In this classic case a common but long standing problem was solved by a Right to Information. A simple RTI solved the big problem of water supply of the Sainik Enclave, Mohan Garden at New Delhi. Because of the low level of pipes which are bringing water to the colony, some houses which are at a height, were not getting the water. Therefore RTI applicant made an RTI application to Delhi Jal Board by asking whether during carpeting/repairing of roads, height of roads should be increased or kept at the same old level/height,etc. The Official of DJB did not reply to the RTI query.
The RTI Applicant complaint to the CIC for non reply of information. DJB official during hearing at CIC agreed to do the needful and requested the appellant to collect some more signatures of the residents of the area, so that they will take action as desired by the appellant. Read more ›
While Public Information Officer denied the information on a question asked regarding steps taken for implementation of the DOPT guidelines regarding proactive disclosure of tours of officials of the rank of Joint Secretaries and above to implement and copies of all tour orders issued and details of TA/DA paid for each of Joint Secretaries of Central Vigilance Commission by quoting Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, however, on the other hand First Appellate Authority (FAA) has brought in a totally new provision by denying information u/s 8(1)(g) by quoting a CIC decision. FAA denied the information without giving a hearing to the RTI Applicant. What are your views? Use the comments in the article to post. You can discuss it at our forum too.
The Appellant had argued in front of the CIC that the FAA by doing this, has brought in a totally new provision for denial of information which is not tenable as he was not allowed an opportunity to question this and he was not given a hearing. He further submitted that the CPIO vide letter dt 2.8.13 has already provided information relating to foreign and domestic travel of officers of the rank of JS and above. When such information has already been provided, he would be satisfied if similar information is provided in respect of the remaining staff also. Read more ›
The Commission finds no merit in the complaint filed by Shri Sudhir Goyal on CPIO contention that there are over 75 ministries/departments and as per the decision of a three-member Bench of the Commission in the case of Shri Ketan Kantilal Modi Vs CBEC, dt 22.9.2009, CPIO is not under obligation to transfer RTIs to multiple organisations. (If you want to file RTI Online visit our guide here)
Vide RTI, addressed to the PMO, Complainant had sought information on 7 points relating to details of various programmes started by the Central government on completion of four years of UPA government , decisions taken by the government in relation to the programmes, amount spent on these programmes, budget allocated for the same and related issues. The CPIO told to the applicant that the information pertains to various Ministries and the Complainant was advised to file separate RTI applications to each ministry with regard to the remaining information. Read more ›