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

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/13/2019 in Posts

  1. 2 points
    Public information officer has to either provide the information or deny information stating such clause under Sec. 8 sub section 1 as exemption with such justification. Please go through Sec.8 (1) and the denial stating " disproportionately diversion of the resource of public authority" was no where stated in such sub section as exempted information. There were many CIC decisions that stated that this stipulation is not an exemption under RTI. Unless member posts the exact query, precise answer as to whether it covers under Sec.2 (f) can not be given. In General a PIO must provide that information which is available in material form in his custody if it is not exempted specifically under Sec. 8 (1) Go for First appeal to FAA Grounds for first Appeal: a) As per Sec.7 (1) PIO can only "reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sec.8 & Sec. 9" b)2.There is no such exemption in Sec.8 (1) that states that PIO can reject the request on the ground that providing of information disproportionately diversion of the resource of public authority" c)It was upheld in umpteen second appeals by CIC that information can not be rejected with the reason "disproportionately diversion of the resource of public authority c)PIO has also not provided for any justification for applying such assumed reason for exempting information and quoting some reason in way relevant to deny information legally and not offering any justification for such denial was treated as "deliberate and malafide denial" Hence this first appeal.
  2. 2 points
    1.Servuce History of an employee is within employer and employee and has nothing to do with larger public interest, and as per earlier decisions it is not within ambit of RTI. Unless you can establish larger public interest like obtaining employment through fake documents , removal of essential documents, not recording of earlier corruptive actions and on disciplinary issues, you can never get such information from any Public authority. 2.. AP Govt has not brought RTI on line and once the application is submitted through Regd post and tracked through indiapost website, there is no opportunity for PIO to escape from his obligations, and even if he remains silent then there is further FIRST APPEAL PROCESS on "Deemed denial" if reply is not received from SPIO within 30 days from receipt of RTI Application. 3.APSRTC is now brought within state government and the process is not completed.
  3. 1 point
    Enclose the screen print and write on the hard copy the information that is not available while submitting to FAA A small piece of advice, if you are capable of finding an ultimate remedy or can bring a change with the information, you can follow up the matter. Otherwise, all these efforts are simple waste and eat away your precious time.
  4. 1 point
    Pay the fees and get copies for Query No.1: For the rest of the queries, down load the contents with such date of download and go for First Appeal stating that SPIO has provided incorrect, incomplete and misleading information.
  5. 1 point
    File a point wise first appeal as follows: Grounds of First Appeal: Please find the point wise grounds of first appeal as follows: 1. With respect to the information requested under point no. 1 and 2 of the RTI application, the PIO has provided merely a list of documents and not a photocopy of the documents requested for. 2. With respect to the information requested under point no. 3 and 4 of the RTI application, the PIO has not specified as to under which particular provision of the RTI Act, he has forwarded these queries to another CPIO, that is to say the PIO has not specified whether he has forwarded the said queries under section 5(4) read with section 5(5) OR whether he has forwarded the said queries under section 6(3) of the RTI Act. 3. With respect to the information requested under point no. 5 and 6 of the RTI Act, the PIO has merely invoked section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act without sufficiently justifying as to how these exemptions are applicable. That, denying information by just quoting sub-sections of section 8.1 of RTI Act, without giving meaningful justification for arriving at that reason for denial is against letter and spirit of RTI Act. Please find the decisions of the Central Information Commission as well as Hon'ble High Courts wherein it has ruled as follows: Decisions of CIC [Central Information Commission]: A] “Through this Order the Commission now wants to send the message loud and clear that quoting provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act ad libitum to deny the information requested for, by CPIOs/Appellate Authorities without giving any justification or grounds as to how these provisions are applicable is simply unacceptable and clearly amounts to malafide denial of legitimate information attracting penalties under section 20(1) of the Act.”CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 7 July, 2006. B] “The PIO has to give the reasons for rejection of the request for information as required under Section 7(8)(i). Merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given. The PIO should have intimated as to how he had come to the conclusion that rule 8(1)(j) was applicable in this case.”CIC/OK/C/2006/00010 dated 7 July, 2006. Refer: CIC/SG/A/2011/003607/17371 dated 10-03-2012 C] “Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions the exception. The information can be denied only if it is exempt as per the provisions of Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act. Further, while denying information the authority withholding the information must show satisfactory reason and such reason should be germane and based on some material. Sans this consideration the information cannot be denied………” CIC/BS/A/2013/000681/4968 dated 24-04- 2014. Court Judgements: D] “6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in W.P. (Civil) 12428/2009 order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case ………….” Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI in W. P. (C) 12428/2009 & CM APPL 12874/2009 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE versus D.K.SHARMA –Judgement dated 15-12-2010 E] “If no reasons are given in the appellate orders, then it is injustice to the natural justice because quasi judicial obligations are giving reasons for order, since justice is not expected to wear the inscrutable face of a sphinx” Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Ibrahim Kunju v. State of Kerala AIR 1970 Ker 65. F] Judgement of HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI in WP(C) No. 3114/2007 decided on 03.12.2007 : “12………As is reflected in its preambular paragraphs, the enactment seeks to promote transparency, arrest corruption and to hold the Government and its instrumentalities accountable to the governed. This spirit of the Act must be borne in mind while construing the provisions contained therein. 13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become the haven for dodging demands for information” P.S. Reasons for denial of information - Blog of Shri J. P. Shah. http://jps50.blogspot.com/2014/06/justification-for-reasons-for-denial.html
  6. 1 point
    You may download Maharashtra RTI Forms from the following link: https://rtiindia.org/blogs/entry/2113-rti-application-first-appeal-second-appeal-forms-for-maharashtra/ You will need to paste a court fee stamp of Rs. 10/- on the RTI application. One can get a court fee stamp from any of the nearby courts.
  7. 1 point
    File simple RTI Application and seek information from Nodal SPIO of a District. Information solicited: 1.Please provide me certified copy of directives/orders/notifications for proper utilization of funds received from MNREGS SBA 2.Please provide cases of abuse/diversification/syphoning of these funds to malafide purposes by authorities and action taken against such gross misuse of public funds to be spent for welfare since Mar.2019 to Sept,19 3.Please provide the certified copies of orders that state periodicity and check mecanism or Social audit or other types of audits 4.Please provide the Name, designation and mobile No. of implementing authority in District level and the formalities to be observed for seeking such past audit reports.
  8. 1 point
    First ask your father to reduce the grievance in writing to Estate Officer, PWD and wait for their response in writing. In the meanwhile search website of the PWD Maharashtra, RTI segment and collect prescribed format of Application for RTI and mode of Remitting fee. If your father's grievance fails to get any response, please submit single point query to the SPIO, PWD of relevant office. Information solicited: 1)Please provide information on Grievance letter dt...................from. Sri.....................with designation...............of........................(dept) occupying the quarters at............................located at..................................on repairs to building (Water seepage) 2.Please provide the work order for latest repairs to the building, inspection report and whether entire amount was settled to the contractor without his negligence in performing the repairs.
  9. 1 point
    RTI DRAFT HELP NEEDED 1. please provide me certified copies of naukari patrak of Lalpur police station, dated:- 18/11/18, time:- 10 am to 6 pm, as per mudda no:-5 outward no - 465/2019. 2. Please provide me certified copies of movement register of Lalpur police station, dated:- 18/11/18, with outgoing and incoming time between 10 am to 6 pm. 3. Please provide certified copies of record from which information given under the RTI Act by Lalpur police station, in point no - 4, mudda no - 6, outward no - 943/19, dated:- 02/05/2019 derived 4. Please provide me certified copies of the record from which Information given under the RTI Act by Lalpur police station, in point no :-1 and 2, outward no - 1590/19, dated:-05/08/20019 derived 5. Please provide the total no of policemen, deployed by Lalpur police at near Umiyadham Apartment for backfilling Incomplete work of under ground drainage on dated:- 18/11/18 between 4 pm to 6 pm as per record of Lalpur police station. Also provide certified copies of that records. 6. Please provide me certified copies of record that indicate, place and purpose of official duty discharge by PSI Lalpur and badge no :- 234,276,336,755 on dated:- 18/11/18, time:- 4 pm to 6 pm. In accordance with the provision of section - 2(j)(1) of the RTI Act, please provide me the opportunity of Inspection of records of Police Station Lalpur, please note that during the aforesaid Inspection, I shall select required Information from your official record, please allow me for taking photography of particular documents as per the CIC judgement regarding appeal no - CIC/WB/A/2006/00144. Kindly do provide me certified copies of such selected Information on payment of prescribed fees. Sent from my Redmi 4 using RTI INDIA mobile app
  10. 1 point
    OTS accepted by bank for Rs.50000/= in 2003 but prooceds deposited in 2004 without closing the account. The applicant asked for “No dues Certificate”. It was refused. The Bank took the possession of Car under SARFAESI Act-2002 & sold it. The customer was not informed the facts. He considered that the car was stolen & filed claim with Insurance co. The Co. Finalized claim & deposited it to A/C holder’s account. Again the fact was not informed. A civil Suit was filed on wrong affidavit concealing the facts. It was also informed to court that documents demanded by A/C holder were destroyed as per policy. On this affidavit the case was dismissed. The applicant asked information/ documents of the account including account statement in 2012 which was provided in July 2019 at the stage of IInd appeal with CIC. The destruction of record & other facts pleaded by Bank were taken seriously by CIC & a show cause notice was issued alongwith penalty of Rs. 25000/= was imposed. The CPIO was advised to provide all the information within 10 days. Thus violation of provision was proved by inordinate delay & concealing information. The A/C holder/ Applicant received OTS without further payment. RTI IS A POWERFUL WEAPON.
  11. 1 point
    You will need to file a first appeal u/s. 19(1) with the concerned First Appellate Authority. Grounds for First Appeal: 1. The PIO has denied information on the ground that the information sought is sub-judice. With respect to the PIO's above ground, the Appellant submits as under: That, as per section a PIO is required to 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 denied it for any of the reasons specified in section 8 and 9. Nevertheless, in this regard, your Hon'ble Authority attention is kindly drawn towards the fact that: A particular information is sub-judice is not an exemption under any of the provisions of section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. Thus, the PIO has disposed of my request for information in violation of section 7(1) read with section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. 2. The support for the Appellant's above submission can be found in the following decisions of the Central Information Commission and High Court judgments: Please find the relevant excerpts reproduced below: Dear Humhonge: Please visit the blog on the following link for filling the details in the second point mentioned above: http://jps50.blogspot.com/2012/11/
  12. 1 point
    This comes in APPELLATE STAGE and not in ORIGIONAL STAGE
  13. 1 point
    Good Evening Team, Pardon the verbosity below. This may be useful for some members in a similar situation. thank you. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The question is about conflicting provisions in the circulars issued by PCDA/ RBI/ and Apex court rulings. All pertaining to recovery of over-payments. Requesting help- to whom / which public authority should I address these queries? Frank/ unbiased opinion as to whether it will be effective? Humbly request you to please go through the attached documents please. In case of recovery due to the over payment of Pensions by the bank, the following circulars are relevant. 1) RBI Circular RBI/2015-16/340 DGBA.GAD.No.2960 /45.01.001/2015-16 dated March 17, 2016 Point C- Recovery can be made at the rate of 1/3rd the net pension amount 2) DPPI Circular: Point 103.2: For recovery where the over payment has been made for more than a year, bank must refer the case to PCDA- which will take the approval of competent sanctioning authority. Only then the bank can proceed with the recovery. 3) Circular 141 dated 7.12.2019 similar to RBI Circular above regarding recovery at the rate of one - third of nett pensions 4) OM for letter of Undertaking: issued by GOI, DOPPW- dated 7th May, 2014 This is regarding the letter of undertaking which every pensioner gives to the bank prior to the pension commencement. 5) S. No. Case / Circular reference Main Points 1 Defence Pensioners Payment Instructions - 2013 Pension recovery due to excess paid cannot be done if detected beyond 1 year of making erroneous payment without the sanction of the competent authority. Ref. Para: 101 & 103.2 2 State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 (Apex Court Judgement) Recoveries by the Employers would be impermissible in law when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued 3 ShyamBabu Verma Vs. Union of India reported in 1994 SC (2) 521 (Apex Court Judgement) Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court 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 4 Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475 Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court 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 Case: Regarding Illegal Recovery of over payment of Pensions by PNB. --The Pensioner retired from Defense. The PSA (Pension Sanctioning Authority) is PCDA (Pensions) Allahabad. --The PDA (Pension disbursal authority) is PNB. --PNB is illegally deducting the Pension without the approval of the competent sanctioning authority. This over payment continued for more than 10 years. --PCDA (Pensions) is meanwhile looking the other way and is citing circulars in support of its action. The provisions in this circular(s) are in opposition to the instructions in DPPI - Defence Pension Payment Instructions(2013) which is issued by PCDA (Pensions) - Allahabad This DPPI is a guide book to be followed by all the banks in matter of pension disbursal. Queries 1) In light of the several supreme court judgments which states that no recovery can be done beyond 5 years of over payments, does this circular ( OM for letter of Undertaking: issued by GOI, DOPPW- dated 7th May, 2014 ) loose its validity / become null and void? Does this OM give unfettered right to the banks to start recovery from the Pensioner citing the letter of undertaking? 2) Circular 141 issued by PCDA(Pensions) dated 7.12.2019 and RBI Circular dated March 17, 2016 - both green flag the recovery of over payment at 1/3rd the nett of pensions. Whereas DPPI states that no recovery can be done if the error of over payment has been continuing beyond 1 year- without the approval of competent sanction authority. In the particular case, PCDA (P) is citing circular 141 in its support to allow the bank the recovery. Is the action of PCDA valid/ legally tenable? To whom should these queries be addressed to? Thank you. Andy OM for Letter of Undertaking.pdf DPPI_pages_1,2,3,82,83_84-_only.pdf RBI Circular 17th March 2016.PDF Circular-141.pdf
  14. 1 point
    The art of seeking information under RTI is construction of the application. You can ask the list of proposals submitted to Principal secretary, and status of such proposals from DRD SPIO .
  15. 1 point
    Inspection is one form of seeking information under RTI Act, seeking information under RTI is a right. There is no confusion in the issue, and the PIO's duty is either to provide the information or deny information under Sec.8 (1) with such justification for denying information under that sub section, within 30 days from receipt of RTI Application. SPIO is not entitled to know the objectives, reasons for seeking information and can not generate questions in response to a query under RTI Act. However, if a third party information is required, to expedite the process of getting information and to avoid denial of information, applicant has to state larger public interest as a reason for seeking such information with details.
  16. 1 point
    Be positive and have faith on the system. If PIO isn't responding within the time limit then go for First Appeal. Sent from my A1 lite using RTI INDIA mobile app
  17. 1 point
    http:://www.rtionline.gov.in is only for filling up of RTI application to all the ministries/departments and other public authorities of Central government. No RTI application can be filled to any state government departments or public authorities through this portal. So draft ur application and send hard copy of the application with IPO of Rs 10/- to concerned PIO through speed post/Registered post. For list of PIOs please check following link :: https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.tsrtc.telangana.gov.in/includes/RT-ACT-FINAL.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwiflKzH6P_lAhVcxDgGHW9nAh0QFjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw18zL9rlNwkOcFxrtFBGOzs Sent from my A1 lite using RTI INDIA mobile app
  18. 1 point
    Immediately go for first appeal. First Appeal dt 16th Nov, 2019 under RTI Act Before: First Appellate Authority, Executive Engineer,...... Against: SPIO, Estate Officer,.................... Appellant: Brief Facts: Appellant has sought information on....................and SPIO has not provided the precise and pin pointed information and evaded providing information vide his letter dt........................ Grounds for Appeal: Point No1: When asked for the Vacant position of the quarters, SPIO has stated that they were constructed with funds of commission. Point No.2: For the query 'If allotment closed, such date of final closure of allotment. and certified copy of that memo/notice/report on finalizing the list., SPIO has invented such exemption that was never stated in RTI Act and denied information with remarks " RTI act, information cannot be given on a file which is not closed and allocation stil in progress". PIO has not provided such Section and sub section of Sec.8 with justification for denial of information. There was never such exemption in RTI Act, and SPIO has deliberately misleading applicants with false exemptions that were never stated in RTI Act. POINT No3: When sought for list of selected beneficiaries, SPIO has further invented that the information is voluminous which is false and absurd. There was never such an exemption under RTI Act that information can be denied if the information is voluminous. With ulterior motives, he has quoted an unrelated judgment. SPIO can deny information by stating such number of Section and sub section of Sec.8 and should justify his reasons for application of that exemption. Finally without application of mind, without basic knowledge and fundamentals of RTI, SPIO has deliberately and with malafide intentions purposefully evaded providing information. Knowing that there were never such exemptions in RTI Act, deliberately SPIO avoided mentioning such section and sub section of 8 in RTI for exemption, leave alone such justification for applying exemption. PRAYER: Appellant prays for directions to SPIO for providing precise information for the pinpointed query as expeditiously as possible free of cost. In the interest of the Government, please depute SPIO for training on fundamentals and provide him RTI Act in that language he is familiar with and atleast one section Sec.8.may be explained to him for the present. Appellant.
  19. 1 point
    First make a complaint to Pollution Board, and then equipped with the information through photographs and experts opinion on environmental pollution and harm to persons,lands and water in surroundings file case in jurisdictional court against TMC using the agricultural land as a dump yard. File RTI Application to TMC and seek certified copies of all the material record that states about disposal of wastage collected by TMC. Finally only courts can restrict them and a common man can not stop such actions of a public authority.
  20. 1 point
    Read the Wiki article here also https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/second-appeal/cic
  21. 1 point
    Focus only on information. If you feel that information is urgent and important, do avail every opportunity thrown to you without further arguments. If you wanted to go for appeal go for first appeal stating the following grounds. First Appeal dt........................under RTI Act Before: Against: Brief facts: Appellant solicited information in the form of a letter for queries No.............and PIO instead of providing information vide his letter dt.............directed appellant for inspection. Grounds for Appeal: As per Sec. 7 (9) "information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately. divert the resources of public authority or would be detrimental to the safety of preservation of the record.". The same was reiterated in several CIC decisions.. As the information was not provided in the form it is requested, and PIO has chosen his own form and directed appellant to come for inspection, without caring for the convenience of appellant, the response of PIO is not proper and not satisfactory. PRAYER: Appellant prays for directions to PIO to provide that information as solicited in application. Appellant
  22. 1 point
    You have lost the coin in Kashmir and searching it at Kanyakumari. This community forum is dedicated for guiding citizens in seeking information from public authorities under RTI and members are like you and me. This forum is not having relations with any Government/party. RTI is not a complaint redressal / investigation and you can only seek information available in material form from public authoriies. You can either refer the matter to a higher official in Registration dept., post it as grievance in their on line portal or complain to ACB.
  23. 1 point
    Only the applicant can bring that to the attention of IC during second appeal hearing. It depends on IC, and mostly it is just mention to avoid it in future. The inconvenience maximum to the applicant is 5 days if it is misused. If it is purposefully transferred knowing that the other authority is not concerned then it amounts to deliberate and malafide action.
  24. 1 point
    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.
This leaderboard is set to Kolkata/GMT+05:30

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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