Jump to content

RTI VIdeos

Visit our New RTI Videos. Click here!

Prime Minister adopted village getting developed without the use of MPLAD funds- RTI

Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India and Lok Sabha MP from Varanasi, has not spent a single rupee from his MPLADS funds in all the four villages adopted under Sansad Adarsh Gram Yojana (SAGY).

The fact came in a response to an application filed under Right to Information (RTI), the response to which was sent on June 30, 2018. The response addressed to applicant Anuj Verma from Kannauj district of Uttar Pradesh, stated that no development works conducted in the four villages adopted by Narendra Modi have been budgeted from the funds allocated under Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS). The Saansad Adarsh Gram Yojana website is here.
He first adopted Jayapur on November 7, 2014, then Nagepur on February 16, 2016, Kakarahiya on October 23, 2017, and lastly Domri on April 6, 2018. All of the works in four villages have been done by the private authorities, government banks, state-level institutions, and some central government bodies, locals informed TwoCircles.net.

For instance, a Gujarat-based firm has constructed all the bio-toilets in Jayapur, and Vedanta group has constructed one Anganbadi Centre in Nagepur village. The solar street lights have been installed by various public banks.
The MPLADS fund, worth Rs 5 Crore per year, can be utilised anywhere in the constituency of an elected MP. But the opposition voices in Varanasi are accusing Modi of not setting an example before other MPs by not spending his own fund for development.
Read more...

323 DTC buses are scrapped annually in Delhi-RTI

The number of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) buses plying in the Capital is at its lowest in a decade, a Right to Information (RTI) query has revealed. Standard-floor buses, revealed the RTI reply, have been scrapped in large numbers over the last decade — at an average of 323 buses annually.

The DTC’s current fleet includes 2,506 non-air-conditioned low-floor buses, 1,275 air-conditioned low-floor buses and 101 standard-floor vehicles. Sources in the DTC attributed the gradual decline in number of standard-floor buses to failed attempts at creating a dedicated, in-house maintenance cell.
Read more...

A major success: RTI Amendment differed by Government #SaveRTI

Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office, Jitendra Singh was scheduled to introduce the Bill in the Rajya Sabha in the post-lunch session on Thursday. Though he was present in the House, the government decided not to introduce it as the Congress and other Opposition parties were against the amendments being moved on the grounds that these would dilute the 2005 Act.

Sources said the government suggested that the Opposition allow the Bill to be introduced and then sent to a Select Committee of the Upper House. But since the Opposition did not relent, the government deferred the introduction till the time a consensus on the fate of the Bill could be reached.
The amendment Bill seeks to change the clause dealing with the term of the Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners and the State CICs and state ICs. As of now, they get a term of five years from the date they assume office. The Bill states this would be changed to a "term as may be prescribed by the Central government”. This would give the Centre the discretion to terminate the service of the CIC, ICs and the state CICs and ICs in case they do not conform to the will of the government.
The Bill also states that the salaries and allowances of the CIC, ICs, state CIC and state ICs shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central government. Though the amendment also maintains that salaries and allowances and other conditions of service of these officials shall not be varied to their disadvantage after their appointment, the government can reduce it for future appointees.
As of now, the CIC and ICs get the salary equal to that of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner respectively. In the states, the state CIC gets the salary of the Election Commissioner and the state ICs get the salary of the Chief Secretary.
The Opposition does not agree with the NDA government’s view that the salary of the CIC and information commissioners should be reduced as this is equal to that of a judge of the Supreme Court.
 
Read more...

RTI brought number plate on the car of the President of India instead of State Emblem- HC

New Delhi: Delhi High Court has ruled that vehicles of India’s top constitutional authorities like the President, the Vice President, Governors and Lieutenant Governors will have to be registered with the authority. According to the ruling, all vehicles need to clearly display the registration numbers. A petition, filed by an NGO Nyayabhoomi, claimed that the practice of displaying the state emblem, instead of the registration numbers, make the dignitaries become easy targets for terrorists and anyone with malicious intent.

In December last year, the Delhi High Court had asked the Centre and the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government in the national capital to place before it the rules regarding display of just the State Emblem of India on the cars of the constitutional authorities and dignitaries, such as the President, instead of their registration numbers, PTI had reported.
The petitioner also sought direction to the Delhi government and Delhi Police to seize the cars used by the Rashtrapati Bhawan, Vice President, Raj Niwas and Protocol division of the Ministry of External Affairs for not being registered under the Motor Vehicles Act, PTI reported.
After the petition was filed, a bench of acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar had directed both the governments to check the position and inform it about the same.
The plea was based on an RTI response by the Ministry of External Affairs which stated that none of its 14 cars maintained were registered.
Last year, the Rashtrapati Bhawan had refused to provide the registration numbers of all the presidential vehicles on the ground that disclosure of such information would endanger the security of the state and life of the President.
Read more...
  • Featured
    rohitab
    rohitab

    File noting by one officer meant for the next officer with whom he may be in a hierarchical relationship, is not in the nature of a fiduciary entrustment

    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

    1. Complete details of file notings made on the above said file number as on date. 
    2. 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 
    3. 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. 

    Edited by rohitab

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 1




    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    smbhappy

    Posted

    What is the citation of the High Court Order in this case please!!

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

    5
    InvestigateBawana
    13
    k.manikyam
×

Important Information

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