Jump to content
News Ticker
  • 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 05/26/2019 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    Please find attached herewith the CIC decision wherein it had ruled as follows: prefixing of why & what doesnt debar applicant from receiving info..pdf
  2. 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 When property right was repealed as a fundamental right by the 44th Amendment, It became a Constitutional Right protected under Article 300 A enforceable by law.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
  3. 2 points
    Wait for say approximately 35 days from the date of filing of the RTI application and if you do not receive any response from the PIO, then file a first appeal with the concerned First Appellate Authority under section 19(1) of the RTI Act.
  4. 2 points
    The PIO is quoting very old Judgment. It was held in CIC decisions that if the information is available on record in material form it has to be provided, as RTI Act never stipulated any form of seeking information. For example: Who is Prime Minister of india is interrogative form Please provide the name of the Prime Minister of India is a simple sentence. If PIO has in his records material form naming such PM, he can not reject the information on grounds that it is interrogative. PIO can only deny information as per exemptions stated in Sec.8 or Sec.9 of RTI Act. Either you can file simple RTI to same PIO or go for first appeal so that you can educate Public Authority PF who is not still knowing fundamentals even after 14 years after RTI came into force . Simple form: 1.Please inform the reasons for delay in transfer of PF from.................to................. 2.Please inform time frame fixed under citizen charter for making such transfers. 3.Inform the name of the employee, and his supervisor, designations, mobile numbers and full address that are purposefully delaying transfer and neglecting their duties.
  5. 2 points
    FAA's obligation is to direct his subordinate Public Information Officer suitably to follow such stipulations in RTI Act, if he finds from first appellant has stated any grounds of violation. Information should always be from Public Information officer. You can ask a friend or relative from different station to file RTI Application seeking information as follows: Information solicited: 1.Please provide the copy of office notes/directions that state the reasons for putting on hold the recruitment of Deputy Managers, Assistant Managers (desk top). 2.Please inform whether there is an obligation on public authority to inform developments to the aspiring candidates, without giving scope for each candidate filing individual RTI Applications. 3.Please provide the link if the matter is put on website about suspending such recruitment. 4.Inform further plan of action for recruitment in future if available on record if any.
  6. 2 points
    State Public Information Officer, Sub Registrar (Society Registration) Information solicited: 1.Please provide the copy of registration certificate for Locality Resident Association of.......................at...............................with Shri..........................as President and as.................................Secretary. (As a member you have the right to seek same information from your society without spending single paisa)
  7. 2 points
    We expect that positive success stories from our members and we take pride in those members achievements. CONGRATULATIONS.
  8. 2 points
    Never enter into useless correspondence with lethargic authorities without a cause. The more they drag, the more advantageous position you are placed. Write a polite letter stating in the personal name of FAA (DO) such FAA hearings given, canceled in a table form and also seek inspection of the file PRIOR TO HEARING as the file notings can be noted to note a day to day status and action taken on the application. (I always wonder why it is necessary and what we can do with that information under RTI when the issue is pending on record, I find several PIOs getting irritated and felt as though they are being questioned by applicants like their auditors)
  9. 2 points
    What can you do by knowing that information? Such displaced families are more, the affected people are many, there was no problem as everyone was accommodated. They have a powerful union/association and they have links to know status and developments themselves as they are concerned. Jump into the fray, only when you can bring a change through logical conclusion and do not expose yourself on petty things that cannot make any difference. Do not think that your repeated representations are of no use, get them solved through the interference of welfare association and meeting concerned officials in a group. In police, discipline is the priority, and I have not come across any broad-minded superior who considers their subordinates are also citizens. Our actions should bring results and should not drag us to further problems. Still, if you wanted to go on hunting for the information, seek such information as follows: Information solicited: 1. Please provide the reasons on the record for the abnormal delay in commencing housing project for police quarters at................................................ 2.The present status and plan of action to complete the quarters within a time frame.
  10. 2 points
    Let the answer come from KIC. Apply for such information in prescribed format with such adhesive court fee stamp of Rs.10/- Brief facts. The website of Karnataka Information Commission for proactive disclosure under section 4(1)(b)(x) the site showed the message"The origin server did not find a current representation for the target resource or is not willing to disclose that one exists." Information solicited.1. Is it not mandatory to disclose monthly remuneration of officer/employees of the Commission under RTI as per 4(1)(b)(x). (Voluntary disclosure) 2. Please provide specific exemptions if any to KSIC alone.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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 !!!!!
  15. 1 point
    If the office remains closed send it by Regd Ack due. Service proof is enough. Whether FAA honours his statutory obligations are not, one has to follow laid down steps under RTI Act, if information is the focus. Time and again experts advised to focus on information alone, and for getting information you must go first for first appeal. Complaint is useless as complainant has no right for information under Sec.18 of complaint. Imposing penalty and recommendation of disciplinary action is not within hands of complainant, as it was ruled that the matter was in between Public authority and IC and that RTI Act gives right to information only for citizens. Rest is left to your discretion. regards prasad
  16. 1 point
    For the purpose of RTI Act, the Co-operative Societies can be broadly classified into two types: (1) Bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by a Govt. etc. (i.e. Societies which fall under the definition of public authority as given under section 2 (h) of the RTI Act); and (2) Bodies which do not fall under the definition of section 2 (h) of the RTI Act i.e. Private Bodies. The first type of Co-operative Societies are public authorities and therefore directly covered under the RTI Act; by virtue of section 2(h) of the RTI Act; and The second type of Co-operative Societies are covered indirectly under the RTI Act, by virtue of the definition of section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In other words, both the type of Co-operative Societies are covered under the RTI Act, one directly under section 2(h) and the other indirectly under section 2(f). Please find para 52 from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013 quoted below:
  17. 1 point
    This forum is dedicated community forum for guidance in seeking information from Public authorities under RTI Act. JIO being a private entity is beyond ambit of RTI Act. Make a registered notice to customer care , under copy to TRAI... Wait for a month and then file a complaint before District Consumer forum for deficiency of service claiming refund and compensation for harassment. You need not spend more than Rs.200/- for this complaint if you appear as party in person.
  18. 1 point
    earlier it was ignored at iffi function now it will be compulsorily honored since its has order now on my information to govt. Sent from my vivo 1606 using RTI INDIA mobile app
  19. 1 point
    Proper way is first to file RTI Application and seeking such copy of affidavits, and then file RTI Applications to the Supdt of Police enclosing the copy of the affidavit, seeking present status of the cases.
  20. 1 point
    Referring the subject may I / I need to seek the information of persons with the details of their names and addresses served with the subject notices/involved in number of criminal cases.. To the police station near to me. Sent from my vivo 1606 using RTI INDIA mobile app
  21. 1 point
    Make a complaint to IC in a tabulated form. To .... IC.... Respected Sir, Reg: Non compliance of IC orders reference....................dt.. ..by SPIO...........................Appellant:............................(full address) After the decision, PIO has provided incomplete information deliberately to harass me. ___________________________________________________________________________ Information solicited......................Provided by PIO after IC orders. Information not provided. _______)1______________________________2___________________________3_____________________ Please admit this letter as complaint and direct SPIO to provide complete information as per application, and as per Column No.3. Complainant. Copy to SPIO, Copy to FAA File another RTI and seeking information on dates of deducting the penalty, and disciplinary action taken against SPIO.
  22. 1 point
    When PIO says that records are destroyed, one can not force PIO. I have not heard the term'frozen'. If you want to proceed further, ask FAA to direct SPIO to provide that column/entry in the destruction of records that state the destruction, and also the copy of extract manual that states of retention period. Please inform your specific query to PIO for clarity.
  23. 1 point
    There might be a mistake in your understanding. PWD is different and a separate state Government dept., Corporation is the local government body. However, when you are stating with confidence that both PIOs have one FAA, Public authority might have been only one. The PIO has to severe that information you have solicited and transfer that part of query only to second PIO of another public authority. There is a time limit of 5 days within which the transfer has to be effected. There is violation. As a citizen, just focus on information, always try to get from first two stages. You can wait for 35 days from date of your posting RTI Application and then file first appeal must be on grounds of deemed denial, and also late transfer of RTI Application. Wait for 35 days for that point transferred to second PIO and continue First appeal in that process depending on progress.
  24. 1 point
    I can see that SC judgement of 2009 (CIVIL APPEAL No.22 OF 2009) held that service record book between employer and employee is a private matter but CIC decisions CIC/AD/A/2012/00287 dated 13.05.2013 and CIC/AD/A/2012/00287 dated 03.02.2011 have ordered for service record book of a government employee sbe given. What is the present scenario in this case? I have sought the service record book of a police officer and I am filing second appeal Is there any other judgements or anything else that I need to know ?
  25. 1 point
    It is at your discretion. The time frame for filing under Sec.19 has to be followed. Within 90 days from receiving FAA orders. Go for second appeals only if the information is really urgent and important.
  26. 1 point
    Immediately issue a Registered notice to Principal seeking for returning of all originals with in a week, make a copy of this letter to AICTE Secretary, Higher Education, Karnataka and UGC also There are several past queries and replies. Kindly go through them for more guidance. EX: Open the link https://rtiindia.org/forums/topic/146050-hi-my-name-is-gouspeer-k/ If the link is not operating search in Forum -my-name-is-gouspeer query.
  27. 1 point
    Inform your authorities, so that you may not get any problems tomorrow. Please write to them that you are interested in modeling and that profession will not interfere in your service.
  28. 1 point
    Brief facts on the information sought: Disqualified contractor by GWSSB now being awarded such contracts...Sri................. Information solicited: 1. Please provide me the certified copy of punishment imposed on such contractor stating his disqualification. 2. Please provide copies of entire correspondence on such inquiry report, office notes, contractor's submissions, and authority's permission to lift the ban and reward him with further contracts. 3. Please provide exact reasons on the record for lifting the ban on such disqualified contractor and such final orders.
  29. 1 point
    First, collect all such historical background and prepare a good article. As the preparation of the article takes more time and research file RTI Application Central Public Information Officer and seek information as follows; Brief facts: Declaration of Monument for protection under the Archaeological site. Monument at...................... Information solicited; 1. Please provide a copy of that order/notification that states of specific norms /guidelines/directives to protect a monument under Archaeological site. 2. Please provide as to whether department received any requests for the above-stated monument as protected. 3. If not what can be done for getting it protected for its historical significance. There were 141 posts from you alone from the last four months in this forum. It is not known as to how many such applications met with success and what larger public interest those applications really served. Unless you prepare success stories and keep media in touch you cannot succeed on those issues.
  30. 1 point
    What is the purpose of posting this information in the forum dedicated to RTI and not concerned with any Govt organizations? Mobilize a group and submit such petition to local authorities. The situation in 1980 may be different as there may not be protected water supply, but the situation might have been changed a lot and residents may be receiving drinking water through taps. This case is the same in all villages after providing drinking water facility, and those wells if not used naturally polluted even without such sewage. Was there any inconvenience to the public? Whether drinking water is being provided by authorities to each home in the locality? How to keep well water safe for drinking without anyone using the same? Who is responsible for this? Are those residents that consumed the well water for many decades can not voluntarily contribute to the development of well? Is it possible for any Government for keeping a watchman for every well? Who was using that well as garbage bin? Were there not responsible citizens that can donate a display board no to use the same as a garbage bin, or collect donations for cleaning and removing silt? What is the distance between this well and sewage plant and that this well is being polluted with such water? Do not blame the Govt and always blame the public. Govt can only use funds but can not make the citizen's attitude any better. These are the issues.
  31. 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.
  32. 1 point
    Make a simple application to SAG and seek one sentence information from them. 1)Please provide the reasons for not bringing into public use prepared ground and other facilities like Gym and indoor facilities at ,,,,,,,,,,, My presumption is election code for the inauguration is stopping them as a committee has to be formed for managing such facilities.
  33. 1 point
    File RTI Application to State Public Information Officer, District Educational Officer, Baroda as per the format prescribed by Gujarat state and seek information as follows: Information solicited: 1. Please provide any directives/guidelines that states of possible action against teachers in regular employment conducting coaching centers/tutorials neglecting their duties
  34. 1 point
    Please remember that only citizens are entitled to get information under RTI Act. If NGO president wishes to seek information, he can apply as follows: Mr. X.....(Signature) President Y Organisation, Address of Y organization.
  35. 1 point
    Every citizen in India is entitled to any information under RTI Act. Please go for first appeal stating such section and pray for directions to PIO for suitable directions for providing the information free of cost as expeditiously as possible and pray for deputing PIO for suitable training and with an advice not to invent new things not stated in RTI Act. a)Sec.7 Disposal of request in RTI Act simply stated as follows: (1)Subject to the provision to sub-section (2) of Section (5) or the proviso to 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 Section 6 shall as expeditiously as possible and in any case within thirty 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 & Sec.9. There was nothing in Sec.8 or Sec.9 that states that Advocates are not entitled to the information.. Those clauses under Sec.8 or Sec.9 are only applicable and that also should be justified as to how it applies in each and every cases.
  36. 1 point
    Regd post. The principal, ---------College Respected Sir, Reg: Returning of original mark lists, qualification certificates to.......................................of..........(.*year)........Roll No..... I hereby request you for returning of all my original certificates deposited with the college for verification within 15 days from receipt of this request, as per UGC/HRD/AICTE notifications,. As my several oral requests were neglected by Administrative staff, this request in writing. Please treat this as notice. My mobile No is:....................................and a message can be sent for collecting them at a date convenient to your staff. Yours faithfully, ..................... Copy to UGC, New Delhi, Copy to Ministry of HRD, New Delhi.
  37. 1 point
    My wife has got a notice for second appeal hearing which i had filed on her behalf. I want to join the hearing along with her. the notice says that "The appellant/complainant may present his/her case(s) in person or through his/her duly authorized representative". Is there any format for giving authorization to me from her so that i can join the hearing along with her. And after authorization, will we both be able to join or will it be only one of us?
  38. 1 point
    What prevented you in sending the mail even now. Always take action when it is not dangerous.
  39. 1 point
    No uniform format has been prescribed. Her attendance is also not needed. That is just a formality. Please mail a copy in advance and retain one copy with you for showing it to Commission.. Before .................Information commission,..................... File No: Against: SPIO,........................ Appellant:..................................... Authorisation letter for representing the appellant for hearing on..................... Appellant humbly submits that she could not attend hearing on.........................and hereby authorizes her husband Sri................................for representing her and submitting the grounds of appeal and praying for such remedies under RTI Act. He may be permitted to attend the hearing on the basis of this authorization letter Shri ............................Signs as.................................................................... Appellant
  40. 1 point
    You can file RTI Application to State public Information officer TSCB and can solicit the information as follows: Information solicited: 1. Please provide the status of various projects undertaken by the board for construction of houses in the .......District. 2. Please provide the Brochure/Booklet/Circular that states the norms for allocating such houses. 3. Please provide No of applications received, accepted, rejected and finally selected, a vacant position as on 31-3-2019. 4. Please provide a copy of the beneficiaries list. NB: Please provide that information available in electronic data through CD and if the information is in hard copies provide that hard copy. Note to search website of TNSCB for format of RTI Application, CPIO particulars and RTI Fee mode of remittance.
  41. 1 point
    Description of Information Required: In-accordance with the provision of section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act, kindly provide me with an inspection of all the documents with respect to the following: (a) (b) (c) Please note that, during the process of aforesaid inspection, I shall select the required information, kindly do provide me with a certified photocopy of such selected information on payment of prescribed fees.
  42. 1 point
    1.Please permit me to inspect the following records pertaining to .....................................................(File notes/documents).and for providing certified copies selected by me under RTI . a b Please propose two convenient dates and provide such permission atleast ten days in advance.
  43. 1 point
    I understand that there is a record book called duty book in any police station ,in which activities of police officers regarding their official duty are recorded.Also in this book ,entries are made regarding activities of police officers who perform investigations of crimes ,It is found that ,there are many corrupt police officers who just write false stories on papers under pretext of investigation instead of doing honest investigation by seeking bribes etc.My query is,whether the entries made in the duty book are available under RTI .as it will help to reveal truth in case of false investigation by police .Are there any other record books ,which can help to reveal the truth about such corrupt practices by police.I request to all honourable members to guide on this
  44. 1 point
    Seeking information under RTI is a time bound procedure, therefore, kindly watch out for the time limits prescribed under the RTI Act. If you have received the FAA reply / order, you are supposed to file a second appeal under section 19(3) within 90 days of the date of receipt of the FAA's Order.
  45. 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.
  46. 1 point
    Definitely. But, the court expects that the petitioner is coming to them after exploring all options, and when authorities failed to take any action, in the larger public interest the PIL was filed. The inaction of superior must be apparent with efforts of petitioner for getting a good appreciation of the case and the failure of the controlling mechanism.
  47. 1 point
    Sincerely this is combined fight for non-dilution of RTI Act bring a great relief to all activities.
  48. 1 point
    Sorry, I do not get the present position. I am also not to competent to grasp any thing from the images. Have you filed RTI Application ? If the information provided is not saitsfactory, escalate it to first appeal. If you have filed complaint , then file RTI Application seeking information on action taken on your complaint. If there is no response, give a detailed complaint to Vigilance dept., under copy to concerned Ministry. Leap into some type of action. Once it is decided that they are not going to open up, nothing can be done now. By the time it comes up for second appeal hearing, it may take two years minimum and by that time, the entire work must have been completed and bills paid, then there is no further use. Carefully consider what best can be done in limited time before the construction is completed.
  49. 1 point
    1.I am afraid that JD is not correct in transferring the application. I do not know, whether he has quoted that section or you are quoting that section. Sec 6 (3) stipulates transfer to another public authority, within same public authority i.e. land records, they just endorse and send application to concerned PIO as immediately as possible. Mere transfer of application is not certain that information is available with other authority. It only suggests that they (JD)are not custodian of that record, and the other (AD) may be having that information. 2)It is not mandatory to write name and address of the sender but desirable to provide basic information that it is towards RTI fee for RTI Application dt...from............of.............(place) However, not writing the sender's name can not certainly disqualify the information or for rejection of application.
  50. 1 point
    Dear Member a. This forum is for discussing issues connected with RTI only. b.First send a written Complaint to the local Municipal Corporation (NDMC or MCD). It is better if you involve more residents and send many complaints, one after the other.If there is no response from the authorities, then you can use RTI to follow up on the Complaint. Please refer post # 2 (just above your post) for details. regards Demerged post from another thread and merged here.
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