- 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 'penality'.
Found 26 results
rtiindia posted a post in SIC PunjabCPIO had been sitting over the RTI application maintaining stoic silence and incommunicado by CPIO and did nothing to collect and furnish the requisite information to the applicant till he was woken from his deep slumber by a notice from the State Information Commission. CPIO preferred not to do give information and feigned to be proactive in collecting, collating and furnishing the information but kept the appellant in dark for months together. The First Appellate Authority had restrained himself to issuing a stern warning as imposing penalty or awarding compensation was not in his jurisdiction. In the Second appeal filed with State Information Commission Punjab, the appellant appealed against the decision of the FAA who had let off the behaviour of stoic silence and incommunicado by CPIO with a simple warning and approached the commission for imposition of penalty on the respondent PIO and compensation for himself. Stoic Silence and Incommunicado by CPIO [caption id=attachment_460" align="alignright" width="200] stoic silence and incommunicado by CPIO[/caption] The commission noted that "the reply and explanation of the Respondent-PIO for the delay is totally unsatisfactory. If the information was not available on record, Respondent-PIO was well within his right to inform the appellant that the information is not available and it cannot be created and thus, would have absolved himself of the responsibility of furnishing information. But he preferred not to do so and feigned to be proactive in collecting, collating and furnishing the information but kept the appellant in dark for months together. Secondly, the Respondent-PIO pleaded that the information was scattered with the PIOs of different zones is too not tenable as the respondent PIO could have returned the application and directed the appellant to approach each PIO individually by filing separate RTI applications. Even assuming that the respondent PIO started collecting information, he could have sought assistance from different zonal officers under Section 5(4) or through any other mode but he failed to show records of any communication addressed to different zones" All this suggests that the Respondent-PIO had been sitting over the RTI application till December 20, 2012 and had done nothing to collect and furnish the requisite information to the appellant till he was woken from his deep slumber by a notice from the State Information Commission. The Commission were of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for imposing penalty where the behaviour maintaining stoic silence and incommunicado by CPIO was not acceptable. The commission noted that "Therefore, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the Respondent-PIO, which he should deposit in the government treasury as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 before the next date of hearing. The Commission also awards a compensation of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the appellant which will be paid by the public authority as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 as he had to undergo mental agony and harassment for attending the Commissions’ hearings a number of times." If you are interested in reading the discussion thread started by Applicant, you may kindly visit here! The Appellant is Shri. Rohit Sabharwal.