The CPIO stretched High Court Stay and Supreme Court judgement to justify denial of answer sheet. There is considerable difference in the context in the case of denial of Examination Copies and that of the stay order (supra) of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court . The stay was granted on the primary objection of the petitioner (Union of India) that the answer scripts ordered to be disclosed had been already weeded out as per relevant policy.
The commission recorded that “In the circumstances, Commission fails to appreciate the contention of the CPIO, as to how the said stay order is being stretched to justify denial of answer sheet in the present case.”
Similarly, the claim that Aditya Bandhopadhyay case applies for answer scripts of qualifying exams was unsubstantiated by Read more ›
There should be greater transparency and accountability in the process of Defence Procurement, in as much as the vendors should be apprised of the reason for withdrawal of proposals or rejection of proposals- CIC
During the hearing on 31/08/2017, the Commission stated that that there should be greater transparency and accountability in the process of Defence Procurement, in as much as the vendors should be apprised of the reason for withdrawal of proposals or rejection of proposals.
The earlier Appeal in this regard and the in the present case (S_C_Sharma_171292) reflected on the lack of any such mechanism in place which leaves the vendors aggrieved and wanting for information from all channels. Although, RTI Act allows for the exemption of Section 8 (1)(d) to deny the information, but as a common proposition, more and more disclosure should be encouraged in such cases to avoid casting aspersions on the procurement process. Read more ›
Central Information Commission agreed to the RTI applicants right to seek information in the case considering that no legal provision debars disclosure of information pertaining to an unauthorised construction, particularly one which is directly affecting the RTI Applicant.
The Commission stated that as the applicant is a stakeholder in the Society and affected by the unauthorised construction and illegal usage of the flat for running an industrial unit, therefore, is directly adversely impacted by such act of the owner of the premises. The East Delhi Municipal Corporation denied information invoking Section 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The commission stated that these provisions are not applicable since the information sought is neither personal in nature nor is information about unauthorised construction held in fiduciary capacity by the East Delhi Municipal Corporation. Read more ›