Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/04/2019 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    dear friends. with the help and support of many of you,I could ensure a due pension to around 3200 ex Indian Naval sailors. Around 100 RTI applications,40 first appeals and 5 second appeals,during the period since 2012. I could dig out copies of orders of the GOI as old as 1976. Finally all these materials were used for our legal fight before the honorable supreme court. Even though,the SC had given a favorable judgment in 2016,the actual payment of pension has started only in 2019. The concerned authorities had diluted the SC orders in this regards, and not paid the due entitlements fully and the case is still going on. But all this we could achieve,only because of the RTI Act,and the numerous rti applications from time to time. This forum has helped me in clearing my doubts from time to time. I was lucky enough to get associated with this forum almost from the beginning. Thanks to all for providing a wonderful platform for a great cause.
  2. 4 points
    Write to him directly and seek all those success stories and stepping stones in his biography. He can definitely respond. Search in google and create a library with all those material.
  3. 3 points
    The PIO has cited the exemption of section 24(4) for denying the information requested by you. Please peruse the provision of section 24(4), the same is reproduced below: As you can see, your best chances of getting the information is, if you can show that the information sought by you pertains either to (1) allegation of corruption or (2) violation of human rights. It seems that, in the facts of your case, the information sought by you may possibly fall under the category of 'violation of human rights'. If that is the case, then you may file a first appeal before the concerned First Appellate Authority on the ground of violation of human rights, however, please note that the second proviso to section 24(4) provides that in such cases the power to disclose information lies with the State Information Commission.
  4. 3 points
    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. Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdf Second_Addendum_w_Appendices_29th_Feb_2020.pdf CIC-SEBIH-A-2017-139953-BJ.pdf Third_Addendum to Additional Submission for RTI Second Appeal_2nd_March_2020.pdf To_CIC_2nd_appeal_27th_February_2020_Redacted.pdf Draft_Talking_Points_for_the_Hearing.pdf From_SEBI_Written Submiissions - Murugappa Krishnan 139953.pdf thanking_CIC_post_decision_Redacted.pdf
  5. 3 points
    Just be polite and formal like a professional. Download the blog on inspection by JP Shah and carry it in the form of hard copy and take usual precautions . Search in website for Hon'ble Sailesh decision in our forum, wherein in CIC decision he ruled that PIO has to provide the information as on record, irrespective of the type of query. Write a thanks letter, seek for specific appointment date, timings, officers to be contacted and provide him the list of files you wish to inspect. Wait for their call and attend inspection atleast before 15 minutes to the given time. Never argue, do not show ego or knowledge, just focus on information required by you.
  6. 3 points
    Focus on what an appellant can do and forget these routine highhandedness of ICs. Because it is the first time, you might have felt bad, and this is usual and most of the ICs are biased. If you wanted real remedy, take the lead and file writ after receiving decision. Sitting or standing is not important, even some persons were are imprisoned on false charges for seeking information under RTI as public authorities are having such power. Getting information is the only priority, focus on that, ignore others as some persons are having attitude, power, arrogance issues and just pity them for lack of minimum decency towards a citizen that has taken up larger public interest sacrificing his time and money.
  7. 3 points
    Hearing in First Appeal is not mandatory. In Case No. CIC/AD/A/2013/000875-SA, orderes delivered on 14.6.2014 it is observed that there is not a whisper about hearing by FAA in RTI Act, 2005. There is also no provision under the Act to prescribe procedures with regard to the manner in which FAA has to conduct & decide the First Appeal. It is also mentioned in that Order that it is duty of the FAA to consider written appeal of the Appellant even if he is not present on the date of hearing and decide on the basis of the material available. Even appearance before the Second Appellate Authority i.e. SIC is not mandatory, as per State Information Commissioner(Appeal Rules), 2005 (Section 7 of the R.T.I. Rules) (Central Act 22 of 2005) ..
  8. 3 points
    Sir, Am sharing some relevant files with you as requested. All of them can be quoted. Also sharing with you the draft of the RTI- you can refer to the life and liberty clause as stated below. This is for ready use. Best Regards, Andy Public Information Officers, Please note: If you wish to deny any of the above items or part thereof, please give reasons for such rejection citing the proper subsections of Section 8, 9 or 11. This is required as per Section 7 (8) of RTI Act. Your Kind attention is invited to the following: - 1) Clause 7(1) of the RTI Act wherein it has been clarified that the information concerning life and liberty is to be provided within 48 Hours. 2) Recent decisions of the Central Information Commissioner in following cases wherein the CIC has decided that information on Pension Matters is to be treated as concerning Life & Liberty: a. CIC/BS/A/2016/001238, in case titled Amrika Bai v/o PIO, EPFO, Raipur decided on 30.03.2017 wherein it has been held as under: - Para 9- The moment RTI Application on Pension Issue is received, there should be a mechanism at the entry stage to discover and identify it reflects a pension related grievance/issue and then should act immediately. Para 10 – Not only the CPIO, even the other authorities under RTI Act like the first appeal /second appellate authorities also should dispose such appeals involving pension issues within 48 Hours. Para 16 – The commission also requires as per section 19(8)(a) (I, III, IV) of RTI Act, the public authority to consider pension related information as life and liberty concerned information b. CIC/BS/A/2016/000307, in case titled V. Balaraman v/s PIO, EPFO, Thiruvananthapuram decided on 4.07.2017, wherein the above orders of CIC as at 2 (a) above have been reiterated that the information related to the pension matters must be provided within 48 hours as the same is concerning life and liberty. c. CIC/BS/C/2015/000157, in case titled V. Vaidyanathan v/s PIO, EPFO, Mumbai decided on 17.07.2017, wherein the above orders of CIC as at 2(a) above have again been reiterated that the information relating to Pension matters must be provided within 48 hours as the same is concerning life and liberty. You are therefore, requested to provide duly attested /certified photocopies (see Chapter 1, clause (2) (j) (ii) of the RTI act 2005) of the aforesaid documents on A-4 paper sheets under RTI Act 2005 within 48 Hours as decided by the CIC (see Sr. no. 2 above). 48 Hours Clause can be invoked.pdf 2017-06-28-193000321_Vaidyanathan_V.pdf news letter 4 UPDATED AS ON 3 JULY 2017 BY SECRETARY.pdf Pension_RTI_GBT_3634.pdf Pension_RTI_PK_2962.pdf Show_Cause-307_Balaraman_V.pdf
  9. 3 points
    Please find attached herewith the CIC decision wherein it had ruled as follows: prefixing of why & what doesnt debar applicant from receiving info..pdf
  10. 3 points
    FAA's obligation is to direct his subordinate Public Information Officer suitably to follow such stipulations in RTI Act, if he finds from first appellant has stated any grounds of violation. Information should always be from Public Information officer. You can ask a friend or relative from different station to file RTI Application seeking information as follows: Information solicited: 1.Please provide the copy of office notes/directions that state the reasons for putting on hold the recruitment of Deputy Managers, Assistant Managers (desk top). 2.Please inform whether there is an obligation on public authority to inform developments to the aspiring candidates, without giving scope for each candidate filing individual RTI Applications. 3.Please provide the link if the matter is put on website about suspending such recruitment. 4.Inform further plan of action for recruitment in future if available on record if any.
  11. 3 points
    If a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, then payment has to be sought under the RTI Rules. The question before the Supreme Court was which Guidelines/Rules will govern the prescription of fee for copies of answer sheets and their inspection. The Court held that while the ICSI is governed by the Companies Secretaries Act, 1980 and the Examination Committee formed under the statute prescribes a certain fee, the RTI Rules also lay down a fee structure for procurement of answer sheets. The Court held, “In our opinion, the existence of these two avenues is not mutually exclusive and it is up to the candidate to choose either of the routes. Thus, if a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Rules therein, however, if the information is sought under the Guidelines of the appellant, then the appellant is at liberty to charge the candidates as per its guidelines.” The decision was rendered by a Bench of Justices NV Ramana and S Abdul Nazeer, which made it clear that if there are other avenues to procure answer sheets, the applicant can choose which one to route her request through. The RTI Rules entitle a student to seek inspection and certified copies of their answer scripts. When this right is exercised, Rule 4 will govern the levy of the required charges. This Rule stipulates a fee of Rs. 2 for each page of the answer script. For inspection, no fee is prescribed for the first hour. For every subsequent hour of inspection, the fee is Rs. 5 per hour. The order came in an appeal filed by the Institute of Companies Secretaries of India (ICSI) against a decision of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The respondent, Advocate Paras Jain, had sought from ICSI certified copies of answer sheets and their inspection under RTI. He was charged a fee for the same as per Guideline No. 3 notified by the Statutory Council of the ICSI. As per the ICSI Guidelines, the fee for the supply of certified copies was Rs. 500 per answer sheet, and the charge for inspection was Rs. 450 per answer book. Download the decision here.15222_2014_Order_11-Apr-2019.pdf
  12. 3 points
    In younger age, everything appears beautiful either a child or new articles. In 2017, none of the members remembered the forum and the Anniversary passed silently without any wishes or celebrations. It is only time that erases the memory. But in short span, most of the experts stored huge information that will be useful for another decade. Though they do not visit regularly, their past contribution still helps every member. The success and rejoice of the forum is not confined to a single day, and every day someone should be benefitted by the forum. Every day is for celebration if members succeed through their learning and guidance..
  13. 2 points
    Under RTI Act the only right a citizen is having is for information that is not exempted alone and for further appeals under RTI. Imposing penalty against CPIO is absolute discretion of the Information Commissioner, a citizen has no right to demand for such penalty. If the problem is with information writ is the final remedy against IC decision. If for imposing penalty, HC may consider it but HC can not take any action against IC. Waiting since 14 years for correct interpretation of the penalty clause and if some one gets that imposing penalty for violation is mandatory to impose penalty, the enactment of RTI is most successful. No court accepts suits on decisions/orders under RTI and all officials are immune under RTI for their legitimate actions taken in good faith.
  14. 2 points
    You have raised the same issue of stadium/gym several months back, and you have already raised the issue under RTI and was told that gym equipment is not ready and not in full fledged etc., If you want you can file another RTI seeking information as follows: Information solicited: 1.Please inform the projected date of functioning of .............after the work has been completed. 2.Please inform the pending construction and other works associated with the commencement. 3.Please inform specific reasons for delay on record. 4.Please provide the proposed action within a time frame recorded. 5.Please provide the Minutes of....................in which these pending problems were discussed and the directions of higher authorities.
  15. 2 points
    As repeatedly stated by experts/moderators in this forum, RTI is not a problem solving, or redressal of grievances process. One can get only information and it all depends on the applicant as to how he uses such information to get a logical end for the actual problem. These issues have to be resolved collectively by active group of persons by submitting petitions to elected representatives like councellors, MLA, MPs etc and then following up through media coverage . RTI should also be made to Government Hospitals for collecting data on mosquito bites, outpatients treated for malaria, epidemics spread if any during last one year,. The opinions of residents on such maintenance by authorities must be recorded. There should be a morcha to the officials and it should get adequate publicity. After creating a record of all these efforts finally filing PIL before HC is the certain remedy. Under RTI you can seek information on Budget for drainage, reasons for poor maintenance of such systems, Inspection and monitoring by authorities periodicity and controlling measures, officials involved in such maintenance, proposed plan of action to cover open drains. The purpose of making this post is not to discourage, but only to remind the poor financial budgets of local authority, and difficulty in handling such a large issue by one or two individual under RTI.
  16. 2 points
    As a citizen you are entitled to seek any information you require from Public authorities. Please go through Shri JP Shah blogs and find the sample format of RTI Application to know status of complaint and make suitable alterations and file such application as per rules and regulations of RTI Applicable to that authority. Remember RTI is just a Road and not destination. A citizen can seek and get information which is available with public authority in the form of material record. There is no scope for questioning the quality of their action or reasons for inaction unless those are reduced as record in writing.
  17. 2 points
    You can file application on line and the information you have solicited is proper. Add few words in the following sentence. Kindly provide the following information in the form of certified copies.
  18. 2 points
    @ Shri Sunil Ahya : "3. You can file a RTI application directly addressed to their PIO, without waiting for the results of step 1 and 2 above, as follows (please note that for filing a RTI, name of a person is not required but only designation PIO is required):" Always write on the envelope only the HO name and do not write To, The Public Information Officer, If you write a public information officer, as there is no such designated officer, they may refuse to accept such application, which again should be sorted out through complaint to Telangana IC. Instead write only the name of dept., Director of Handlooms and Textiles and Apparel Export parks, 3rd Floor, Chenetha Bhavan, Telangana State, Hyderabad 500001 and in that envelope your RTI Application can be addressed to Public Information Officer.
  19. 2 points
    The Department of Handlooms and Textiles of Govt. of Telangana is a Public Authority by itself and there is a dedicated tab available on its website for giving information under RTI. However, it seems that their website's RTI tab is not working. Therefore, I would suggest as follows: 1. First try and contact them on the phone number given on their website, politely speak to the person who picks up the phone and request for the details of the Public Information Officer (PIO). Ph.No: 040-23221684 Fax: 040-23221685 2. Secondly, also at the same time, try by writing to them on their email address and respectfully request for the details of the PIO; in this email also inform them that the RTI tab on their website in not working. Email Id: tshandtex@gmail.com 3. You can file a RTI application directly addressed to their PIO, without waiting for the results of step 1 and 2 above, as follows (please note that for filing a RTI, name of a person is not required but only designation PIO is required): To, The Public Information Officer, Director of Handlooms and Textiles and Apparel Export parks, 3rd Floor, Chenetha Bhavan, Telangana State, Hyderabad 500001
  20. 2 points
    We need all the detail to guide you to submit a letter to CPIO as guided by Mr. GLN Prasad. In addition pleases be guided by the post of Mr. Prasad dated 22 March 2017. Please do not open new thread on this Forum.
  21. 2 points
    Those reports unless they are placed before the Assembly can not be disclosed to public. If you are not satisfied continue the cycle and go for first and second appeals stating larger public interest.
  22. 2 points
    When PIOs do not want to part with information, without application of mind, they will select all 8 (1) clauses one by one to deny information. Mere quoting of section and denying information is not lawful denial. They have to justify as to how such exemption clause applies to this specific information now being provided in the query.. Unless you provide the exact query, it is not possible to guide you on 8 (1) (d) you have to inform name of public authority also. Application of 11 as exemption is unknown. It is only formal letter written to third party seeking objections if any as courtesy and that is not binding on PIO and when larger public interest is involved there are never any exemptions. It is not clear as to whether they have referred your application to third party and also informed you of his objections if any. Subjudice is never a reason for denial. TO use such exemption, the court should order for not disclosing that information specifically and then only it can be rejected. I could find these smart tricks only of one Public sector oil company notorious in their RTI implementation Appellant should always stress larger public interest and transparency and acccountability, and PIO can not claim any exemption.
  23. 2 points
    Wow. Ten years. It's been an incredible ride for all of us at RTI INDIA. A decade is a long time. Few things in our lives or in the world last that long—the average tech startup doesn't quite make two years. I'm honored and humbled that you've stuck with us all that time, and I promise that in the decade ahead, RTI INDIA will deliver more and better work in the areas of Right to Information. We believe in making data that others hide, transparent and accessible. We believe in delivering remarkable education and easy softwares that everyone can use and feel proud about. (See our Android & iOS mobile application) We believe that all of this can be done not just without evil, but with real generosity of spirit and action. Though we took off slowly, but exactly on this day 22nd September 2006 we brought the domain and started our journey. I would like to put a word of acknowledgement for all the team members, active members, and visitors who have been partners and also made us work from the past 10 years. Thank you for the ten remarkable years of warmth, friendship, and support. We absolutely couldn't have done it without you, nor can we take the next steps without your help. I hope you'll keep holding us to high standards, and telling us when we've met your expectations and when we've let you down. With Regards,
  24. 2 points
    The most learned in Gurus, Sri C.J.Karira, who is the main architect of this forum and a valiant fighter for RTI till recently. His contribution to the forum is immense and without mentioning him RTI is not complete. Just check for his contribution to the forum, it is a diamond mine, free for all for digging.
  25. 2 points
    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.
  26. 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.
  27. 2 points
    If the information is urgent and important immediately pay the fees under protest. Address a simple letter to SPIO, making a copy to FAA. and SIC. To ............................ .......................... Dear Sir, Reg: SIC Decision No...............................dt............................ Appellant:...................................... Ref: Demand for copying fees letter No.....................dt.................................. 1.I invite your attention to Sec. 7 (6) that states as follows: (6)Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section (5) the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limit specified in sub-section (1) Sub section (1) prescribed time limit of 30 days. RTI application was filed on.................... SIC decision was on.................... Demand from SPIO was on. 2.SPIO demanding such fees is in violation of the Sec. 7 (6) is not legally proper. However the postal order for Rs.72/- is enclosed under protest keeping in mind the importance and urgency of information. Yours faithfully, ........................ Encl: PO No:..............for Rs.72 drawn as per SPIO directions. Copy to FAA and SIC: With a request to direct SPIO for providing of information free of cost as per Sec. 7 (6) and for returning of the postal order for Rs72/ submitted by applicant under protest. This is all formal and generally appellants do not prolong and irritate authorities by educating them about RTI Act as information is always the priority, and citizens are paying to their own Government, the actual copying expenses of nominal amount.
  28. 2 points
    AS per Govt practice of rules if REPLY is not forth coming from any office a COMPLAINT TO NEXT HIGHER officer is only the method.Alternatively you can file RTI seeing as to to ACTION TAKEN AS SUGGESTED BY APPATASKAR as suggested above in the normal way
  29. 2 points
    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
  30. 2 points
    Whether SPIO has informed you or FAA has informed you is not clear. Generally FAA should deliver orders to SPIO for providing of information, keeping the options to the appellant. But DOPT guidelines stated that even FAA can provide information in the interest of expeditious disposal. Let us appreciate sincerity of FAA and bring to the attention of FAA on not uploading that information in website. Do not be hurry in making second appeal as it takes time of minimum two years for getting opportunity of hearing and then information. Your endeavour should always be to get information in first two stages. Take a chance as you have time upto 90 days from receipt of FAA orders for going to second appeal. File addendum to First Appeal to same FAA as under. Addendum to first appeal dt....................... (Further to first appeal dt.....and information provided by FAA vide letter No................) Appellant appreciates the way in which FAA has responded to Appellant directly and submits that Appellant has searched for the information and there is no such information available in the given link https://tnsta.gov.in/act_rules.jsp. It may be a presumption and though this information must be uploaded as voluntary disclosure, this was not done, and no such information as requested by appellant is available . Appellant also submits that information should be provided in the form of information that is solicited, and appellant required the information in the form of certified copies and not for link. Appellant prays for providing such copy of circular/order/notification in the form of certified copy, as the same is not available in website. Appellant.
  31. 2 points
    Then Grounds for appeal should be for providing information that is incorrect and misleading and information not providing in the form it was requested.
  32. 2 points
    The only remedy is making a written complaint to BMC with such photographs and original sanctioned plans and specifically pointing out deviations, use of property for commercial purpose etc. Then for waiting for two months and filing writ mandamus before HC.
  33. 2 points
    Go for first appeal with following grounds and prayer. Grounds: SPIO has not provided point wise, correct and complete information for point 1,2,3 and and for Point No.4 demanded for a visit for collecting documents and not even provided the calculation with his demand. The reply is not satisfactory and for 28 days he could not provide information that is available on his record. Hence first appeal. (Copy of RTI Application and PIO reply provided as xerox on back of this page as Page No.2) PRAYER: Appellant requests for directions to SPIO for providing point wise information and demanding such fees for copying after providing such calculation arrived. As information was not provided within 30 days, SPIO may be directed to provide information as expeditiously as possible free of cost. (There is no such necessity to call on the office with personal expenses only for collecting copies and it can be sent by post as per RTI rules and regulations)
  34. 2 points
    Please refer to the blog on the following link and prepare the grounds of your first appeal: https://rtiindia.org/blogs/entry/756-disproportionate-diversion-of-resources/
  35. 2 points
    Sir, Apologies for not providing details RTI Appplication Information Solicited: [1] Please provide me the CCTV entire available data footage data between 10 a.m to 11.a.m as on June 03, 2019 for all the installations at B4 Police Station, Town South, Town East ,AWPS and Town West Police Station,Nagapattinam.Please provide entire data in electronic form. Quoted the excerpts form TNSIC Decision " if you PIO denies CCTV footage, CCTV footage has to preserved till the end of SA hearing" TNSIC SA 637/A/2018 & TNSIC and SA 8543/A/2017 TNSIC in a different case requesting CCTV footage at police stations,earlier ordered that if the Appellant (myself) requested for CCTV data, it should be provided SA 8543/A/2017 Note: 1.If you deny the CCTV footage data for this application, please do not delete the CCTV footage data until the decision of State Information Commission /High Court Decision
  36. 2 points
    Dear comrades...since the govt. is likely to make some changes in RTI act. Can we file RTI? Sent from my vivo 1818 using RTI INDIA mobile app
  37. 2 points
    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.
  38. 2 points
    An applicant is having right to information alone, and the penalty is in between the PIO and IC and appellant has no role to play. That penalty can never come to appellant as wrongly perceived. Insisting for imposition of penalty may spoil the relations, when one expects smooth relations without hurting. It is very difficult to establish deliberate denial with fraudulent motives by PIO.
  39. 2 points
    IC is not supposed to revise/modify/aleter or re look into delivered decision. The action is not proper. File RTI Application and seek information from SC as follows: 10Please provide Certified copy sthat states the powers of IC in changing a decision delivered, without once again hearing appellant.
  40. 2 points
    Kindly go through RERA act by downloading the Act from google, and you can find from stipulations as to whether your query is proper or not.
  41. 2 points
    1.A PIO is expected to provide that information available in material form that is in his custody. Once it is uploaded, it is not in custody of the PIO and in public domain. In view of this, experts in the forum advised members to seek such information in the form of certified copies. 2.For you there are two options. a)File fresh application and seek such information in the form of certified copies, so that PIO can himself check whether it is in public domain or not. b)after receiving such information file first appeal on first RTI, that PIO has provided misleading information that the information is uploaded in website though it is not available. 3.Or go for first appeal, seek first hearing in person, and let PIO present that information downloaded from website of the FAA's office himself. (If you have smart phone, do carry that with another hard copy of that information which is uploaded in website without information solicited by you.
  42. 2 points
    You have been recognised as regular member with more than 156 posts, and filing applications with more than 10 different authorities, and by this time you have acquired more than an average RTI applicant and well versed with the facts. Reduce number of queries and seek guidance only in case of douts and no need to report developments on day to day basis. Only in case of genuine doubts and want sincere guidance, please use the forum for such posts.
  43. 2 points
    Namaskaram Prasad Ji. Thank you for answering the original question pertaining to RTI. Also thank you for your valuable inputs. What you say makes complete sense and it esp. when you say that “After all the errant officials are your own colleagues and might committed mistake without expecting any unlawful gain. Live and let live and focus on your issue”. The first step when a mistake is committed is to own it up. “To maintain a fault known is a double fault.” A genuine and inadvertent error can be condoned on compassionate grounds provided when such an error is brought to light, genuine intent is displayed to rectify the issue and contain the damage. Not otherwise. The perspective that you have given is a valid one and finds resonance within me. It also gives me strength to file a detailed response so that the details of the case are known esp. to those who are in a similar situation. Please allow such a response. This is a Pension Recovery Case, the rules governing the Pension Disbursal and Recovery are very well codified. “If a payment is made over and above eligibility, any one is having such rights to recover the amount paid by mistake”. It is not illegal. My comment: Pension cannot be equated as Payment. Earlier the right to Pension was a fundamental right and also a property right. When property right was repealed as a fundamental right by the 44th Amendment, It became a Constitutional Right protected under Article 300 A enforceable by law. “Recovering the amount paid by mistake is not illegal”- true; However, Recovering Pension Overpayment amount after continually making overpayment beyond 5 years is in direct contravention to several supreme court judgements and is not legally tenable. More so, in every case, due process of law must be followed. Recovery cannot be made arbitrarily. Pension overpayment and an overpayment by cashier may appear similar in terms of human behaviour- but it isn’t. These two scenarios are completely different. Cash overpayment on counter can purely be an inadvertent human error – but pension disbursal is a highly controlled well-defined process with multiple checks and balances. The probability of making such overpayment is highly minimized if correct inputs (such as: Date of retirement, Date of birth, PPO Number, DA, years of service, commuted amount etc) are fed in the process; Bank has every right to induce pressure in case of un-intended benefits accrued by such a mistake to any beneficiary. However, if you find a Pension overpayment that has happened for over 5 years, you will almost always find that either the Bank or the Pension Sanctioning Authority has overlooked and has been non-compliant to the well-defined sacrosanct procedures that are mandatorily to be followed. In such cases, it is no longer a case of innocuous human error but of wilful negligence. In our case the bank has completely overlooked the procedures mentioned as per Circular No. 57, Dt. 17, September, 2008, issued by PCDA (P); Specifically, Para 10 of the Circular directs the bank to share every case of pension consolidation done by the bank to the PCDA (P). This was never done. This observation comes from the stakeholders themselves: the CAG & PCDA (P). I have gone through the case reference mentioned: Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd vs Attar-Ul-Nissa & Others on 7 October, 1966; this is not applicable in our case. I hope this is the one that you were referring to. Without going into too much technical details here the overall process is: The Banks consolidate the Pension as per circulars issued by PCDA (P) and disburse the amount to the Pensioner. Later the Bank sends the advice of the payment made to the RBI and receives the reimbursement made only by the Central Accounts Section (CAS) of the RBI located at Nagpur. So, let’s say the pension consolidation done by the bank indicates that the pensioner should receive 60,000 as pension amount. If there is a Pension Recovery happening- the bank would deduct 20,000 and disburse 40,000 to the Pensioner. This recovery is as per the RBI authorization. (Refer to the RBI Circular: RBI/2017-18/1 DGBA.GBD.No.-1/31.05.001/2017-18). So, the bank is not recovering from my account once the credit is available. They are deducting the recovery amount at source- pretty much the way the TDS (Tax deduction at source) works. “No one can benefit on mistakes and use it for unlawful gains”- Again in complete agreement with this. What you say is correct. This is the exact question and perspective that has been looked into through several SC Judgements. The Rafiq Masih’s Case words this more cogently: Quote “ Merely on account of the fact, that the release of these monetary benefits was based on a mistaken belief at the hands of the employer, and further, because the employees had no role in the determination of the employer, could it be legally feasible, for the private respondents to assert, that they should be exempted from refunding the excess amount received by them”? Unquote However, as said earlier, this notion and perspective of unlawful gains has been covered many times in several SC judgements. These necessarily have to be mentioned here to dispel the highly over-simplified view of things and would need a detailed response. The SC provisions for such a recovery if it is found within the first 5 years of overpayment. Beyond that, it does not permit such recovery. The Pensioner has never been told about his correct entitlement of Pension; Neither by the PCDA (P) nor by the Bank. There is a complete blatant disregard again by the Bank in issuing of Pension Slips – please refer to RBI letter No. DGBA.GAD. No. H-10975/45.05.031/2006-07 dated January 9, 2007, in this regard. As per this the Pensioner must be issued a Pension Slip so that the Pensioner knows about his correct entitlement. The bank is in possession of these documents but the Pensioner has never been given / made known his correct entitlement. A case can be made stating that the Pensioner ought to make efforts to know the correctness of his Pension. In this case the Bank was asked for the Pension Slips- and it didn’t provide any. So- in such cases, whatever the amount accrued as Pension was taken as the correct entitlement. It can be argued whether such an excess was used for “Unlawful Gains”. However, the lapses and errors of omission and commission done by the bank cannot be ignored or condoned. However, the process of making such recovery cannot be arbitrary. Due process of law must be followed in case of any recovery. All this and more perspectives have been completely though over in several judgments of the Supreme Court in cases of Pension Recovery due to Overpayment. These are:- a) State of Punjab and others Vs. Rafiq Masih reported in 2015 (4) SCC 334 – wherein recoveries by the employers would be impermissible in law where the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. The OM issued by DOPT : F.No. 1 8/03/20 1 5-Estt. (Pay-I) has been issued citing this judgement and it clearly states that no recovery from pension can be made in violation of the Judgment of Rafiq Masih b) ShyamBabu Verma Vs. Union of India reported in 1994 SC (2) 521, wherein a three Judge Bench of SC held that no steps should be taken to recover or adjust any excess amount paid to the employees due to the fault of the respondents c) Syed Abdul Qadir and others Vs. State. Of Bihar and others reported in (2009) 3 SCC 475, where in a three Judge Bench of the SC held that the relief against recovery is granted by courts not because of any right in the employees, but in equity, exercising judicial discretion to relieve the employees from the hardship that will be caused if recovery is ordered. d) The DPPI -2013 Instructions (Defence Pension Payment Instructions), section 103.2 issued by PCDA (P), Allahabad clearly prohibits the banks from initiating recovery of overpayment of pensions not detected within 12 months of the date of first erroneous charge without the orders of PCDA(P). Every case of overpayment detected should be reported to the PCDA(Pensions), which in turn shall decide himself or shall obtain orders of the competent authority, Govt. of India as the case may be. It further states that to avoid hardship to the pensioner, payment for the current period, however should be continued to the pensioner at the correct rate admissible. Please note that the Pension Disbursing Bank is just an agent and is under direct instructions by the Pension Sanctioning Authority. It cannot act independently on its own. Some parts of the Rafiq Masih’s Judgement need to be Quoted to give a complete perspective: - “The Pensioner was not guilty of furnishing any incorrect information, which had led the concerned competent authority, to commit the mistake of making the higher payment to the employees. The payment of higher dues to the private respondents, in all these cases, was not on account of any misrepresentation made by them, nor was it on account of any fraud committed by them” – this is true in our case. It further states: “It will be our endeavour, to lay down the parameters of fact situations, wherein employees, who are beneficiaries of wrongful monetary gains at the hands of the employer, may not be compelled to refund the same. In our considered view, the instant benefit cannot extend to an employee merely on account of the fact, that he was not an accessory to the mistake committed by the employer; or merely because the employee did not furnish any factually incorrect information, on the basis whereof the employer committed the mistake of paying the employee more than what was rightfully due to him; or for that matter, merely because the excessive payment was made to the employee, in absence of any fraud or misrepresentation at the behest of the employee”. “ Having examined a number of judgments rendered by this Court, we are of the view, that orders passed by the employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. In other words, interference would be called for, only in such cases where, it would be iniquitous to recover the payment made. In order to ascertain the parameters of the above consideration, and the test to be applied, reference needs to be made to situations when this Court exempted employees from such recovery, even in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Repeated exercise of such power, "for doing complete justice in any cause" would establish that the recovery being effected was iniquitous, and therefore, arbitrary. And accordingly, the interference at the hands of this Court.” “The right to recover being pursued by the employer, will have to be compared, with the effect of the recovery on the concerned employee. If the effect of the recovery from the concerned employee would be, more unfair, more wrongful, more improper, and more unwarranted, than the corresponding right of the employer to recover the amount, then it would be iniquitous and arbitrary, to effect the recovery. In such a situation, the employee's right would outbalance, and therefore eclipse, the right of the employer to recover.” It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover. That completes the reference to the Rafiq Masih’s Judgement by Apex Court. Regarding Arbitrariness, as stated earlier- 1. No show cause notice was issued to the pensioner prior to commencing the recovery 2. No order of recovery has been issued by any competent authority. In the end the long detailed response may seem disproportionate keeping in mind the brevity of inputs received from you; However, this case is not an isolated one. This is just a tip of the iceberg. If you think the above response is exaggerated, you can check the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Disbursement of Defence Pension for the year ended March 2016 (Performance Audit No. 26 of 2017). This Audit Report is submitted to the Presidents Office. It states “Deficiencies in the pension disbursement system: We observed that the transmission errors as well as other mistakes in the banks, which account for nearly 75 per cent of the pension disbursements, had resulted in numerous cases of underpayments and overpayments”. “As per records of the PCDA (P) Allahabad, there were 24, 61,651 defence pensioners as on 01/04/2015, which increased to 25,00,631 on 01/04/2016”. The mathematics can be done! All the documents and references cited above are available in public domain. Apologies, shall restrict further posts on matter pertaining to RTI only. Lest any specific questions are asked pertaining to the background of the case while filing the RTI. Regards, Andy
  44. 2 points
    For the purpose of RTI Act, the Co-operative Societies can be broadly classified into two types: (1) Bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed by a Govt. etc. (i.e. Societies which fall under the definition of public authority as given under section 2 (h) of the RTI Act); and (2) Bodies which do not fall under the definition of section 2 (h) of the RTI Act i.e. Private Bodies. The first type of Co-operative Societies are public authorities and therefore directly covered under the RTI Act; by virtue of section 2(h) of the RTI Act; and The second type of Co-operative Societies are covered indirectly under the RTI Act, by virtue of the definition of section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In other words, both the type of Co-operative Societies are covered under the RTI Act, one directly under section 2(h) and the other indirectly under section 2(f). Please find para 52 from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013 quoted below:
  45. 2 points
    Wait for say approximately 35 days from the date of filing of the RTI application and if you do not receive any response from the PIO, then file a first appeal with the concerned First Appellate Authority under section 19(1) of the RTI Act.
  46. 2 points
    State Public Information Officer, Sub Registrar (Society Registration) Information solicited: 1.Please provide the copy of registration certificate for Locality Resident Association of.......................at...............................with Shri..........................as President and as.................................Secretary. (As a member you have the right to seek same information from your society without spending single paisa)
  47. 2 points
    Never enter into useless correspondence with lethargic authorities without a cause. The more they drag, the more advantageous position you are placed. Write a polite letter stating in the personal name of FAA (DO) such FAA hearings given, canceled in a table form and also seek inspection of the file PRIOR TO HEARING as the file notings can be noted to note a day to day status and action taken on the application. (I always wonder why it is necessary and what we can do with that information under RTI when the issue is pending on record, I find several PIOs getting irritated and felt as though they are being questioned by applicants like their auditors)
  48. 2 points
    Section 11 is a procedural section which lays down the procedure for cases where an information pertains to a third party. However, information cannot be denied u/s. 11 of the RTI Act, because as per section 7(1) information can only be denied either u/s. 8 or 9 of the Act. Firstly the information that you have sought is not a third party information and secondly even if it were to be a third party information it could have been denied only section 8 and 9 of the Act. Please find section 7(1) quoted below:
  49. 2 points
    There is a mistake on your part. Time and again, experts advised to record the entire proceedings as Minutes and give it to FAA and PIO duly signed. If PIO has really provided that letter, he might have marked and written to FAA immediately after receiving the first appeal. He should have at least communicated to the appellant. There are flaws in every step. The designation of PIO is different and FAA must be superior in authority over PIO and designated as such. There was never a practice of signature of PIO for FAA. Again FAA can only deliver his orders and can not force any appellant to sign any document when the appellant reported non-receipt. At least the copy was not given. Coming to FAA orders, the orders are defective. Information can be denied only on stating such exemption in RTI Act Sec.8 and subsection and with proper justification for applying that section. The reason for rejection is stated as follows: "That daily status and action taken of an application cannot be supplied through RTI . " There was never any such exemption in RTI Act as stated by PIO and FAA. Ask through separate RTI application to SPIO and seek information as follows: 1. Please provide me a copy of the letter that stated that information was denied tat daily status and action taken of an application cannot be supplied through RTI . " with a copy of such entry in outward despatch letter that mentions details. As the SPIO response is essential for submitting the second appeal and such letter was never received by the Appellant. 2. Please provide me the copy of that section or subsection in RTI Act that exempts and states that "That daily status and action taken of an application cannot be supplied through RTI . " The second Appeal can be filed within 90 days from receipt of FAA. To prepare grounds for the second appeal, get this information also so that you can simply state only simple ground for the second appeal to SIC as follows: _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Grounds for Appeal: SPIO has said to have rejected to provide information stating as follows: 'That daily status and action taken of an application cannot be supplied through RTI ." FAA has agreed with PIO. Appellant has neither received such letter nor there is no such stipulation exempting such information under RTI in Sec.8 or Sec.9 of RTI Act. SPIO can only deny information stating such Section and subsection with proper justification. In this case, PIO has neither quoted such exemption section/subsection nor offered any justification. Hence the information denial is treated as deliberate and malafide. PIO was asked to provide such Section and subsection in which there is such exemption and PIO has responded as follows ( or Not responded) PRAYER: Appellant prays for directions to SPIO and to FAA also (as SPIO has signed for FAA) to provide the information as expeditiously as possible free of cost as denial is deliberate and malafide.
  50. 2 points
    Is the document made available by the central/state public information officer is admissible as evidence in a court of law? It is very pertinent question. This question is sure to arise when the receipient of the document attempts to put in as evidence in a case pending in the civil or criminal court. The document made available by the Public Information Officer is the one which is already recorded in the official records and published or it may be one which is not recorded and published or the one which is yet to be recorded and published. What the public information officer does is, he just furnishes a copy of the record. Such record may be a true copy but it is not either authenticated or can be vouchsafed as true. The information available will be is something like news. The public information Officer is not a party to such information. He is not capable of speaking anything about the content of the document or about its veracity. The document furnished by the public Information Officer is no doubt a document issued from the proper custody and by the authority which by law is found to keep the inofrmation and disseminate it. That by itself doesnot make the document either authentic or its contents true. Moreover, the document issued has no purpose other than allowing the recipient to know of this content and nothing more. It is not the intention or the purpose of Public Information Officer to support the recipent when he uses it for any purpose either to prove or disprove any fact in which the recipient of the document is only concerned. The document and the information contained therein is neutral as if it is just a news. The public Information Officer is completely ignorant of the purpose for which the applicant has made his request for information nor the Public Information Officer is in any manner concerned with it. In the application for information the applicant is not required to state any reasons why he requires information. Therefore, it is not an application for a certified copy of any information recorded by any adjudicating authority in a dispute. As per the practices of the courts and tribunals the party applying for a certified copy should state weather it is required for purpose of appeal or for reference. No such condition is prescribed for the applicant for information to state the reason why he requires information. The copy furnished by the court can be used only for the purpose for which the copy of appplication is made. As per the practices prevalent with the Government when an application for certified copy is made, the authority or the officer recieving the application will specifically endorse on the copy he grants, that it shall not be used in court as evidence eventhough the information contained theirein is not only true and is also authentic. In such cases, the court recieving the certified copy, before admitting the document requires that the document should be proved to be of the original. It is particularly true so in the case of survey maps, where the court normally as a practice appoints the official surveyour as a court Commissioner and obtain the true sketch. Here, in the case of Public Information Officer wheather he makes an endorsement as is referred to above to the said effect that the documents supplied by him shall not be used in court, it is implied in the circumstances of this Act that the document made available to the applicant shall not be used as a proof in court proceedings. Further, the principal purpose of the Act itself is to make available to the citizens all infomration the Government is possessed off for his self-illumination to function as an enlightned and well informaed citizen and not to help him to score any point with his opponent in any dispute. Thus, when the citizen wants to use the document obtained by him from the Public Information Officer as a document in any civil or criminal proceedings, he should adopt the procedure prescribed for purpose of obtaining certified copies through court process and not by making an application for information under this Act. However this interpretation is yet to be formalized by way of decisions that may occur in future.
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