- 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
- 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 'date'.
Found 3 results
karira posted a topic in Discussions on RTIPlease see the below judgment of the Karnataka High Court. In it the court has declared the decision passed by the SIC (while disposing a Complaint under Sec 18 ), directing PIO to provide "information" is not correct since the SC has already passed an judgment (State of Manipur case) that under Sec 18, the commission cannot order disclosure of information. However, in this case, the dates are very relevant: Date of RTI application: 11.02.2009 Date of PIOs reply: 06.04.2009 Date of complaint to SIC: 15.07.2009 Date of SIC decision: 04.02.2010 Date of Supreme Court judgment: 12.12.2011 (Well after all the above dates !) But still the High Court has quashed the SIC order in the above matter. Is it valid ? ========================== Karnataka High Court Shri Chandrashekar vs The Commissioner on 6 January, 2015 Author: S.Abdul Nazeer IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER WRIT PETITION NO.4460/2011 (GM-RES) Between: Shri Chandrashekar, S/o late Madhava Rao, Aged about 59 years, Presently working as Tahasildar, Shimoga Taluk & Dist. .... Petitioner. (By Sri S.V.Prakash, Adv.) And: 1 The Commissioner, Karnataka Information Commission, Gate No.2, 2nd and 3rd Floors, M.S.Bldg., Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore - 560 001. 2 The Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga District. 2 3 Sri Rangaswamy, S/o Kariyappa, Major, R/a Near Children Care Centre, 4th Cross, Hosmane Extension, Shimoga City 577 201. .... Respondents. (By Sri M.I.Arun, AGA for R1 and R2 R3 served) --- This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 24.6.2010 at Annexure 'H', etc. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in 'B' Group this day, the Court passed the following: ORDER The third respondent had filed an application seeking information before the Public Information Officer on 11.2.2009. The Public Information Officer issued an endorsement at Annexure 'B' dated 6.4.2009 stating that the information sought for by him is not available in the office of the Tahsildar, Shimoga Taluk and District. 2. The petitioner was posted as the Public Information Officer on 15.7.2009. The 3rd respondent filed an application under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('Act' for short) before the first respondent herein seeking the very same information. The first respondent passed an order dated 4.2.2010 directing the petitioner herein to furnish the information. Since the information was not furnished by the petitioner, an order at Annexure 'H' dated 24.6.2010 was passed imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/-. This was followed by yet another order at Annexure 'A' dated 29.10.2010 whereby the 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to deduct the penalty amount from the salary of the petitioner. The petitioner has called in question the validity of the said order in this writ petition. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. As noticed above, the Public Information Officer has responded to the application of the 3rd respondent by issuing an endorsement at Annexure 'B' dated 6.4.2009 stating that the information sought for by him is not available in the office of the Tahsildar, Shimoga Taluk and District. This order has not been challenged by the 3rd respondent under Section 19 of the Act. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent has directly filed an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking information before the first respondent, which was not permissible in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANOTHER - AIR 2012 SC 864 has held that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power under Section 18 to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. Remedy for such person, who has been refused information is provided under Section 19 of the Act. Nature of power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas procedure under Section 19 is appellate procedure and a person, who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving information, which he has sought for can only seek redress in manner provided in statute, namely, by following procedure under Section 19. 5. It is thus clear that the application filed by the 3rd respondent seeking information under Section 18 before the first respondent was not maintainable. Consequently, the order passed on the said application is without jurisdiction. Thus, the impugned order at Annexure 'H' dated 24.6.2010 and the consequential order at Annexure 'M' dated 29.10.2010 passed by the first respondent are without authority of law. 6. Even otherwise, it is clear from the materials on record that during the relevant period, the petitioner was posted on election duty. That is why the petitioner could not appear before the Commission and respond to the notice issued by the Commission. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and it is accordingly allowed. The order at Annexure 'H' dated 24.6.2010 and the consequential order at Annexure 'M' dated 29.10.2010 passed by the first respondent are hereby quashed. No costs. Sd/-JUDGE.BMM/-
Hello sir I need help. I have applied for first appeal. Within how many days hearing should be done? If the hearing results on my favor, with in how many days PIO should give the information from the hearing date? Thanks.