Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 09/16/2020 in all areas

  1. Information has to be supplied in the form in which it exists. For example the information you have been asking if available in hard copy/record/register form, it will be provided only in hard copy alone. The cost of A4 is Rs.2/- If such information exist in a soft copy form, then depending on the data and form requested it will be provided in such CD form. The rules and regulations applicable to that public authority prevails. PIO should send such calculation and demand for such copying fee.
    1 like
  2. It is presumed that you are raising issue of Your mother, who is a Self Help Group Member under DWAKRA or for some other programme. Those who regularly save in the Group Account gets a loan for productive purposes on nominal rate of interest, which has to be repaid in equal monthly installments. The main idea behind is those who are accustomed to save finds no difficulty in repaying such amounts towards loan. The concerned officials relevant to your issue is 1.Group Leader 2.DRDA 3.MDO or VRO or Volunteer leader. Your mother is saving with the group. The group is eligible for a loan.
    1 like
  3. That is the only way. Go for first appeal.. Query No.1: Total Number of business places is not invasion on privacy.. Query No.2: The exemption under RTI should prevail and simply mentioning total GST paid to Government or received by Govt from ABC is not invasion on privacy as the GST is an income to Govt and connected with larger public interest. Seek if such earlier decision if any given in any case by appellate commissions or courts.
    1 like
  4. Every state has formed it's own rules and regulations in format of application and fees, there is no such announcement from any state. The court fee stamp were never accepted in Central Government organisations even in the past.
    1 like
  5. Simple request for prioratizing hearing is not a crime. You can make such a request but it must be supported by genuine reason and they must feel such urgency and convinced of appellant's such necessity. Senior citizens, citizens with other abilities appeals require such advancement as per their rules. In some cases, appellants approached HC also for such advancement of dates explaining the need. There is no head at CIC and some other IC positions are vacant. There may be several appeals for which hearing is required urgently, when the information is having evidential value in on g
    1 like
  6. Please understand that a post must be short in length. Avoid quoting and thanking, as there is a tab in the shape of heart to thank below post. If a post is more than 2 or 3 replies/queries, due to time constraint, members may not care to read. You can never expect anything positive from CVC and always have Plan B, C , D and thereon.
    1 like
  7. Please understand the operation of CVC. First there is a screening at CVC level and committee finds out whether there is a prima facie evidence. Then as CVC is just a post office and it transfers the complaint to Vigilance dept., of that organisation and finally the complaint goes to the very person against whom the complaint was made. CVC gives time of 90 days and after another two or three reminders, that organisation may send such report disagreeing and certifying that there is no vigilance angle in the complaint and make some more allegations attributing motives to complainant/ Th
    1 like
  8. Of late defiance of orders of Information Commissioners has become rampant. The only remedy with the information seeker is to lodge a complaint with Chief Information Commissioner, who routinely issues another order for compliance that too after a delay ranging from 6 to 36 months depending upon efficiency and pendency of CIC/SIC. Commissions hardly invoke powers of Civil Court vested in it u/s 18.3 to ensure speedy compliance with its own orders. Hence I suggest that if after two months of filing complaint of non-compliance [with copy to PIO, FAA, and Head of public authority], as sugges
    1 like
This leaderboard is set to Kolkata/GMT+05:30
  • Tell a friend

    Love RTI INDIA- Online RTI? Tell a friend!
  • Most Contributions

    1. karira
    2. Prasad GLN
      Prasad GLN
    3. RAVEENA_O
    4. ambrish.p
    5. jps50
  • Most Solved

    Nothing has been solved this week.

  • Our picks

    • सड़क निर्माण में भ्रष्टाचार ना हो और पारदर्शिता के लिए आप चाहे तो निर्माण स्थल से #RTI के तहत निर्माण कार्य का सैंपल लेकर लैब में टेस्टिंग के लिए दे सकते है। http://rtiindia.org


      : https://righttoinformation.wiki/guide/applicant/application/sample/road-work
      • 0

        Reputation Points

      • 0 replies
    • Instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof
      Information Commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha held that seeking citizenship proof in case of demand of sensitive information is justified but seeking a signed copy of the application does not seem appropriate as the online portal does not mandate uploading of signatures.
      Sinha was hearing the plea of an Odisha-based RTI applicant who had sought from the Army information regarding implementation of rules under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 in all defence establishments.
      The Army did not provide any information to the applicant, the CIC noted. Akhand approached the Commission with a complaint that the central public information officer (CPIO) of the Army has demanded a signed copy of his online RTI application as well as identity proof before providing him the records.
      “In this regard, it may be noted that as far as CPIO’s request for citizenship proof is concerned, the same is not questioned as Commission in its prior decision(s) has held the view that Armed Forces stand on a slightly different footing as there may be instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, and for such reasons it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof,” Sinha noted.
      Originally posted here!
      • 0 replies
    • Some of you -- at least CJ Karira, who helped me years ago in one crucial step, getting SEBI to acknowledge its own circular! -- know of a 15-year quest among desi academics to get SEBI to release its stale masked FII data for academic research. At one point years ago a parliamentary query by Shyam Benegal, then Rajya Sabha MP, sought the release of this data for academic research. He then made a subsequent RTI query asking what had done about his complaint about the terrible answer he got to his parliamentary question. We thought we had succeeded when in response to that SEBI did put in public domain that FII data and promised to update. And to  their credit, they did update it from time to time, even if a bit fitfully. But thanks to a question by a curious IIT-Madras undergrad, we realized that what SEBI gave with one hand they took away with another. While the idea was that the FII IDs would be masked to preserve privacy, without telling anyone, SEBI changed the masks each month, drastically reducing the value for academic research (since you can't even tell how many distinct FIIs are there in the data base, and whether anyone traded over time). It also caused mistakes in academic research since no one imagined that SEBI would use changing masks, when no other regulator or exchange on the planet does so.

      To get SEBI to finally agree to not hide by changing masks, but to keep a stable mask, has taken many years. But at least per the ruling received yesterday, it has been achieved, with no violence to anyone. I attach the ruling. I can also post the various submissions made at the Second Appeal hearing if there is any interest (need to scrub email-IDs, per the policy of this site).

      Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdfThis RTI site, in particular Karira-ji, has been very helpful to me in the course of this long episode thru countless RTI queries. And I am grateful for that from the bottom of my heart. I am confident we will see quite a few PhD dissertations using this database within the next few years.

      Third_Addendum to Additional Submission for RTI Second Appeal_2nd_March_2020.pdf
      From_SEBI_Written Submiissions - Murugappa Krishnan 139953.pdf
      • 3 replies
    • There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny - they should be setting the example of transparency.
      • 2

        Reputation Points

      • 0 replies
    • LUCKNOW: The Central government has provided categorized security cover to 308 persons, out of which 24 have been provided the highest Z-plus cover, according to the answer to an RTI query.

      As per information provided by S.C.L. Das, Joint Secretary in the Union Home Ministry to city-based activist Nutan Thakur, two dozen persons have been given Z-plus security, 59 persons have been given Z security, 109 have been given Y-plus, 34 have been given Y and 82 persons have been given X category security.

      • 2

        Reputation Points

      • 1 reply
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      Prasad GLN
      Prasad GLN
    2. 2
  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Blog Statistics

    • Total Blogs
    • Total Entries
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
    • Most Online

    Prasad B 123
    Newest Member
    Prasad B 123
  • Create New...

Important Information

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