Monthly Archives: January 2014

Agriculture Ministry unaware of Bokaro District Industrial Co­operative Federation

Central Public Information Officer, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi is unaware of Bokaro District Industrial Co­operative Federation Limited which promised employment by taking Rs 1000/- from thousands of persons under the Multi­ State Co­operative Societies Act, 2002. bokaroAgri Ministry submitted that they were not aware of the existence of Bokaro District Industrial Co­operative Federation Limited as it was not registered with them.

As per the Multi­ State Co­operative Societies Act, 2002, a cooperative is registered only if the the proposed multi-state cooperative society satisfies the basic criterion that its objects are to serve the interests of members in more than one state; Read more ›




SGTB Khalsa College Public Information Officer replied on behalf of Appellate Authority

sgtb Khalsa college

Public Information Officer of Sri GURU TEGH BAHADUR KHALSA COLLEGE acted both as PIO and First Appellate Authority. Applicant had sought information as to action taken on his letter relating to irregularities in selection of students for admission under the Sports quota and not satisfied with the response of Public Information Officer, Sri GURU TEGH BAHADUR KHALSA COLLEGE, the applicant filed the first appeal. However, instead of a reply by First Appellate Authority, PIO again replied to the applicant. A response to the appeal should have been responded to by the AA and not the PIO himself as per the RTI Act. Read more ›




Aligarh Muslim University evading RTI on University rules relating to obtaining permission to proceed abroad on a private visit.

Aligarh Muslim University evading RTIWhen asked about the University rules relating to obtaining permission to proceed abroad on a private visit, first Public Information Officer writes stating ‘usual terms and conditions’ , and 1st Appellate Authority conveniently bypassed the main issue on which information was sought and disposed of the appeal. The information sought in the RTI was very simple and it was expected that a Dy Registrar of the AMU would have obtained the information and provided the same to the appellant. This was not done.  Read more ›