deposit exact 8 rupees instead of Rupees 10. Read more ›




Central University of Jharkhand is making a mockery of the provisions of the RTI Act

Central University of Jharkhand provided nil response to the RTI Application after a lapse of almost four months. CIC recorded that “It clearly indicates that the Central University of Jharkhand is making a mockery of the provisions of the RTI Act and there seems to be no application of mind either on part of the CPIO or the FAA.”

A show cause notice was issued to the Dr KP Mahanta, CPIO as to why action u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act be not initiated against him for the unwarranted delay in providing the information.

CIC also recorded that “If there are other persons responsible for delay in providing information to the appellant, the CPIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause notice and direct them to provide a response to the Commission.  A copy of this order was also marked to Prof Darlando T.Khathing, Vice Chancellor, Central University, Jharkhand, with directions to ensure that the provisions of the RTI Act are adhered to, both in letter and spirit. The officials dealing with the Right to Information should ensure that information is provided within the stipulated timeframe. Read more ›