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 09/22/2006 in all areas

  1. 8 points
    The High Court of Karnataka in one case has directed First Appeallate Authoirty to dispose the Appeal filed by the Appellant in spite of the representation by the applicant. Applicant , had approahed the High Court for direction in the nature of Mandamus to dispose the Appeal filed by the appellant. High Court allowed the same petition. judgement is attached to this post. WP82886-12-06-08-2012.pdf
  2. 7 points
    Several times - both on this forum and also offline, I have suggested that an appellant can file a first appeal for each and every response (or no response) of the PIO. This is because of the wordings of Sec 19(1). Many have disagreed. Attached is an order of the FAA of the CIC (Central Information Commission) stating that an appellant can file multiple first appeals. Also note that the FAA has hauled up the CPIO of the CIC: Full order is attached to this post. CIC FAA order More than one first appeal.pdf
  3. 7 points
    Vide decision No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000695, 1199, 1369 & 1413 dated 01-11-2012, CIC has decided as under: "ii) in regard to the letter written by the MP questioning the suitability of Lieutenant General Bikram Singh, we are of the view that this letter should be disclosed. Section 11 makes it very clear that a third party will have to be consulted before disclosure of any information only if the third party concerned had clearly claimed confidentiality at the time of providing the information to the public authority. In the present case, the MP concerned, while writing the said letter to the Prime Minister, should have clearly expressed his intention that the contents of the letter be treated as confidential. The letter written by the MP, which we examined during the hearing, does not show anywhere that the MP had treated the contents of that letter to be confidential. Therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the CPIO to consult him because the letter written by him was not covered under section 11. It is immaterial that, later, when consulted the MP concerned claimed that he intended the letter to be kept confidential. This is a clear afterthought and goes beyond the protection available to third party in section 11. In the light of this, we direct the CPIO to provide a copy of this letter to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order." [emphasis added] Copy of order is attached herewith. It would be useful when third party information is denied, since mostly information is provided without claiming confidentiality at the time of providing information by third party to public authority.. THIRD PARTY ONLY IF CONFIDENTIA 011112.pdf
  4. 6 points
    Enclosed in this post, a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India, wherein in para.7 it held that information can be denied dehors Sections 8,9,11. Moreover, information in appropriate cases can be denied based on the third part of the preamble of the RTI Act, 2005, thereby making the third part of the preamble of the statute being justiciable. The Aforementioned observation of the Supreme court of India, is patently erroneous for the following reasons: (a) It is judicially settled that the preamble is not justiciable. (b) A 13 judge bench in Keshavananda Bharathi case held that even the preamble of the constitution, though it is a part of the constitution is not justiciable. The preamble of the constitution is neither a source of power nor the source of limitations. (c) Hence, when even the preamble of the constitution of India being held not justiciable by a 13 judge bench, the preamble of the statute, which is subordinate to the constitution, cannot be justiciable. (d) The two judge bench is bound by the settled position of law by the 13 judge bench with regard to the non-justiciability of the preamble of the constitution, which is superior to the statute. (e) Hence for the aforementioned reasons a review petition is to be filed to correct the grave error committed by the Supreme court of India, highlighting the aforementioned factors. Apex court - Disclosure of marks in civil service examination should not be disclosed mechanically.pdf
  5. 6 points
    Mr. Shahid Raza Burni of PUNE has filed FIRST RTI Petition in Pune Police Station on 12.10.2005.
  6. 6 points
    Interesting question indeed. I searched wiki and found that the first application was given to a Pune police station.
  7. 6 points
    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SWATENTER KUMAR & MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 9095 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP© No. 7529 of 2009), D/13.12.2013. Manohar s/o Manikrao Anchule Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=39849 (i) Natural justice- Hearing the parties, application of mind and recording of reasoned decision are the basic elements of natural justice. (Para 17) (ii) Natural justice- Right of hearing- Even if not provided under a specific statute, the principles of natural justice shall so demand, unless by specific law, it is excluded- It is more so when exercise of authority is likely to vest the person with consequences of civil nature. (Para 23) (iii) Directing disciplinary action is an order in the form of recommendation which has far reaching civil consequences- Compliance with principles of natural justice is a condition precedent for passing of a recommendation u/s 20(2) of the Act. (Paras 21 and 22) (iv) Grounds stated in the provision of S.20(2) of the Act are exhaustive and it is not for the Commission to add other grounds which are not specifically stated in the language of S.20(2) of the Act- Provision of S. 20(2) of the Act has to be construed and applied strictly- Its ambit cannot be permitted to be enlarged at the whims of the Commission. (Para 26) (v) ‘Negligence’ per se is not a ground on which proceedings u/s 20(2) of the Act can be invoked- The Commission must return a finding that such negligence, delay or default is persistent and without reasonable cause. (Para 28) (vi) Besides finding that any of the stated defaults have been committed by such officer, the Commission has to further record its opinion that such default in relation to receiving of an application or not furnishing the information within the specified time was committed persistently and without a reasonable cause. (Para 30) (vii) State Information Commissions exercise very wide and certainly quasi-judicial powers-In fact their functioning is akin to the judicial system rather than the executive decision making process. (Para 14) (viii) State Information Commissions- Principles of natural justice is mandatory for such Tribunal or bodies discharging such functions. (Para 15) Supreme Court of India on Section 20(2).pdf
  8. 6 points
    hai............ very good news ... i file case before consumer court in march against municipal council ,Punjab ...... and consumer court after contesting case ...decided on 30/5/2013 court Decide Case in my favour and penalise the PIO for not provide information within 30 days ..... opposite party contest case very strongly with new case law ...but court not relied upon latest jugments ie.padhulika and many more.....aginast my case... but court announce order in my favour.. JUGMENT OF CASE PREPARE WITH IN 2 -3 DAYS........AND THEN I POST THE COPY OF ORDER FOR DISCUSSION WITH SENIOR................THKS ... THIS SITE/FORUM FOR HELP ME 2 CONTEST THE CASE......AND CASE LAW'S REGARDS.........:):):):):):):):)
  9. 6 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Once consent order passed no disagreement possible The Delhi HC has ruled that once the Information Commissioner passes and order and clearly states that the order is passed with the consent of the parties, then the applicant cannot seek relief from the Court. If the applicant did not agree to the "consent", then he should have immediately brought it to the notice of the IC. Full judgment is attached to this post.
  10. 6 points
    The Full Bench Orders of the CIC are as below : 56. The respondent’s counsel has tenaciously argued that the appellant’s request for information is not in public interest and that he is seeking this information for extraneous considerations. The question is whether information is disclosable under the RTI Act only in public interest and not otherwise. Suffice to say that RTI Act does not draw a distinction between demand for information in public interest and private interest. The Act provides for disclosure of information to the citizens of India subject to the provisions of section 8, 9, 10 & 11 of the RTI Act. In other words, appellant is not required to establish any larger public interest in his search for all classes of information. He is required to establish public interest only in particular clauses of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. In view of the above, we hold that appellant need not establish public interest while seeking information for all classes of information. CIC_AD_A_2012_000570_M_110032.pdf
  11. 6 points
    The Delhi High Court in Arvind Kejriwal vs. CPIO(W.P. © 6614/2008 & CM APPL No. 12685/2008) considered that once the information seeker is provided information relating to a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole World. {25. The logic of the Section 11(1) RTI Act is plain. Once the information seeker is provided information relating to a third party, it is no longer in the private domain. Such information seeker can then disclose in turn such information to the whole world.......} Even, the same was endorsed by Hon'ble SC in an Order Dated Apr 16 2013 (R K Jain Vs Union of India). Regards R K Mishra.
  12. 6 points
    Often it happens that the Public authority submits false information before the commission to escape penalty and the information commission, on the basis of such submitted records, pronounces the judgement, even without imposing the requisite penalty on the PIO. This clearly demoralizes the RTI appellant / complainant. Under this circumstance the following procedure when followed, will effectively counter the aforesaid illegal procedures and will act as a deterrent in future against such practices by the public authority. 1. After the decision is pronounced in the appeal (u/s 19(3)) / complaint (u/s 18) by the commission- (a) File an RTI to the commission to procure the certified copies of all the records submitted by the public authority before the said commission in the appeal no....../ complaint no........... (b) File an RTI to the public authority to procure the certified copies of all the records submitted by the public authority before the said commission in the appeal no....../ complaint no........... © The procedure mentioned in (a),(b) will help the RTI applicant to cross-check the authenticity of the information provided by the Public authority in the said appeal / complaint before the commission. (d) Based on the information received from the Public authority and the commission for the appeal no...../ complaint no....... and if you find that false / incorrect information was supplied, then a private complaint u/s 200 CrPC can be filed be filed before the magistrate under whose jurisdiction the public authority is covered, highlighting - - the fact that false information being submitted to the information commission and requesting the magistrate for investigation and other appropriate action against the public authority as per law (e) The facility of filing a private complaint u/s 200 CrPC before the magistrate is provided by the Supreme court judgment - IQBAL SINGH NARANG & ORS VS. VEERAN NARANG - CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2225 OF 2011 (f) Summary of the judgement: The Commission/Tribunal is not a "COURT" hence application under section 340 of CrPC read with 195 of CrPC does not applicable becuse the procedure mentioned in section 340 and 195 of CrPC is applicable to the courts only.The Commission/Tribunal is not powered with to try the offences committed before it. (g) The judgment is attached to this post. Apex court - Private complaint is maintainable for false statements in quasi judicial proceeding.pdf
  13. 6 points
    We have filed a PIL vide CWP 20545 of 2009 before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court on the Fee hike issue & other Commercial activities in the Private Schools. Now the Hon’ble Court has passed the orders which are attach herewith. Thanks & Regards Rohit Sabharwal (RTI Activist) President Anti Corruption & Crime Investigation Cell (Regd) CWP 20545 of 2009 82. No doubt, in the instant cases before us, as per the replies filed by the official respondents themselves, most of the schools are fulfilling the requirements of submitting the Annual Reports etc. At the same time, it is also a matter of record that there is hardly any examination of these records which are simply dumped by the schools with the Boards/Regulatory Authorities and keep lying there in their archives. Needless to mention that it is the duty of the official respondents to ensure that increase in the fees undertaken by a particular school is justified and necessitated by other circumstances like increase in expenditure or because of developmental activities needed and does not result into profiteering. It is also to be ensured that the funds are not diverted elsewhere. However, there is no mechanism for checking the same. In a situation like this, we are of the opinion that the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as Union Territory, Chandigarh should also provide for some permanent Regulatory Bodies/mechanism which would go into this aspect on regular basis. We accordingly give directions to the States of Punjab, Haryana as well as Union Territory, Chandigarh to examine the feasibility of establishing such a mechanism and take decision there upon within a period of six months from today. Till that is done and in order to sort out the issue as to whether the hike in fees by the schools is proper or not, we would like to follow the same path as done by the High Court of Delhi, namely, setting up a Committee with the task to go into the accounts of the Schools and find out the reasonableness of increase in fees by the schools. Accordingly, we appoint three committees, one each for the State of Punjab, State of Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, with the following constitutional members:- FOR STATE OF PUNJAB:- i) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit Singh (Retd.): Chairperson ii) One Chartered Accountant to be nominated by the Chairperson of the Committee. iii) One Member from the field of Education preferably a retired teacher/officer of eminence to be nominated by the Director of Public School Education Board. FOR STATE OF HARYANA:- i) Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Kiran Anand Lall (Retd.): Chairperson ii) One Chartered Accountant to be nominated by the Chairperson of the Committee. iii) One Member from the field of Education preferably a retired teacher/officer of eminence to be nominated by the Director of Public School Education Board. FOR UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH:- i) Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.S.Mongia (Retd. Chief Justice): Chairperson ii) One Chartered Accountant to be nominated by the Chairperson of the Committee. iii) One Member from the field of Education preferably a retired teacher/officer of eminence to be nominated by the Director of Public School Education Board, U.T. Chandigarh. The fee of the Chairperson(s) shall be Rs. 25,000/- per sitting and that of the members Rs. 10,000/- each per sitting. The said fee shall be shared by the schools in the respective States. In addition to the aforesaid fee, the Committee(s) shall also be reimbursed the amount of clerical and other expenses. They shall also be provided suitable place/office for undertaking the task assigned. Since the schools are submitting the accounts with the Boards, these accounts and records can be given by the Boards to the Committees. In addition all the schools shall also render full cooperation to the Committee(s) by submitting the Account and other necessary information demanded by the Committee(s). The scope of the work undertaken by the Committee(s) shall be restricted to the academic year 2012-13. Likewise, for the academic year 2013-14, though the schools shall have the right to fix their fees structure, they will have to justify the same by producing necessary material before the Committee(s). The Committee(s) shall be entitled to specifically look into the aspects as to how much fees increase was required by each individual school on the examination of records and accounts etc. of these schools and taking into consideration the funds available etc. at the disposal of the schools. While doing this exercise, it shall keep in mind the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Modern School case (supra) as well as Action Committee Unaided Pvt. Schools case (supra) and other decision noted by us in this judgment. Needless to mention in case it is found that the fees hiked by the schools was more than warranted, the direction can be given to those schools to refund the same to the students. Orders.pdf
  14. 6 points
    I am attaching CIC decision concerning supply of information which has originated from other public authority. I hope it would be useful to our members. OTHER PUB AUTH INFO 021112.pdf
  15. 5 points
    The High Court has struck down CIC order that file noting by one officer meant for the next officer with whom he may be in a hierarchical relationship, is in the nature of a fiduciary entrustment, it should not ordinarily be disclosed and surely not without any concurrence of the officer preparing that note. High Court ruled that "Any noting made in the official records of the Government/public authority is information belonging to the concerned Government/public authority. The question whether the information relates to a third party is to be determined by the nature of the information and not its source." The reasoning, that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, was considered flawed. Court further stated that "Section 8 of the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain information and none of the provisions of Section 8 provides for a blanket exemption that entitles the respondent to withhold all notings on a file." CIC has earlier made the decision on the basis that when the file noting by one officer meant for the next officer with whom he may be in a hierarchical relationship, is in the nature of a fiduciary entrustment, it should not ordinarily be disclosed and surely not without any concurrence of the officer preparing that note. The file noting for a confidential and secret part would attract the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) as well as Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The contention of the CIC was struck down and the court directed CIC to take the decision within 3 months. Earlier, however, Central Information Commission (CIC) in their Decision No. ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006 dt.31.01.2006, has held that “file notings are not, as a matter of law, exempt from disclosure”. Usefulness of the High Court Order The above decision is highly relevant for users who are filing RTI to know the Status of their earlier RTI. RTI Applicant can now use following questions in their RTI application Complete details of file notings made on the above said file number as on date. Separately the daily progress made in case of above said file till date i.e. when did it reach which officer/functionary, how long did it stay with that officer/functionary and what did that officer/functionary, do during that period on the said letter together with file noting and name and designation of each officer/functionary List of the officers with their designation to whom before the said file is placed. Also, provide me with the noting made by them on the said file.
  16. 5 points
    This forum and many others can be helpful for people, because one can create a question or a request and those, who know the answer, will help.
  17. 5 points
    I moved my card from Bangalore(KA51) to Ghaziabad and got the road tax refund. Here is the step by step process 1. Fille Form 28 ( Noc FORM) , 3 copies, attach all the photostat copies like car papers, insurance, pollution etc ans submit it in RTO. 2. They will immediately issues a form for police verification.( I got it within half and hour). 3. Go to Police Commisionor office and you find out the place where you have get the the clearance. Go after 11AM. They will verify and sign the form. I went around 10 AM but got it signed only around 12 PM. 4. Same Day I submitted it the form back to RTO and they asked me to come after 21 days. They will take your RC and issue a acknowledgement. 5. I went to RTO again after 21 days and got the NOC. ( two copies). make sure you get two copies. 6. Got my car registered in Ghaziabad after paying tax. ( Got it done thru some agent for RS 5000). 7. Send a written application to RTO Bangalore for road tax refund. Attach all the required necessary documents. 8. Follow up with them and got the cheque after a month. Import tips: Just apply for NOC only 20 days before you are planned to leave. Because in case you get the NOC early and get ur car reregistered after 15-20 days, they will apply some penalty. In my case Applied for NOC : 28 Aug 2012 Got NOC: 21 Sep ( However date on NOC is 3 Sep) Applied in Ghaziabad: 5 NOV They took 8000 as penalty apart from road tax. For My Ritz car which i purchased in 2011 and i got a refund of Rs 50000
  18. 5 points
    Online Filing of RTI Application extended to 37 Ministries – DOPT has plans to extend online filing of RTI applications to all Ministries in Mid August 2013 No.1/1/2013-112 Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training North Block, New Delhi Dated: 30/07/2013 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Extension of RTI web portal for online filing of RTI application. In continuation of this Department’s O.M. of even number dated 22/04/2013, it is intimated that the facility of RTI online web portal has been extended to 37 Ministries/Departments of Government of India, so far (list enclosed). It is planned to extend this facility to all the remaining Ministries/Departments of Government of India by mid August, 2013. This facility is presently not proposed to be extended for field offices/ attached/ subordinate offices. 2. It is again requested that training to all the CPIOs and First Appellate Authorities (FAAs) may be provided by the concemed Ministry/Department, through the officials trained by DoPT/NIC. If required, further training can be provided by DoPT/NIC, on the request of the concerned Ministry/Department. User name/password to all the CPIOs and FAAs are to be provided by RTI Nodal Officers of the concerned Ministry/Department. It is imperative that the RTI Nodal Officers update the details of CPIOs/FAAs in the system and issue user name and password to them at the earliest. 3. The contents of this OM may be brought to the notice of all concerned. sd/- (Sandeep Jain) Director LIST OF MINISTRIES/DEPARTMENTS TO WHOM RTI ONLINE WEB PORTAL FACILITY HAS BEEN EXTENDED 1. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RESEARCH & EDUCATION 2. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE & COOPERATION 3. DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL HUSBABNDRY, DAIRYING & FISHERIES 4. DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH 5. DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICALS & PETROCHEMICALS 6. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 7. DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS 8. DEPARTMENT OF DISINVESTMENT 9. DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION 10.DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY & PROMOTION 11.DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING 12.DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES 13.MINISTRY OF CULTURE 14.MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS 15.MINISTRY OF FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES 16.MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE 17.MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS 18.MINISTRY OF INFORMATION & BROADCASTING 19.MINISTRY OF PANCHAYATI RAJ 20. MINISTRY OF POWER 21.MINISTRY OF ROAD TRNSPORT & HIGHWAYS 22.MINISTRY OF STEEL 23. PRESICENT SECRETARIAT 24.VICE-PRESIDENT SECRETARIAT 25. MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES 26. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 27. DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS 28. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 29.DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AFFAIRS 30. MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS 31. DEPARTMENT OF HEAVY INDUSTRY 32. MINISTRY OF TOURISM 33. MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE & EMPOWERMENT 34. MINISTRY OF SHIPPING 35.MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS 36. PLANNING COMMISSION 37. DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS & PG Download DOPT Office Memorandum No.1/1/2013-112 dated 30.07.2013
  19. 5 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Marks Qualifications and experience of successful The Uttarkhand High Court has ruled that Marks, Qualifications and Experience of successful candidates cannot be denied under Sec 8(1)(j). They have to be disclosed. Full judgment is attached to this post.
  20. 5 points
    Maharashtra RTI Rules draw a clear distinction between: > Payment of initial fee, which is to be accompanied while making a RTI Application under section 6(1), (here, Court fee stamp is one of the acceptable mode of payment), and, > Payment of any further fees u/s. 7(1) & 7(5), towards the cost of providing information (here, Court fee stamp is not an acceptable mode of payment). But, as per the GAD circular, an Indian Postal Order is an acceptable mode of payment for both the purposes i.e. payment of initial fee which is to be accompanied along with a RTI Application u/s. 6(1), as well as, payment of any further fees u/s. 7(1) & 7(5), towards the cost of providing the requested information.
  21. 5 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Untraceability of record cannot result in compensa The Delhi High Court has ruled that untraceability of a record/file cannot always lead to awarding of compensation under Sec 19(8). This provision, to my mind, should be invoked only where the record, despite being available, is not provided to the applicant and as a result thereof he suffers some loss for which he needs to be compensated. A bona fide inability to trace the old records cannot warrant levy of compensation.
  22. 5 points
    18-07-2013 was the day of argument on the application for impleadment filled by the DoPT. I and Mr. P.C. Bali from Amritsar was present at NCDRC on 18-7-2013 for this arguments. Councel for DoPT aurged for his impleadment as the order of NCDRC will effect to all PA & PIO through out India. I objected for the same and aurged accordingly. Justice K.S. Chaudhary said to DoPT - I am not impleading you in this RP, but you may present in final arguments and if you have to say something, you may put your version. Finally Court has reserved todays order and has not given us next date for final arguments. I am trying to get status of our case at CONFONET, so that I can see the wording of order dated 18-7-2013. Anybody can check the case status by typing RP/3146/2012 and may update this thread.
  23. 5 points
    Attached is a judgment of the Supreme Court related to concurrent remedies available under 2 Acts....in this case, the CPA and the Electricity Act. It is dated 01 July 2013 Members need to study the Electricity Act in detail as well as the reasons in this judgment. One way out seems to be (as stated several times earlier in this forum) that: 1. Under CPA, do not pray for "disclosure of information". Only pray for compensation for "defficiency of service". 2. Under RTI, only pray for "information" and not any compensation for defficiency of service. 3. If you pray for "compensation" under RTI, it should only be for "detriment suffered due to delay in provision of information". Concurrent remedies available under CPA vs Electricity Act SC 01 Jul 2013.pdf
  24. 5 points
    In a land mark judgment, the Hon’ble CIC in undersigned second appeal numberCIC/VS/A/2012/000291, has ordered that all branches & offices of Corporation Bank to put up signage/sign boards informing the details about PIOs/FAAs and other relevant details about the RTI Act 2005 as was decided by Hon’ble Commission in case number No.CIC/SG/C/2010/001324/10035 dated 04.11.2010. The link of the order is given below; http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_VS_A_2012_000291_03150_M_109726.pdf
  25. 5 points
    > As suggested earlier, please refer to the provision of section 7(1) of the RTI Act, which lays down that "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:" That you have filed more than one RTI Applications is not listed as a ground for declining a request for information under the section 8 & 9 of the RTI Act, and as such a PIO cannot reject your request for information on that ground. You need to file a first appeal u/s. 19(1) on that basis / ground. (although ideally one should be as brief & precise as possible) > As far as going in for an inspection of information is concerned, you can file a first appeal with following as your ground of first appeal: Grounds for Appeal: I would also hereby like to submit the following grounds for this first appeal: 1) As per the provision of the Right to Information Act, 2005, requested information cannot be denied on the ground that it is voluminous in nature, and thereby, citing administrative difficulties in providing the same. Please find quoted below, an extract from judgment dated 07-01-2010 of Honorable High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P.NO.20372 of 2009 and M.P.NO.1 OF 2009: (The above cited judgment is available at http://judis.nic.in/chennai/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=22544) Quote – “13. The other objections that they are maintaining a large number of documents in respect of 45 departments and they are short of human resources cannot be raised to whittle down the citizens' right to seek information. It is for them to write to the Government to provide for additional staff depending upon the volume of requests that may be forthcoming pursuant to the RTI Act. It is purely an internal matter between the petitioner archives and the State Government. The right to information having been guaranteed by the law of Parliament, the administrative difficulties in providing information cannot be raised. Such pleas will defeat the very right of citizens to have access to information. Hence the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this court. The writ petition lacks in merit.” – Unquote. Moreover, please also note, that it is a prerogative of a citizen to invoke his right to inspect the records of Public Authority as defined under section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act, And as such, the same [section 2(j)(i)] cannot be invoked by a Public Information Officer while disposing off a request for information under section 7(1), Thereby, construing the provision of section 2(j)(i) as a pre-condition to providing the information requested under section 6(1) of the RTI Act.
  26. 5 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by ambrish.p: Appellate Authority under RTI Act can issue Appellate authority under RTI Act can issue direction to such public authority to take any of those steps as are suitable to coerce the persons having information to abide by directions issued under the RTI Act In paragraph 44, this Full Bench of Delhi High Court, from the preamble of the RTI Act, also notes that it is passed because 'democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed'. It restricts the right to information to citizens vide Section 3. Citizen seeking information need not give any reasons for such information need not give any reasons for such demand & there is no requirement of scrutiny into his locus standi. I find that when the procedure to exercise the right to information is statutorily prescribed & its breach is to be redressed exclusively by the “forums” created thereunder, the “execution” of such adjudicated entitlement against unwilling establishment by invoking all available legal avenues is the deliberate measure & an integral part of the scheme of RTI Act Appellate authority under RTI Act can issue direction to such public authority.pdf
  27. 5 points
    File No.CIC/DS/A/2012/000033/RM 4. AA vide order dt 28.9.11, directed CPIO to only provide details mentioned in the PAN card without providing any other information. 5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. CPIO submitted that in pursuance of the AA’s order vide letter dt 30.9.11 the appellant was informed the name of the PAN card holder, father’s name, date of birth and PAN card number. DECISION 6. The Commission concurs with the decision of the CPIO and the appeal is disposed of. http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_A_2012_000033_M_105317.pdf PAN CARD DETAILS.pdf
  28. 5 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Compensation if no info due to missing docs The Jharkhand HC has ruled that the SICs order ordering compensation to an RTI applicant because no info was supplied since documents were "missing", is correct and well reasoned.
  29. 5 points
    The respective judgement of Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition and Writ Appeal is attached herewith. HCK WA Judgement.pdf HCK WP Judgement.pdf
  30. 5 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Unreasoned order of CIc remanded back by HC Another old order of the Punjab & Haryana HC where it has remanded the matter back to the CIC since the order it passed was totally unreasoned. Having gone through the decision taken by respondent No.1, as extracted above, I find that there is no discussion on the issue. No reasons as to under what circumstances a particular information has been directed to be supplied and the other denied, has not been assigned. The order (Annexure P-8) is not a reasoned order. The impugned order directs the petitioner to supply information in relation to domestic consumers, however, while allowing protection to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act, it has been held that information in relation to commercial consumers is not required to be given. The order, however, does not give out reasons for making a distinction between the two set of consumers. The supply of connections for domestic purposes and commercial purposes are part and parcel of the same business.
  31. 5 points
    His FB posting after d appearance> "Many friends had been concerned about my Delhi High Court proceedings and given me a lot of advice. I received many email messages, telephones and sms before and after and after appearing in Court on 10 January, 2013. I want to share the events in Court. Prashant Bhushan had also been gracious enough to come to the court to represent me along with Colin Gonsalves. The judge asked me to come forward and join the lawyers. He told me that I should understand the way Courts work and their norms. He said that when addressing the Court a certain sobriety should be maintained and I should show respect to the institution of the Court. I stated that I had felt the Court’s actions would stymie the functioning of Information Commissions and the RTI Act. I reiterated that I believed I was raising certain issues of importance to the Nation and had stated nothing which could be considered as scandalizing a court. The judge then addressed Colin and Prashant saying they should display a better understanding of the difficulties which the Courts face like shortage of judges. He also said that the judges work very hard and people do not understand the difficulties and problems faced by the judiciary. Prashant and Colin said they appreciated the Courts difficulties and I had in no way committed any act of contempt. Prashant gave an explanation of the fact that I had expressed my anguish at the large number of matters where stays were being given by the High Courts. He further pointed out that the Court was not following provisions of Article 226 (3) of the Constitution. Since a large number of matters were being given ex-parte stays this constitutional amendment was brought by Shri Shanti Bhushan to ensure that on a plea by the party which was not present, the Court would have to decide the matter in 15 days. The judge again referred to the limitations of the Courts and the constraints in which they function. This shows that even Constitutional amendments are buried and we keep talking of new laws! Ultimately the petitioner said he is wanted to withdraw the petition and Colin and Prashant both advised me to agree. I agreed and the petition is now closed. This has left me with more questions which are now added to the earlier ones. This entire journey in the Courts was a useless exercise. The petitioner did not want the enquiry to be held, and he succeeded by fling a false affidavit. I decided not to point out the obvious flaw in the High Court naming me as a respondent personally, so that I could raise certain larger issues. Incidentally, Delhi High Court refuses to treat the Commission as a party when hearing any of the writs against the Commissions orders. How I acting as an Information Commissioner could be personally named as a respondent for an act done as a Commissioner in discharge of my duties is a mystery. However,-Don Quixote-like,- I thought I would try and correct the system. At the end nothing was achieved, because everyone explained to me how a Court can make me come to Delhi dozens of times, without even touching on any of the core issues. The Indian judicial system can wear you down by its slow and grinding process, and that is a danger bigger than the contempt power."
  32. 5 points
    The decision of the apex court is attached to this post. Apex court on Section 8(1)g.pdf
  33. 5 points
    I have today emailed attached letter to CIC in connection with decision relating to administrative difficulties of CPIO. Copy of the decision is also attached herewith. AMIN DIFFI 271212.doc ADMIN DIFFICULTIES 211212.pdf
  34. 5 points
    I am attaching decision dated 08-10-2012 of CIC in the matter of interpretation of RTI application. INTERPRETING RTI APPLN 081012.pdf
  35. 4 points
    WHY DO INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS NOT IMPOSE PENALTY? ICs are under the wrong impression that it is their discretion to levy or not to levy penalty at their will. In fact, once the breach of RTI Act is committed and not reasonably explained, the penalty must follow. ICs are afraid because if they levy penalties, the serving govt officers may dig out their [ICs] misdoings when ICs were in service and ICs may have to face investigating agencies post-retirement. ICs want to follow the line of action and guidance given by political appointees. ICs are attitudinally conditioned not to displease other govt officers and politicians, as they have been doing while in service, lest some day ICs may be exposed. Conceptually ICs have no respect for common citizens since they were uncommon citizens while in active service for a very long period of their lives. Heart in heart, ICs believe that govt servants and politicians are borne to rule in India and common Indian [mango] citizens are their subjects. ICs do not appreciate and internalize their own duties and responsibilities under RTI and continue to function as an administrative entity. ICs lack training in knowledge and attitude to effectively act as ICs. ICs treat appointment as post-retirement paid holiday time to enjoy bypassing routine and stereo-type orders [clerical or fill-in the blanks] without much taxing their minds. Imposing penalty requires the application of mind. ICs may have tie-up arrangement to absolve PIOs for a “fee”, as the majority of govt offices have in India [agents or touts]. ICs do not believe that common Indians deserve transparency and time is not ripe for opening up governance to such immature mango citizens. Very few appellants will move higher courts [due to the prohibitive cost of litigation and exorbitant delay ] for information and penalty, while PIOs will challenge at public cost, any order of penalty and if it is not upheld, ICs may lose face. RTI appellants or complainants have not so far moved vigilance machinery of Govt against ICs absolving PIOs of penalties even in serious RTI violations, alleging corruption. Citizens do not move petitions to remove ICs to President or Governors for not imposing penalties in many cases, where it should have been definitely imposed. ICs are aware that they are totally overprotected by law for whatever decisions they take including not imposing penalties even in deserving cases. ICs psychologically want to retain their image of being very good, understanding and kind among govt staff, even at the cost of making RTI defunct affecting fundamental rights of common citizens. ICs know that after demitting post, they will be common men/women and will have to approach the same govt. staff for their mercies. Hence they do not risk offending govt staff for RTI violation by imposing the penalty. Some ICs believe that penalties will have a demoralizing effect on govt staff and may reduce their efficiency. ICs also know that poor PIOs are under pressure for not meticulously following RTI provisions, lest many of PIOs’ bosses [including politicians] and colleagues would land in trouble. ICs hasten to levy penalties when their authority is challenged by PIOs by being absent in hearing or not complying with ICs orders. However, ICs forget that in a democracy citizens are the supreme authority. ICs are under impression that getting information is important and not the penalty, irrespective of breach of provisions or harassment to information seekers. Some ICs believe that at least now citizens are getting information, which was not available to them prior to RTI enactment, hence he should not think of penalty, whether imposed or waived. ICs feel that appellant or complainant has no right to insist upon penalty. It is ICs exclusive domain. ICs still hope that they may get some govt post even after demitting post of IC . India is a soft State even when it comes to terrorists and criminals. ICs give benefit to PIOs for civil violations of RTI, even when it affects fundamental rights. Many ICs are afraid of govt officers who hold high posts or are well connected. Appellants or complainants do not even insist in writing after the decision is pronounced, that penalty should have been imposed by IC by giving their justification for the penalty. There is no social audit of decisions of ICs nor is feedback given by RTI activists to concerned IC with a copy to Chief IC. Hence ICs do not improve. There are certain ICs and Chief ICs whose past record is full of misdeeds and they could escape penalties by manipulations and secrecy. Hence they have special love for defaulting [brother-like] PIOs. Politicians select only such ICs who cannot be attitudinally strict for benefit of common men at the cost of govt employees. Most of ICs are with govt. service background and mentally carry that baggage even after retirement. ICs are not adversely commented upon by auditors of CIC or SIC, even when the penalty is not imposed in very deserving cases. There is no system to effectively recover penalties even when imposed by ICs. This discourages ICs from penalizing. 41.68% of penalty is not recovered by CIC and situation in most SICs may be worse than this. PENALTY -WHY NOT.doc
  36. 4 points
    Very good information given by Mr. Vidyaranya, personally I also appreciate Dr. S.P.T. Rao for his great efforts for filling a WRIT in Karnataka High Court and secondly to give due advice to Mr. T. Pundalika for SC move. Very different judgements are coming across the country. In a recent case Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has accept a WRIT from PIO of Rajasthan Public Service Commission against the order of DCDRF Ajmer in which PIO was ordered to provide info with cost due to his deficiency in service. Copy enclosed. Before this in one case Rajasthan HC refused to entertain WRIT against order of DCDRF Ajmer in PIO Improvement Trust Case, finally PIO had to approach State Consumer Commission Jaipur who also refused his appeal with cost of Rs. 25000/- for misusing of public fund for approaching High Court Chandigarh HC also remand back one case ( CIC Punjab Vs SK Mishra) to District Forum with advice to file appeal with appropriate appellate authority. Not only above, Hon'ble Chennai HC, Rajasthan HC and Karnataka HC have refused to entertain WRIT stating - when a remedy of appeal provided in CPA 1986, High Court can not entertain writ jurisdiction under article 226 /227. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also ruled that HC have no jurisdiction over Consumer Commission u/a 226/227 and send copy of his order to all the Chief justice of High Courts. Copies of orders are enclosed for the reference of Hon'ble member of this forum. In view of above it is clear that it is now become necessary to place this matter before Hon'ble Supreme Court to end of this Jurisdiction war RTI VS CPA. HC Rajaasthan - Stay on order of DCDRF Ajmer on RTI Defeciency..pdf SC - 6-8-2012_High Courts have No Jurisdiction over Consumer Commission.pdf HC Chennai - 12-6-2012_CPA 1986 is an Additional Remedy.pdf HC Chennai - WRIT Petition can not be entertain if remedy of Appeal is available_20-2-2013.doc Karnataka HC reject WP against Consumer Commission.pdf HC Order 7-12-2011 in SK Mishra vs PIO PSIC consumer case .pdf HC Rajasthan - High Court have no jurisdition over Consumer Forums_21-1-2013.pdf
  37. 4 points
    CVC has issued a circular on Delhi High Court decision in LPA No.618/2012 dated 06.11.2012 in the matter of Discloser of Information under the provisions of the RTI Act, related to disciplinary matters rti_10042013.pdf
  38. 4 points
    "Information" is defined under section 2(f); likewise the term "Record" is defined under section 2(i) & term "Right to Information" is defined under section 2(j) of the RTI Act. Please find them quoted below for your ready reference: For procuring information from a Public AuthorIty, it is quite likely that a RTI applicant may have to climb all the three steps of the ladder available for obtaining information under the provisions of the RTI Act i.e. RTI Application to PIO > First Appeal to the concerned First Appellate Authority > Second Appeal to an Information Commission, And therefore it is better to draft a technically correct RTI application so that it can weather all the Appeal levels.
  39. 4 points
    The Licensing Authority for Blood Banks is the O/o Drug Controller in States and at Centre . O/o Drug Controller can inspect records of Blood Banks under its territorial jurisdiction . The blood banks are required to maintain following records for last 5 years : (1) Blood donor record: It shall indicate serial number, date of bleeding, name, address and signature of donor with other particulars of age, weight, hemoglobin, blood grouping, blood pressure, medical examination, bag number and patient's detail for whom donated in case of replacement donation, category of donation (voluntary/replacement) and deferral records and signature of Medical Officer In-charge. (2) Master records for blood and its components: It shall indicate bag serial number, date of collection, date of expiry, quantity in ml. ABO/Rh Group, results for testing of HIV I and HIV II antibodies, Malaria, V.D.R.L., Hepatitis B surface antigen and Hepatitis C virus antibody and irregular antibodies (if any), name and address of the donor with particulars, utilisation issue number, components prepared or discarded and signature of the Medical Officer Incharge. (3) Issue register : It shall indicate serial number, date and time of issue, bag serial number, ABO/Rh Group, total quantity in ml, name and address of the recipient, group of recipient, unit/institution, details of cross-matching report, indication for transfusion. (4) Records of components supplied: quantity supplied; compatibility report, details of recipient and signature of issuing person. (5) Records of A.C.D./C.P.D/CPD-A/SAGM bags giving details of manufacturer, batch number, date of supply, and results of testing. (6) Register for diagnostic kits and reagents used: name of the kits/reagents, details of batch number, date of expiry and date of use. (7) Blood bank must issue the cross matching report of the blood to the patient together with the blood unit. (8) Transfusion adverse reaction records. (9) Records of purchase, use and stock in hand of disposable needles, syringes, blood bags, shall be maintained. NOTE: The above said records shall be kept by the licensee for a period of five years. So file an RTI Appl with PIO , O/o relevant Drug Controller [ State / Centre ] as per relevant RTI Rules . It has access to above records and may supply same , subject to provisions of the RTI Act , 2005 . For names and addresses of donors , PIO may apply s.11 procedure . The private Blood Banks [ attached with private hospitals ] are not generally within ambit of RTI Act directly .
  40. 4 points
    Please also read this latest decision of Coimbatore DCDRF: Coimbatore DCDRF awards Rs 10000 to RTI applicant - Downloads - RTI INDIA- Right to Information
  41. 4 points
    PSIC Says : Appointments to government posts draw finances from state exchequer and people have right to know if the best have been selected and whether the selection was on merit. The Orders of the PSIC are as below : Appointments to government posts draw finances from state exchequer and people have right to know if the best have been selected and whether the selection was on merit. The public authority may hold back the names of examiners/members of interview Board etc. but other details cannot be withheld in the name of confidentiality. To hold back the kind of information being sought by the present appellant would amount to denial of his valuable right to access information held by public authority and a violation of the RTI Act. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION.doc
  42. 4 points
    The Orders of the PSIC are as below: Therefore, it is deemed fit to issue bailable warrants to Mr. Manmohan Singh, former Executive Officer-PIO, M. C., Fatehgarh Churian now E.O., Municipal Committee, Patti, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 18(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, read with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code with the direction that the said PIO shall produce the relevant record relating to the information demanded by the complainant in his RTI application on the next date of hearing. A copy of this order shall be endorsed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Taran Tarn, to serve the bailable warrants on Mr. Manmohan Singh, E.O.—cum- Public Information Officer, Municipal Committee, Patti. The bailable warrants dated 5.06.2013 are sent to the SSP, Taran Tarn, for serving the same to Mr. Manmohan Singh, Executive Officer -cum- Public Information Officer, Municipal Committee, Patti. and the SSP will ensure his presence before the Commission on the next date of hearing i.e. 04.07.2013. A copy of this order is sent to the SSP for strict compliance. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION.doc
  43. 4 points
    Dear Mr. Dhindra Kindly refer the files attached herewith which have been given by me as written submission before the PSIC. Thanks & Regards Rohit Council -312 (Complaint Case DMC Hospital to PSIC) - Complaint Case.doc Council -345 (Written Submission in Complaint Case DMC Hospital to PSIC) - Written Submission.doc Council -348 (Written Submission Complaint Case DMC Hospital to PSIC) - Written Submission.doc Council -357 (Written Submission Complaint Case DMC Hospital to PSIC) - Written Submission.doc
  44. 4 points
    Karira ji is very right, this is only a trick to uncover the CPA protection for RTI Applicant. Let us see what is happen in future. Mr. Tarun Agarwal, A RTI Activist from Ajmer has send us an another Judgement of DCDRF Ajmer dt. 28-1-2013 in which they have imposed penalty on PIO O/o Rajasthan Public Service Commission Jaipur referring NCDRC's judgement dated 28-5-2009 in RP-1975 (Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao). Judgement Copy enclosed for the reference of Hon'ble member of this forum. Consumer Forum Ajmer order dt. 28-1-2013.pdf
  45. 4 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: "Person" in Sec 8(1)(e) does not include PA This is an old (2008) judgment of the Punjab & Haryana HC but nevertheless posting it here since it has addressed many useful issues: 1. Reference to "Person" in Sec 8(1)(e) does not include the public authority itself. 2. Any information coming to a public authority cannot be termed as on account of a fiduciary relationship 3. Marks of other candidates (for a public exam for a public post) cannot be denied under RTI
  46. 4 points
    Downloads: A new file has been added by karira: Info on debt assignments and values to be disclose The AP High Court has ruled that information related to debt assignments and values are disclosable under RTI to the company itself.
  47. 4 points
    The orders of the CIC are as under: After hearing both parties, Commission directs the CPIO/Executive Engineer (Bldg), Central zone, South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Lajpat Nagar to provide full and complete information as held by the public authority to the appellants by Monday, 14 January 2013. Commission will review compliance of this order and all parties are directed to appear before the Commission on Tuesday, 15 January 2013 at 10:30 AM. It is placed on record that the CPIO who has appeared before us today has taken note of the oral order passed today in open court and will forward the RTI application to the holder of information and also convey the orders of the Commission today itself to the concerned CPIO as recorded herein above. CIC_DS_C_2013_000003_M_100681.pdf
  48. 4 points
    One of the judges retired before the order was pronounced. Hence the review petition will have to be reheard again. New bench has not been fixed as yet.
  49. 4 points
    The decision of the bombay high court on Section 8(1)j is attached with this post. Rajan. Bombay High court decision on Section 8(1)(j) - Unwarranted invasion of privacy.pdf
  50. 4 points
    PRADIP PRADHAN OF ODISHA SOOCHANA ADHIKAR ABHIYAN REVEALS FILE NOTINGS AND REVIEW PETITION OBTAINED FROM DOPT UNDER RTI The file notings from DOPT about how the petition of Namit Sharma was handled. The review petition has also been obtained from DOPT. The judgement is capable of creating disarray in the working of the Information Commissions according to the Attorney General. This judgement may have a significant deleterious impact on the fundamental Right to Information of citizens. The dates mentioned show that DOPT had almost no chance to present its views. As per the review petition, “FOR THAT this Hon’ble Court, in the impugned judgment, has neither considered the oral arguments of the Petitioner herein, nor the Written Submissions filed by the Petitioner on 11.09.2012, putting forth the case of the Petitioner. The impugned judgment, at no place, records the submissions made by the counsel for the Petitioner when the matter was heard.” FILES ARE ATTCHED mnb.pdf gg.pdf CIC Synopsis and List of Dates and Events_1.doc CIC Review Petition draft_2.doc
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