Monthly Archives: January 2016

Five hearings of CIC could not fetch Medanta Medicity hospital land allotment details

land-for-saleThe Commission in their five hearings had directed CPIO of  HUDA to produce the file notings of allotment of land, application of Medanta, and the prevailing market rate and circle rate of land in that area, at the time of allotment to Medanta Hospital. The best response till date has been “No Control of the Private Hospital” which the commission finds it to be incomplete and misleading information.

Earlier, Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, the Appellant through his RTI application had sought for information in relation to news ­item “Probe medical lapse that killed former CJI” where former CJI Justice MN Venkatachaliah was amongst 34 eminent citizens who have demanded through their letter addressed to P.M to probe into the medical lapse which allegedly killed the former CJI Justice JS Verma.

Two questions in reference to Medanta Medicity which was asked:

Has the hospital referred in query (5) above been provided any other facility or control either from Union government or from the concerned State Government? 8) If yes, please provide details.

9) Has the hospital referred in query (5) above been altered land from Government at some subsidised/institutional either from Union Government or from the concerned State Government?

Read more ›




Sanjiv Chaturvedi asserts himself as third party after hearing media reports

Third PartyMr. S.C. Agarwal in his RTI application sought copies of communication made between the PMO and DoPT about IFS officer Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi. Commission by its Order had directed MoEFCC to provide point­wise information. Further,  S.C. Agarawal in his RTI appeal stated that his RTI is concerned with larger public interest in constitutional governance and zero­ tolerance of corruption, and thus more information was allowed by CIC. Central Information Commission had directed the PMO to apply the doctrine of severability, while disclosing information of inter­departmental notes to the appellant, i.e., avoiding information which cannot be disclosed and provide the information about Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi.

Meanwhile, Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, the IFS officer, whose name appeared in the RTI application filed an application stating that he came to know from media report that an order has been passed by CIC with respect to CBI investigation into Haryana Forestry Scam, in an appeal filed by Mr. Subhash Chandra Agarwal against M/o Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Mr. Sanjiv claimed that the matter was very vital for his career and thus he should be permitted to intervene in the matter. Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi submitted that the opinion furnished by the DoPT to the appellant would have a serious implication on his career. Read more ›




CIC imposed penalty over both PIO and RTI Applicant

child privacy under rti actIn an unprecedented decision, CIC imposed a penalty over RTI Applicant even though the RTI Act do not provide for the same. Central Information Commission while deciding the case recorded that “Though the RTI Act has not provided to impose penalty against the RTI applicant, the Commission record its contempt against RTI Applicant for misusing the RTI Act against the school child and imposed a penalty of Re. 10/­ which is to be paid to the Principal of the School”.

Commission,  also directed the then CPIO and the Principal of the School to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on both of them and disciplinary action be initiated against both of them for not complying with the provision of Section 11 of RTI Act and causing breach of the privacy of the child and his parents. The Commission directs the Principal and CPIO to show cause why compensation of Rs 1000 each be paid to the child for the loss they caused by breaching his privacy.

The Commission holds that information exempted under section 8(1)(j) was disclosed and because of which the right to privacy of the child and his parents was violated by the Principal and CPIO. The Commission directs the CPIO and Principal not to disclose the personal information of the students to any person, much less to his so called relatives without following the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act. Read more ›