Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/23/2019 in Posts

  1. 4 points
    Write to him directly and seek all those success stories and stepping stones in his biography. He can definitely respond. Search in google and create a library with all those material.
  2. 3 points
    Hearing in First Appeal is not mandatory. In Case No. CIC/AD/A/2013/000875-SA, orderes delivered on 14.6.2014 it is observed that there is not a whisper about hearing by FAA in RTI Act, 2005. There is also no provision under the Act to prescribe procedures with regard to the manner in which FAA has to conduct & decide the First Appeal. It is also mentioned in that Order that it is duty of the FAA to consider written appeal of the Appellant even if he is not present on the date of hearing and decide on the basis of the material available. Even appearance before the Second Appellate Authority i.e. SIC is not mandatory, as per State Information Commissioner(Appeal Rules), 2005 (Section 7 of the R.T.I. Rules) (Central Act 22 of 2005) ..
  3. 3 points
    Sir, Am sharing some relevant files with you as requested. All of them can be quoted. Also sharing with you the draft of the RTI- you can refer to the life and liberty clause as stated below. This is for ready use. Best Regards, Andy Public Information Officers, Please note: If you wish to deny any of the above items or part thereof, please give reasons for such rejection citing the proper subsections of Section 8, 9 or 11. This is required as per Section 7 (8) of RTI Act. Your Kind attention is invited to the following: - 1) Clause 7(1) of the RTI Act wherein it has been clarified that the information concerning life and liberty is to be provided within 48 Hours. 2) Recent decisions of the Central Information Commissioner in following cases wherein the CIC has decided that information on Pension Matters is to be treated as concerning Life & Liberty: a. CIC/BS/A/2016/001238, in case titled Amrika Bai v/o PIO, EPFO, Raipur decided on 30.03.2017 wherein it has been held as under: - Para 9- The moment RTI Application on Pension Issue is received, there should be a mechanism at the entry stage to discover and identify it reflects a pension related grievance/issue and then should act immediately. Para 10 – Not only the CPIO, even the other authorities under RTI Act like the first appeal /second appellate authorities also should dispose such appeals involving pension issues within 48 Hours. Para 16 – The commission also requires as per section 19(8)(a) (I, III, IV) of RTI Act, the public authority to consider pension related information as life and liberty concerned information b. CIC/BS/A/2016/000307, in case titled V. Balaraman v/s PIO, EPFO, Thiruvananthapuram decided on 4.07.2017, wherein the above orders of CIC as at 2 (a) above have been reiterated that the information related to the pension matters must be provided within 48 hours as the same is concerning life and liberty. c. CIC/BS/C/2015/000157, in case titled V. Vaidyanathan v/s PIO, EPFO, Mumbai decided on 17.07.2017, wherein the above orders of CIC as at 2(a) above have again been reiterated that the information relating to Pension matters must be provided within 48 hours as the same is concerning life and liberty. You are therefore, requested to provide duly attested /certified photocopies (see Chapter 1, clause (2) (j) (ii) of the RTI act 2005) of the aforesaid documents on A-4 paper sheets under RTI Act 2005 within 48 Hours as decided by the CIC (see Sr. no. 2 above). 48 Hours Clause can be invoked.pdf 2017-06-28-193000321_Vaidyanathan_V.pdf news letter 4 UPDATED AS ON 3 JULY 2017 BY SECRETARY.pdf Pension_RTI_GBT_3634.pdf Pension_RTI_PK_2962.pdf Show_Cause-307_Balaraman_V.pdf
  4. 2 points
    An applicant is having right to information alone, and the penalty is in between the PIO and IC and appellant has no role to play. That penalty can never come to appellant as wrongly perceived. Insisting for imposition of penalty may spoil the relations, when one expects smooth relations without hurting. It is very difficult to establish deliberate denial with fraudulent motives by PIO.
  5. 2 points
    As to how many Deputy Chief Ministers should be appointed, it is the prerogative of the C.M.. In Andhra Pradesh, the C.M. has appointed 5 Deputy Chief Ministers & in Telangana 2 Dy. C.Ms. When State was integrated, there was no Dy. C.M. for most of the period... Court has fixed the limits for Ministers in the Cabinet i.e. 10% of the Legislatures including C.M., but there is no restriction of Dy. C.M.. There is no change of salary and perks of Ministers and Deputy Chief Ministers. Hence the question of waste of public exchequer also may not arise..This is nothing but an attempt to please the disgruntle MLAs to keep the folk together. Politicians in power should have the sense of economics of the State so that public taxes may not be wasted. Hope good sense will prevail upon them one day or the other.
  6. 2 points
    An information pertaining to co-operative societies can be broadly classified into two categories: (1) Information which a co-operative society is supposed to mandatorily and periodically file with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies e.g. annual returns etc. (2) Information which a co-operative society is not supposed to file with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and is available only at the Society's Office e.g. Minutes of Managing Committee meetings etc. Presently the status is that: The information which falls under category (1) above can be accessed under the provisions of RTI Act by filing a RTI application with the PIO of the concerned ward of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Whereas, the information which falls under category (2) above is being wrongfully denied by the PIO of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. A writ petition on the above subject is pending before the Bombay High Court.
  7. 2 points
    dear friends. with the help and support of many of you,I could ensure a due pension to around 3200 ex Indian Naval sailors. Around 100 RTI applications,40 first appeals and 5 second appeals,during the period since 2012. I could dig out copies of orders of the GOI as old as 1976. Finally all these materials were used for our legal fight before the honorable supreme court. Even though,the SC had given a favorable judgment in 2016,the actual payment of pension has started only in 2019. The concerned authorities had diluted the SC orders in this regards, and not paid the due entitlements fully and the case is still going on. But all this we could achieve,only because of the RTI Act,and the numerous rti applications from time to time. This forum has helped me in clearing my doubts from time to time. I was lucky enough to get associated with this forum almost from the beginning. Thanks to all for providing a wonderful platform for a great cause.
  8. 2 points
    Kindly go through RERA act by downloading the Act from google, and you can find from stipulations as to whether your query is proper or not.
  9. 2 points
    First Appeal hearing is not mandatory, and not stated in RTI Act even if demanded many FAAs never permit appellant for hearing in several public authorities. As a courtesy just thank him for giving the opportunity, express regrets stating your inability to appear for hearing and either ask him to decide on merits or give another date for attending hearing. Definitely, first appeal hearing gives better opportunities of getting information.
  10. 2 points
    1.A PIO is expected to provide that information available in material form that is in his custody. Once it is uploaded, it is not in custody of the PIO and in public domain. In view of this, experts in the forum advised members to seek such information in the form of certified copies. 2.For you there are two options. a)File fresh application and seek such information in the form of certified copies, so that PIO can himself check whether it is in public domain or not. b)after receiving such information file first appeal on first RTI, that PIO has provided misleading information that the information is uploaded in website though it is not available. 3.Or go for first appeal, seek first hearing in person, and let PIO present that information downloaded from website of the FAA's office himself. (If you have smart phone, do carry that with another hard copy of that information which is uploaded in website without information solicited by you.
  11. 2 points
    You have been recognised as regular member with more than 156 posts, and filing applications with more than 10 different authorities, and by this time you have acquired more than an average RTI applicant and well versed with the facts. Reduce number of queries and seek guidance only in case of douts and no need to report developments on day to day basis. Only in case of genuine doubts and want sincere guidance, please use the forum for such posts.
  12. 2 points
    Namaskaram Prasad Ji. Thank you for answering the original question pertaining to RTI. Also thank you for your valuable inputs. What you say makes complete sense and it esp. when you say that “After all the errant officials are your own colleagues and might committed mistake without expecting any unlawful gain. Live and let live and focus on your issue”. The first step when a mistake is committed is to own it up. “To maintain a fault known is a double fault.” A genuine and inadvertent error can be condoned on compassionate grounds provided when such an error is brought to light, genuine intent is displayed to rectify the issue and contain the damage. Not otherwise. The perspective that you have given is a valid one and finds resonance within me. It also gives me strength to file a detailed response so that the details of the case are known esp. to those who are in a similar situation. Please allow such a response. This is a Pension Recovery Case, the rules governing the Pension Disbursal and Recovery are very well codified. “If a payment is made over and above eligibility, any one is having such rights to recover the amount paid by mistake”. It is not illegal. My comment: Pension cannot be equated as Payment. Earlier the right to Pension was a fundamental right and also a property right. When property right was repealed as a fundamental right by the 44th Amendment, It became a Constitutional Right protected under Article 300 A enforceable by law. “Recovering the amount paid by mistake is not illegal”- true; However, Recovering Pension Overpayment amount after continually making overpayment beyond 5 years is in direct contravention to several supreme court judgements and is not legally tenable. More so, in every case, due process of law must be followed. Recovery cannot be made arbitrarily. Pension overpayment and an overpayment by cashier may appear similar in terms of human behaviour- but it isn’t. These two scenarios are completely different. Cash overpayment on counter can purely be an inadvertent human error – but pension disbursal is a highly controlled well-defined process with multiple checks and balances. The probability of making such overpayment is highly minimized if correct inputs (such as: Date of retirement, Date of birth, PPO Number, DA, years of service, commuted amount etc) are fed in the process; Bank has every right to induce pressure in case of un-intended benefits accrued by such a mistake to any beneficiary. However, if you find a Pension overpayment that has happened for over 5 years, you will almost always find that either the Bank or the Pension Sanctioning Authority has overlooked and has been non-compliant to the well-defined sacrosanct procedures that are mandatorily to be followed. In such cases, it is no longer a case of innocuous human error but of wilful negligence. In our case the bank has completely overlooked the procedures mentioned as per Circular No. 57, Dt. 17, September, 2008, issued by PCDA (P); Specifically, Para 10 of the Circular directs the bank to share every case of pension consolidation done by the bank to the PCDA (P). This was never done. This observation comes from the stakeholders themselves: the CAG & PCDA (P). I have gone through the case reference mentioned: Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd vs Attar-Ul-Nissa & Others on 7 October, 1966; this is not applicable in our case. I hope this is the one that you were referring to. Without going into too much technical details here the overall process is: The Banks consolidate the Pension as per circulars issued by PCDA (P) and disburse the amount to the Pensioner. Later the Bank sends the advice of the payment made to the RBI and receives the reimbursement made only by the Central Accounts Section (CAS) of the RBI located at Nagpur. So, let’s say the pension consolidation done by the bank indicates that the pensioner should receive 60,000 as pension amount. If there is a Pension Recovery happening- the bank would deduct 20,000 and disburse 40,000 to the Pensioner. This recovery is as per the RBI authorization. (Refer to the RBI Circular: RBI/2017-18/1 DGBA.GBD.No.-1/31.05.001/2017-18). So, the bank is not recovering from my account once the credit is available. They are deducting the recovery amount at source- pretty much the way the TDS (Tax deduction at source) works. “No one can benefit on mistakes and use it for unlawful gains”- Again in complete agreement with this. What you say is correct. This is the exact question and perspective that has been looked into through several SC Judgements. The Rafiq Masih’s Case words this more cogently: Quote “ Merely on account of the fact, that the release of these monetary benefits was based on a mistaken belief at the hands of the employer, and further, because the employees had no role in the determination of the employer, could it be legally feasible, for the private respondents to assert, that they should be exempted from refunding the excess amount received by them”? Unquote However, as said earlier, this notion and perspective of unlawful gains has been covered many times in several SC judgements. These necessarily have to be mentioned here to dispel the highly over-simplified view of things and would need a detailed response. The SC provisions for such a recovery if it is found within the first 5 years of overpayment. Beyond that, it does not permit such recovery. The Pensioner has never been told about his correct entitlement of Pension; Neither by the PCDA (P) nor by the Bank. There is a complete blatant disregard again by the Bank in issuing of Pension Slips – please refer to RBI letter No. DGBA.GAD. No. H-10975/45.05.031/2006-07 dated January 9, 2007, in this regard. As per this the Pensioner must be issued a Pension Slip so that the Pensioner knows about his correct entitlement. The bank is in possession of these documents but the Pensioner has never been given / made known his correct entitlement. A case can be made stating that the Pensioner ought to make efforts to know the correctness of his Pension. In this case the Bank was asked for the Pension Slips- and it didn’t provide any. So- in such cases, whatever the amount accrued as Pension was taken as the correct entitlement. It can be argued whether such an excess was used for “Unlawful Gains”. However, the lapses and errors of omission and commission done by the bank cannot be ignored or condoned. However, the process of making such recovery cannot be arbitrary. Due process of law must be followed in case of any recovery. All this and more perspectives have been completely though over in several judgments of the Supreme Court in cases of Pension Recovery due to Overpayment. These are:- a) State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 – wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law where the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. The OM issued by DOPT : F.No. 1 8/03/20 1 5-Estt. (Pay-I) has been issued citing this judgement and it clearly states that no recovery from pension can be made in violation of the Judgment of Rafiq Masih b) ShyamBabu Verma Vs. Union of India reported in 1994 SC (2) 521, wherein a three Judge Bench of SC held that no steps should be taken to recover or adjust any excess amount paid to the employees due to the fault of the respondents c) Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State. Of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475, where in a three Judge Bench of the SC held that the relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. d) The DPPI -2013 Instructions (Defence Pension Payment Instructions), section 103.2 issued by PCDA (P), Allahabad clearly prohibits the banks from initiating recovery of overpayment of pensions not detected within 12 months of the date of first erroneous charge without the orders of PCDA(P). Every case of overpayment detected should be reported to the PCDA(Pensions), which in turn shall decide himself or shall obtain orders of the competent authority, Govt. of India as the case may be. It further states that to avoid hardship to the pensioner, payment for the current period, however should be continued to the pensioner at the correct rate admissible. Please note that the Pension Disbursing Bank is just an agent and is under direct instructions by the Pension Sanctioning Authority. It cannot act independently on its own. Some parts of the Rafiq Masih’s Judgement need to be Quoted to give a complete perspective: - “The Pensioner was not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information, which had led the concerned competent authority, to commit the mistake of making the higher payment to the employees. The payment of higher dues to the private respondents, in all these cases, was not on account of any misrepresentation made by them, nor was it on account of any fraud committed by them” – this is true in our case. It further states: “It will be our endeavour, to lay down the parameters of fact situations, wherein employees, who are beneficiaries of wrongful monetary gains at the hands of the employer, may not be compelled to refund the same. In our considered view, the instant benefit cannot extend to an employee merely on account of the fact, that he was not an accessory to the mistake committed by the employer; or merely because the employee did not furnish any factually incorrect information, on the basis whereof the employer committed the mistake of paying the employee more than what was rightfully due to him; or for that matter, merely because the excessive payment was made to the employee, in absence of any fraud or misrepresentation at the behest of the employee”. “ Having examined a number of judgments rendered by this Court, we are of the view, that orders passed by the employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. In other words, interference would be called for, only in such cases where, it would be iniquitous to recover the payment made. In order to ascertain the parameters of the above consideration, and the test to be applied, reference needs to be made to situations when this Court exempted employees from such recovery, even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Repeated exercise of such power, "for doing complete justice in any cause" would establish that the recovery being effected was iniquitous, and therefore, arbitrary. And accordingly, the interference at the hands of this Court.” “The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the concerned employee. If the effect of the recovery from the concerned employee would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover.” It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. That completes the reference to the Rafiq Masih’s Judgement by Apex Court. Regarding Arbitrariness, as stated earlier- 1. No show cause notice was issued to the pensioner prior to commencing the recovery 2. No order of recovery has been issued by any competent authority. In the end the long detailed response may seem disproportionate keeping in mind the brevity of inputs received from you; However, this case is not an isolated one. This is just a tip of the iceberg. If you think the above response is exaggerated, you can check the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Disbursement of Defence Pension for the year ended March 2016 (Performance Audit No. 26 of 2017). This Audit Report is submitted to the Presidents Office. It states “Deficiencies in the pension disbursement system: We observed that the transmission errors as well as other mistakes in the banks, which account for nearly 75 per cent of the pension disbursements, had resulted in numerous cases of underpayments and overpayments”. “As per records of the PCDA (P) Allahabad, there were 24, 61,651 defence pensioners as on 01/04/2015, which increased to 25,00,631 on 01/04/2016”. The mathematics can be done! All the documents and references cited above are available in public domain. Apologies, shall restrict further posts on matter pertaining to RTI only. Lest any specific questions are asked pertaining to the background of the case while filing the RTI. Regards, Andy
  13. 1 point
    In this forum DOPT directives are uploaded stating the process of response to applicant by CPIO and it is clearly stated a format. Kindly search, you can find diamonds in that mine.
  14. 1 point
    Definitely you can first bring this to attention of FAA first and then in second appeal as deliberate and malafide. If the PIO is ordinary officer it is different, but here in this case he is law officer and supposed to know fundamentals in RTI.
  15. 1 point
    As a members your rights are restricted to that of share holders, but as a citizen you can ask for any information on public record without any fetters.
  16. 1 point
    This reply from PIO is classic example of defiant attitude of PIO and levels of knowledge both in running his department and on RTI.Any how it is not our concern for the present. You have to go for appeal within maximum 30 days within in receipt of FAA orders or maximum 45 days in case FAA orders are not delivered. Now ask a friend or relative to seek information as follows: 1.Please provide number of vacant houses for allocation as on date in 2.If allotment closed, such date of final closure of allotment. and certified copy of that memo/notice/report on finalizing the list. 3.Please provide copy of such list of selected beneficiaries..................................................... Then go for second appeal. Certainly you can get a befitting order, if IC applies his mind. Sorry I am not finding a link in between what you have sought guidance and on which you have sought guidance. To refresh this is your first query. "I would like to know the various schemes under which housing or tenements are granted to beneficiaries,list of applicants for free housing scheme ,number of sanctioned applications , field verification details,list of applications rejected etc This is the actual you have solicited from PIO. . Please provide name ,designation and official mobile number of all the officers & employees working at SCB, Tiruvallur Division in accordance and in compliance of the provision of section 4(1)(b)(ix) of the RTI Act. in accordance and in compliance of the provision of section 4(1)(b)(ix) of the RTI Act. Time and again we advise members not to seek that information which is not useful but still some state unnecessary quotes of sections and ask those questions which are in fact not relevant not necessary, not helpful. Honestly, what do you want to do with that employees of SCB address book list. You can also file grievance before the TOP authority of SCB requesting him to upload the beneficiaries list in their website as the selection is not proper.
  17. 1 point
    Do not get distracted from query: 1)Please provide that part of the copy of record/statute /Circular/order/rule that states the number of deputy chief ministers that can be appointed in a state PIO Reply: this information is not available with their office Issue: If that information is not available in his office, is it not his duty to send the application to the concerned authority with whom the information is available under Sec. 6 (3) Simple information is that there is no such stipulation restriting total number of Deputy chief ministers to be appointed and it depends on discretion of CM (All this is only for academic interest, as Shri Saapataskhar has clarified that it depends on CM discretion, and they are not entitled to any special benefits. Atleast after hearing, you can educate facts to them so that they may provide correct information for future queries)
  18. 1 point
    Most of the members may not like to open attachments or bother to spare time to offer guidance. But the post is typical and the attachment shows where members err in filing applications, and the misconception that RTI is the remedy of all evils in the society, and about alternate remedies, the purpose of seeking information vis a vis how that brings logical conclusion to one's issue, the necessity of atleast reading certain important sections in RTI Act etc. 1.Seek that information which is really useful to you or to the community at large. 2.Learn the differences in between designated Public Information officer and duties of FAA and their responsibilities. 3.Focus on those points that really helpful and do not make a large application burdening the authorities with that information in no way useful to you and to bring any logical conclusions. 4.Always make RTI as brief as possible and never exceed more than 5 queries maximum, and divide application issue wise. 5.Never use WHY while soliciting your information and state in the beginning Please provide me. 6.You have alternate, fast and inexpensive remedies under CP Act whereas RTI Act can not bring any remedy to your real cause. 7.Always use RTI Process to improve the relations with your financier or specify violations rather than finding fault or seeking explanations in RTI. 8.Though objective of RTI is not stated in the Act, ICS and FAAs do see the purpose of RTI and usefulness of that information to you and decision depends on your application and if you are really aggrieved, then they will certainly be sympathetic in hearing .
  19. 1 point
    Information commissioners are appointed only for State commissions.
  20. 1 point
    First go through RTI Act as there are stipulations on time frame for disposal of applications as 30 days from receipt and first appeals within 30 days from receipt and 45 days in case of reasons specified. There is no time frame fixed for disposal of second appeals. 2.Applications within same authority are treated as endorsement and it should be done forthwith on receipt and as expeditiously as possible. The transfer is permitted only in case the custodian of information is another public authority.. Inspite of 14 years of enactment still some publc authorities never understand the difference. For example If one files application to SP of police, he can endorse the application to the concerned SPIO of a police station, he can not transfer under Sec. 6 (3) Educate them by providing DOPT directives which clearly state a format of response for PIOs to reply RTI Applications in which it was clearly stated that PIO should mention name, designation, mobile no and e mail ID of both PIO and FAA . The experts committee it went to these type of grievances remarked that there was no such procedure stated in RTI Act and they have only recommended to Public Authority's to use uniform format and prescribed that PIO and FAA must provide name, designation, mobile no, e mail ID invariably. As a common man one is not concerned with trivial things and we should focus only on information alone. These things can be commented in appeals as routine praying IC for such directions to Public authority for their future guidance.
  21. 1 point
    Make heading of the complaint as "NON COMPLIANCE OF CIC DECISION - COMPLAINT. Before filing complaint issue a formal notice both to CPIO and FAA, to provide that information within 15 days, Wait for 15 days and then enclose the copy of notices issued to CPIO and FAA to strengthen your efforts to get the information from them without approaching CIC. There must be a Transparency officer in PMO who is a co-ordinating stake holders--Applicants, PIOS, FAAS and Commission. You may also make a copy to him drawing his attention to non compliance of CIC orders by PMO which may give a bad precedent and wrong signals to other authorities in sincerity in implementing RTI Act.
  22. 1 point
    Your attached file did not have the .PDF extension and therefore it was not opening. I have added the .PDF extension for the convenience and therefore, it should now be possible to open your file. I have re-attached the corrected file with this post. In your case, you may file a complaint under section 18(1) with the Central Information Commission. CIC Order on PMO CPIO.PDF
  23. 1 point
    For filing online RTI application on the subject of Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar, Co-operative Societies you may select the option Co-operation, Textiles and Marketing Department option.
  24. 1 point
    IC is not supposed to revise/modify/aleter or re look into delivered decision. The action is not proper. File RTI Application and seek information from SC as follows: 10Please provide Certified copy sthat states the powers of IC in changing a decision delivered, without once again hearing appellant.
  25. 1 point
    Search in Co-operation and Registration Ministries.
  26. 1 point
    Members do not open attachments from strangers and do not take the trouble of reading entire facts. If you are not satisfied with SPIO information, you can file Addendum to First appeal stating CPIO orders and enclosing attachment with more clarity in the form of tabulation Annexure to addendum to first appeal stating verbatim facts relevant to grounds for appeal stated in main first appeal. __________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Query No...............Information solicited on.............. Provided on..........................Reasons for not finding reply satisfactory _____1__________________2_____________________3_________________________________4__________________________________________________________ 1 2 3
  27. 1 point
    Ignore the transfer part, as far as, one of their PIOs is replying to you. Where a particular PIO is neither transferring the RTI nor providing the information on the ground that the information is not available with his office, in which case he is supposed to access the information from another office of his public authority and provide it to you under section 5(4) read with 5(5) of the RTI Act. Kindly prepare your ground of appeal accordingly. Ground of Appeal: 1. The PIO has stated that the requested information is not available with his office, in which case, in accordance with the letter and spirit of section 5(4) read with 5(5), the PIO ought to have sought the assistance of that officer of your public authority with whose office the information is available by invoking section 5(4) read with section 5(5) of the RTI Act, however, the PIO has not done so. Thus, the PIO has disposed of my request for information against point no. XX of my RTI application in violation of the letter & spirit of section 5(4) read with 5(5) of the RTI Act. Kindly find section 5(4) & 5(5) quoted below for your reference:
  28. 1 point
    First decide as to what you wish to do with that video or information and contact your union advocate and take guidance from him on the crime committed by Public in shooting a public servant on public duty at a public place ? Forget minor things as you can not do harm to any public and in this exercise you have to lose more by exposing the driver. These are common, and many in every day life.
  29. 1 point
    File First Appeal stating that if that information is not on record SPIO has to send that application to that SPIO where that information is available. (We have more than two DCMS in our small state)
  30. 1 point
    Sir, on 4th July 2019,SIC has directed PIO for GOA electricity dept to supply me the copy of govt letter of intent to me which states the decision of LED replacement and posted the hearing ahead on 23rd july for further proceedings, thanks and due respects with high regards to this forum and you for all the guidance [emoji120] [emoji257] Sent from my vivo 1606 using RTI INDIA mobile app
  31. 1 point
    If the information that you have sought is available in a documentary form in some sort of an attendance register etc. then the PIO ought to provide a photocopy of such documents / information. File a first appeal on the following ground: Grounds of first appeal: 1. The information sought by me i.e. "the list of officers who reported to duty on particular station on a particular date", ought to be available in a documentary form in some sort of an attendance register etc As per the provision of section 7(1) of the RTI Act, a Public Information Officer (PIO) on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9. However, the PIO has neither provided the requested information nor rejected it for any of reasons specified under section 8 and 9. Thus, the PIO has disposed of my request for information in violation of section 7(1) of the RTI Act. Prayers of first appeal: 1. Kindly place the onus on the PIO in accordance with the letter & spirit of section 19(5) of the RTI Act, for disposing of my request for information in violation of the provision of section 7(1) of the RTI Act. 2. Kindly direct the PIO to provide the requested information.
  32. 1 point
    Please prepare your grounds of appeal by both referring as well as enclosing the CIC decision attached herewith this post: CIC 8(1)(h).pdf
  33. 1 point
    Generally, members do not prefer to open such attachments from strangers. Always state exactly what was solicited and what was provided/denied to you. You can go for first appeal stating that mere denial information amounts to deliberate and malafide denial and it is the duty of the PIO to establish that disclosure of that report to this specific applicant can hamper the course of investigation. Justification for denial as to how such stipulation specifically applies to this information is mandatory.
  34. 1 point
    While dealing with Police, always explore alternates also. Once the case is submitted to Court, the papers are not in exclusive custody of the public authority. Instead of begging them, give vakalat and get all the papers filed in the form of certified copies before court from any advocate . If PS has not provided any documentary evidence before court, he can never order court not to disclose the same. Every citizen is entitled to any document from court. Any advocate can guide you in the matter. In urgent/priority matters never depend only on RTI alone.
  35. 1 point
    We should always be thankful to such adversaries, as they provide us opportunity of learning though they may cause inconvenience to us in short run. Now, please inform and help in learning as what should have been better in such cases as per the post query. Share your experiences and the manner you have explored other avenues as alternates.
  36. 1 point
    Similar situation is also face by me. Even in my case FAA authority neither given opportunity to hearing nor given any orders with in stipulated period of 45 days. Therefore, I filled 2nd Appeal with CIC on line, and same has been registered for further hearing and orders. Since the majority of PIOs are not performing their duties under RTI Act, further they're aware that decision of CIC will come after a lapse of 2 years therefore they are acting like rock for providing information.
  37. 1 point
    If I understand it correctly you wish to seek information about a particular public authority's bank account which it maintains with a bank. If that is so, this information would be available at two places (1) with the said public authority and (2) with the bank where the said public authority maintains its bank account. In which case, you should be able to get this information by filing a RTI application with the concerned public authority's PIO rather than file the RTI application with the bank with which the said public authority maintains its bank account. Also read the following blog: Kindly do not worry about whether you will get the information or not at the stage of filing a RTI application
  38. 1 point
    This forum is dedicated for discussing and guiding on RTI matters alone, and the issue raised by you is personal in nature and it is natural that still there is no change in traditional mentalities of persons. Anticipating such future social comments, and shifting to an apartment with cosmopolitan culture, without any friends or relations is the only solution. Though it is not escaping trend, time heals every wound.
  39. 1 point
    Though it is not your duty, atleast educate both PIO and FAA on their Sec. 6 (3) obligation in transferring the application within 5 days from receipt. At least they will learn fundamentals from citizens. I also suggest for filing application before CPIO, MMC for providing information as follows; 1.Please provide the copy of orders/notification/circulars that state the obligation of MMC for storage of ammonia at..............................Goa. Then it becomes clear as to where there was negligence and failure.
  40. 1 point
  41. 1 point
    The petitions should be built in a manner to seek those reliefs different from what was subjudice in CAT/Courts while filing petition before Lokpal. Please search website of Lokpal. Lokpal is for hearing of first appeal on grievances not redressed. There is also Parliament Petitions Committee, and the secretariat is most effective and that can not be said on Study committee of Parliament members that hear the well prepared questionnaire and replies from your bank.
  42. 1 point
    Thanks for enlightening me on the subject. Such feed back helps several members and purpose of the forum is served if message reaches large people, so that atleast one pensioner derives ultimately benefits out of your posts.
  43. 1 point
    To be precise Sec.11 is not meant for denial of information. Denial can only be made under Sec. 8 (1) and in case of third party, they may call for his comments as a procedural formality.
  44. 1 point
    You will need to file a first appeal under section 19(1) with the concerned First Appellate Authority on the following ground: Grounds of first appeal: 1. The PIO has denied information under section 11 of the RTI Act, which is a procedural provision. As per section 7(1) of the RTI Act, on receipt of a request for information, a PIO shall either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: The PIO has neither provided the requested information nor rejected the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9. Thus, the PIO has disposed of my request for information in violation of the provision of section 7(1) of the RTI Act. Prayers of the first appeal: 1. In accordance with the provision of section 19(5) of the RTI Act, kindly put the onus on the PIO to justify the denial of my request for information. 2. Kindly direct the PIO to provide the requested information in accordance with the letter and spirit of section 7(1) read with section 8 & 9 of the RTI Act.
  45. 1 point
    I am surprised first with title. Information not asked provided. Often PIOs complain that RTI Act is being misused. Do you know that PIOs can also misuse/abuse RTI Act. Yes. True. I have been handling such a case that has not reached it's final stage even after eleven years. The citizen is 96 years old. Her son has leased a property to a PSU. Her son was just a owner and never had any business transactions, and as he was in a different station for last 40 years, as he was receiving lease rent, no one suspected a fraud. After death of the owner, the agent appointed by PSU divided the property within his family. The citizen asked facts of agent becoming owner. The dealer\s advocate prepared a letter as to how PSU should reply, PSU obtained such a request letter, stated that it is a record provided by dealer, and provided that incorrect information that owner was indebted to them and such debt was paid by their dealer, and this is the consideration for sale of the site taken by them for rent. The fact is that citizen's son never had a financial relation. As PSU stated that information it became a public record, the case was dismissed.by court in 2009 as 96 year old citizen has not established fraud that has taken place in 1964. When citizen has asked same public authority, CPIO refused inspection after CIC decision and stated that providing information for incidents that happened prior to 20 years is his discretion. But for dealer, he has obtained RTI Application and provided that information as required by him stating that it is a public record. For eleven years PIO has not provided the facts on his public records . Hon'ble IC decided when public authority has stated that informaiton as per records, it is the end. If not citizen has to court and establish fraud by PSU in court and there is no role of RTI in getting such public record, as it is an information useful only for citizen and not in larger public interest !!!!!
  46. 1 point
    File another first appeal writing on top as ADDENDUM TO FIRST APPEAL. Addendum to First Appeal dt.1st Jun, 2019. (First Appeal dt.....received by FAA on 28-05-2019, pending with FAA, FAA orders not received till to-day) Against: State Public Information officer,............................. Appellant:......................................................... Brief facts: Applicant has solicited information on ...........and it was received by SPIO on 22-04-2019 2. As SPIO has not provided information the first appeal was filed on .....................and received by FAA on 28-05-2019 3. After receipt of the first appeal, SPIO has on 21-05-2089 posted on................stated that he can not reply to question in RTI Application raised in impetus as per Sec.2f. 4.As FAA has not decided the first appeal and delivered order this addendum to be treated as the First Appeal. GROUNDS for Appeal: This appellant is only aware of the following section relevant to PIO. Sec (7) (1) Subject to the provision of Sec. (2) of Section (5) to the proviso the subsection (d) of Section 6, the Central Public Information officer or state public information officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under sec.6 shall as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 30 days of receipt of the request. EITHER provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or REJECT the request for any of the reasons specified in Sec.8 and Sec.9" The denial should be only under Sec.8 or Sec.9 supported with such justification as per umpteen CIC/SIC decisions. PIO has neither provided information nor denied information and invented a new clause that was not stated in RTI for denial of information, which is highly improper and shows sheer negligence of a statutory obligation. Hence this first appeal, in the larger public interest as the information is not exempted under RTI and is available in material form. PRAYER: Appellant prays for directions to SPIO for providing the information free of cost as expeditiously as possible. Applicant.
  47. 1 point
    An applicant is not concerned with their internal correspondence, he is concerned only of getting information within the time frame fixed under RTI and he has to focus on further step undeterred by their internal jurisdictional issues.
  48. 1 point
    There is a mistake on your part. Time and again, experts advised to record the entire proceedings as Minutes and give it to FAA and PIO duly signed. If PIO has really provided that letter, he might have marked and written to FAA immediately after receiving the first appeal. He should have at least communicated to the appellant. There are flaws in every step. The designation of PIO is different and FAA must be superior in authority over PIO and designated as such. There was never a practice of signature of PIO for FAA. Again FAA can only deliver his orders and can not force any appellant to sign any document when the appellant reported non-receipt. At least the copy was not given. Coming to FAA orders, the orders are defective. Information can be denied only on stating such exemption in RTI Act Sec.8 and subsection and with proper justification for applying that section. The reason for rejection is stated as follows: "That daily status and action taken of an application cannot be supplied through RTI . " There was never any such exemption in RTI Act as stated by PIO and FAA. Ask through separate RTI application to SPIO and seek information as follows: 1. Please provide me a copy of the letter that stated that information was denied tat daily status and action taken of an application cannot be supplied through RTI . " with a copy of such entry in outward despatch letter that mentions details. As the SPIO response is essential for submitting the second appeal and such letter was never received by the Appellant. 2. Please provide me the copy of that section or subsection in RTI Act that exempts and states that "That daily status and action taken of an application cannot be supplied through RTI . " The second Appeal can be filed within 90 days from receipt of FAA. To prepare grounds for the second appeal, get this information also so that you can simply state only simple ground for the second appeal to SIC as follows: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Grounds for Appeal: SPIO has said to have rejected to provide information stating as follows: 'That daily status and action taken of an application cannot be supplied through RTI ." FAA has agreed with PIO. Appellant has neither received such letter nor there is no such stipulation exempting such information under RTI in Sec.8 or Sec.9 of RTI Act. SPIO can only deny information stating such Section and subsection with proper justification. In this case, PIO has neither quoted such exemption section/subsection nor offered any justification. Hence the information denial is treated as deliberate and malafide. PIO was asked to provide such Section and subsection in which there is such exemption and PIO has responded as follows ( or Not responded) PRAYER: Appellant prays for directions to SPIO and to FAA also (as SPIO has signed for FAA) to provide the information as expeditiously as possible free of cost as denial is deliberate and malafide.
  49. 1 point
    Make a complaint signed by those residents which are affected by the bad state of the Road to the authority that maintain such roads. Submit petitions to local representative like Ward Member, Chairman, Mayor,Commissioner,MLA and MP. Contact local Media and get it highlighted through publicity. After all these attempts file RTI Application seeking information on action taken for repairs to Roads on your complaint .
  50. 1 point
This leaderboard is set to Kolkata/GMT+05:30


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy