Blog Archives

Document do not retire with retirement of a police officer

retirement of a police officerRecords are  Government property and the retiring police official must handover the relevant records to the concerned staff. In a reply given by CPIO it has stated that the copy of police complaint, enquiry report, statement were with ASI Vinod Kumar then posted at PS Prashant Vihar. He is reported to be retired from Delhi Police. And thus the information cannot be provided. However, complainant went up to CIC for second appeal where it was contended that “police complaint records are Government property. It must be available within the police station. No person/officer can take/dispose of those records when he retires from service as claimed. Records must be handed over to the concerned staff/ SHO at the time of retirement.” Read more ›




Don’t club unrelated matters in RTI

unrelated matters in RTI

The RTI Applicant is advised not to ask unrelated matters in RTI. The CIC while deciding the appeal, ruled that “The appellant is advised to ask for limited information and specific information instead of clubbing various unrelated matters in his RTI applications”. CIC further states number of queries should also be limited. The Public Information Officer cannot be expected to reply to these large number of queries within the time schedule as prescribed under the RTI Act. The delay in reply cannot be totally held against the respondent in view of large number of queries imposed by the appellant through RTI application. Read more ›




For Information on Companies don’t use RTI

For information on Companies don’t use RTI instead use Section 610 of the Companies (Central Government’s) General Rules & Forms, 1956. The said rules being statutory in nature and specific in their application, do not get overridden by the rules framed under the RTI Act with regard to prescription of fee for supply of information, which is general in nature, and apply to all kinds of applications made under the RTI Act to seek information.

It would also be complete waste of public funds to require the creation and maintenance of two parallel machineries by the ROC one under Section 610 of the Companies Act, and the other under the RTI Act to provide the same information to an applicant. It would lead to unnecessary and avoidable duplication of work and consequent expenditure. Read more ›