- 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
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'complaint'.
Found 179 results
Anil Sood posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportOn 03 July, 07 an order was given by CIC commissioner Shri A. N. Tiwari. The information was to be provided by the CPIO within 7 days. Infect he agreed to provide the same voluntarily before the hearing could start. He assured that the managing committee of Kirpal Cooperative Society had given in writing that they will provide the information to CPIO within 2 days and he would provide the same information within 7 days to me, the same was pronounced by the Honâ€™able commissioner in his order.I had already received the order on 7 July. On 16 July I registered a complaint with CIC when CPIO fails to provide the information. I was told by Mr. D. C. Singh, Under Secretary & AR Registrar & PPS Mr. Negi and that since information was regarding third party and on representation by the third party, earlier order was cancelled and the matter is being referred to 1Appellant authority to listen the objections of third party and pass his orders. Earlier Appellant authority has passed the order in my favor; still PIO did not provide the information. #UTurn I had objected to both the gentleman and posed following questions; - Whether CIC can revoke his order according to his will. I was not even called again and under which rule he has revoked the order. Why copy of subsequent orders were not provided to me. - Third party information was given by me, in my application. It is the fault of the CPIO, and staff at CIC who overlooked the information then why I was being penalized for no fault of mine. Whereas if any action is to be taken it should be against CPIO and the staff of CIC, who handled this case. They should have gone through the case file thoroughly and had informed the Commissioner accordingly. - Why the orders are not shown against my application on the CIC web site and where it is still showing that the parties are called on 2-july 2007. - Why the file is not shown to me. On 23July 07, PPS Mr. Negi again changed his version and informed me that explanation is being sought from CPIO for not providing information regarding third party to CIC. I do not know what exactly is going on. He rules out my meeting with either Mr. A. N. Tiwari or Mr. Wajahat Habibullah with my grievances. I have to wait or adviced me to approach the other forum (courts). I do not know what to do?
Pune, July 9: What happens when the big daddy of all state government departments, the one that keeps a hawk eye on other depa-rtments lest they allow files to get caught in red tape, loses a citizenâ€™s complaint? Well, it graciously accepts its mistake and promises to redress the problem soon. A rare gesture within the government apparatus, but the response isnâ€™t entirely surprising since itâ€™s the State Information Commission (SIC) we are talking about. In January 2006, Sandip Thakur, a resident of Navi Mumbai, filed a complaint with the commission regarding an NGO with considerable government funding, the Mahatma Gandhi Mission, for not appointing a public information officer. But he did not receive a reply for a year. In April 2007, he filed an application under the Right To Information Act (RTI) to ask about the status of his complaint. â€œI was shocked when I realised the public information officer of the SIC wasnâ€™t replying to my application. I then filed my first appeal. The first appellate authority then directed PIO S D Sahasrabuddhe to reply within 15 days,â€ said Thakur. Sahasrabuddhe said the commission had finally traced his complaint. It was first sent to the State Public Health Department. In June 2006, the file was returned to the commission where it was under the charge of then assistant, Gite. After this, the commission lost track of Thakurâ€™s complaint. Now, the commission has requested Thakur for a copy of his original complaint and placed it before the chief information commissioner. â€œThis must be a rare instance where the file may have been misplaced. We are currently taking steps to even reduce this small margin of error,â€ said Chief Information Commissioner Suresh Joshi. As a corrective, the commission is now working on the modalities of providing applicants an acknowledgement with a reference number for them to quote for future correspondence. Currently, only those who submit applications personally get an acknowledgment receipt. Others who send by post do not. â€œWe are chalking out the modalities with National Informatics Centre (NIC) and this new system is expected to be implemented in a monthâ€™s time. Once itâ€™s in place, all applicants â€”irrespective of how they submit their complaintsâ€”will be given a reference number,â€ said Joshi. A lost complaint, but change for the better
The Imphal Free Press imphal, mar 18: In the first instance of its kind in the state, Human Rights Alert has filed a complaint with the Manipur Information Commission against the information officer, department of home, government of Manipur for failing to furnish information sought under the Right to Information, RTI Act. According to a statement issued by the Human Rights Alert, one of its programme executives had on February 9, 2007 filed an application under section 6(1) of the RTI Act with the information officer of the state home department seeking information relating to inquiries instituted by the state government under the Commission of Inquiry Act 1952 in the past three decades. It said the officer concerned has been approached repeatedly to obtain the requested information, but the officer neither allowed access to the information, nor gave any official response to the request. The statement said a complaint was accordingly filed before the Manipur Information Commission on March 13, 2007. The state information commissioner, RK Angousana has in this connection registered a complaint case and asked the officer concerned to furnish objection if any on March 26, 2007. The information sought by the HRA included, total number and particulars of inquiries instituted since 1980 by the state government, total number of inquiry reports submitted to the government and action taken thereof, total number of inquiries whose report have been submitted but not considered by the government. The HRA had also sought copies of the inquiry reports concerned by the government of Manipur along with the memorandum of action taken. Rights body files complaint under RTI Act :: KanglaOnline ~ Your Gateway