- 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 'deepak sandhu'.
Found 5 results
rtiindia posted a post in Section 19[caption id=attachment_1879" align="aligncenter" width="600] RTI for Ration Card[/caption] On a RTI for Ration card pertaining to third party, the commission has allowed disclosure of information with a legible attested photocopy of the computerized record of the ration card of Shri Jaiveer Singh as requested in the RTI application as after hearing the case it was felt that it is in the larger public interest provide the information. Not only the above disclosure was allowed, the CIC also directed to provide affidavit to the Commission with copy to the appellant that there are no other records held by the public authority pertaining to the matter of the RTI application (regarding issue of ration card to Shri Jaiveer Singh). Over our forum, we have numerous questions on applicability of RTI for Ration Card. Those all related posts can be read here: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/tags/ration-card.html and you can also search of the related help on Ration card from here: http://goo.gl/a0QK0A Case Details of RTI for Ration Card Appellant submitted RTI application dated 9 May 2012 before the CPIO, Department of Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs (GNCT), New Delhi seeking details regarding the documents submitted by Shri Jaiveer Singh for obtaining his Ration Card. Vide Order dated 14 June 2012, Appellant was informed by the CPIO that documents sought are not available in the office. Appellant preferred first Appeal to the First Appellate Authority. Vide Order dated 31 July 2012, FAA allowed Appellant to inspect the Concerned file(s). Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission. Decision of CIC on RTI for Ration Card According to the CIC decision uploaded "After hearing both the parties Commission is satisfied that disclosure of information in the present case is in the larger public interest and directs the CPIO to provide the appellant with a legible attested photocopy of the computerized record of the ration card of Shri Jaiveer Singh as requested in the RTI application. Further, CPIO is directed to forward a copy of Commission’s order to the ‘third party’ Shri Jaiveer Singh informing him the outcome of the present case in the light of “Larger Public Interest” The CPIO will also provide affidavit to the Commission with copy to the appellant that there are no other records held by the public authority pertaining to the matter of the RTI application (regarding issue of ration card to Shri Jaiveer Singh). Information as above to be provided and action as above to be completed within two weeks of receipt of the order. (Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Chief Information Commissioner Citation: Appeal: No. CIC/AD/A/2012/002971/DS
rtiindia posted a post in Section 25The commission has not allowed joint inspection of properties under MCD by using RTI Act provisions where the contention of inspection was to expose unauthorised construction in the larger public interest and that it's an exercise to disclose conspiracy between the Officers of MCD and constructers. Inspection of the ‘information’ would certainly not include private ‘house property’ as it would lead to interpretation of section 2 (f) and 2 (j) in too liberal a fashion. It is only the report/document/sample generated after inspection and which is within the domain of the public authority that can be accessed under the provisions of the RTI Act. ‘Any material in any form’ may not be equated with the term ‘material in ANY FORM’ as such comparison is odious and evidently overreaches the legislative intent. Secondly, Inspection of the properties would certainly attract Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act as it would invade the privacy of the owner/occupant(s) of the said property which is a Fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India unauthorised construction in MCD The RTI Applicant has insisted that the Commission under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act may direct the MCD to allow joint inspection with the MCD Officials of properties which have illegally constructed their houses. Pursuant to the Commission’s Orders dated 27 August 2013, and 30 October 2013, a full bench of the Commission had been constituted in this cases. Matter was heard on 21 November 2013. The commission noted that there are two issues involved in the present case: Whether the Central Information Commission (hereinafter “Commission”) has the ‘power to direct’ the Public Authority i.e. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter “MCD”) to allow inspection of the Private/Third Party properties to the Appellant-in person along with technical staff/Engineers of the MCD under the RTI Act, 2005 or the DMC Act. The second issue before the Commission is (in case the Commission has the power to direct the said ‘inspection of the properties’) whether such inspection would invade the privacy of the individual owner and/or occupant of the said property and would hence attract Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Commission Decision: The powers of the Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act specifically allow the CIC to inquire into any complaint filed by the RTI Applicant. The said section further allows the CIC to initiate an enquiry into the matter, if required which includes summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons, receiving evidence on affidavit, inspection of documents, etc. However, CIC does not have any power under Section 18 of the Act to allow Joint inspection of third party property to a RTI Applicant. Section 18 further does not grant power to the CIC to disclose any information to the RTI Applicant. Inspection’ does not have any relationship to any Public Activity or interest specially in the presence of alternate mechanism to carry out such inspection by the MCD officials as per the Provisions of the DMC Act. On the contrary, allowing such inspection of the personal property to ‘third party’ under the RTI Act may inculcate the ‘misuse’ of this privileged transparency right which will not be in the larger public interest. Appeal No: CIC/DS/A/2012/002173, CIC/DS/A/2012/002176 and CIC/DS/A/2012/002184 Appellant : Shri A.D. Sharma Public Authority : Municipal Corporation Delhi Date of Hearing : 21.11.2013 Date of Decision : 17.12.2013 Smt. Deepak Sandhu Chief Information Commissioner Shri Basant Seth & Shri Rajiv Mathur Information Commissioners Decision of the CIC: http://rti.cc/property
rtiindia posted a post in Section 20[caption id=attachment_2106" align="alignright" width="300] false and misleading information[/caption] Senior citizen was made to run from pillar to post by providing false and misleading information. When the appeal came for hearing at CIC and the misdeed was exposed, the CPIO again requested for 30 more days to trace out the information after spending 9 months over it. Rightly so, the CIC imposed a compensation for the detriment and harassment caused to the appellant on account of this delay and Commission directed the public authority to pay compensation of Rs. 3000/– to the appellant. Providing false and misleading information The Fact of the case are as under: It was confirmed by the representatives of DTL that the information sought by the appellant was in fact held by them but they could not offer any reasons by way of explanation as to why they had previously stated before the Commission that the information was held by GENCO. It was confirmed that the holder of information is Shri SK Jain, Assistant Manager Finance After hearing the averments of both parties, Commission passes stricture on Shri KG Vishwanathan, Manager (Finance)/PIO and Shri Vasu Dev, Manager (HRD)/PIO who appeared before the Commission in the same matter on 24 October 2013 and provided false and misleading information to the Commission that the information sought by the appellant was held by GENCO when all along they were in fact the holders of the requested information. This has wasted the time and resources of the public authority and the Commission and they are warned to be more careful in future. The appellant is a senior citizen who has retired from the services of the public authority and has been running from pillar to post to obtain the requested information which is yet to receive even though his RTI application dated 25 February 2013 is addressed to the PIO DTL and as per the provisions of the Act, the appellant was intended to receive the requested information from the PIO within 30 days of preferring his RTI application. However more than nine months had elapsed and now the CPIO, DTL has requested for 30 more days time to trace out the information and furnish the same to the appellant. 3. Accordingly, Commission allows 30 days time from today to the CPIO/Assistant Manager Finance, and CPIO, HRD, DTL to provide the requested information to the appellant failing which they will attract penalty. 4. For the detriment and harassment caused to the appellant on account of this delay, Commission directs the public authority namely DTL to pay compensation of Rs. 3000/– to the appellant within one week of receipt of the order. (Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Chief Information Commissioner Adjunct to Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/001281 Appellant /Complainant : Shri S.K. Jain, New Delhi Public Authority : Delhi Transco, New Delhi (Sh.G. Srikumar, PIO/HR, Sh. Vasu Dev, PIO(HR) DTL Sh. Satya Parkash, Asstt. ) Date of Hearing : 03 December 2013 Date of Decision : 03 December 2013 Decision download: http://rti.cc/3j Here are the various discussion threads on False and misleading information: http://rti.cc/3k
Commission found that there has been a delay of over 500 days in providing the information to the appellant and imposes a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/– on the former PIO Earlier, vide Commission’s order of even number dated 21 August 2013, matter pertaining to show cause notice was issued to the former PIO. Respondent who had appeared on behalf of the public authority confirmed that the notice of the Commission was served on the former PIO. The Ghost of RTI behind the former CPIO Commission was satisfied that the show cause notice has been served on the former PIO who has chosen not to appear before the Commission for personal hearing before imposition of penalty. Therefore as per the provisions of section 20 (1) of the Act, Commission notes that there has been a delay of over 500 days in providing the information to the appellant and imposes a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/– on the former PIO, Shri J P Sharma Transport Dept., GNCTD. This amount will be deducted in five equal instalments @ Rs.5,000/ pm. The Transport Commissioner, GNCTD of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the salary of the Shri J.P. Sharma, former CPIO and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker’s cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Director and Joint Registrar of the Central Information Commission, 2nd. Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs. 5000/ per month every month from the salary of the CPIO and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from January, 2014.The total amount of Rs. 25,000/ will be remitted by 10th of June, 2014. Adjunct to Appeal: No. CIC/AD/A/2012/003082/DS Appellant /Complainant : Shri Yashpal Arora, Delhi Public Authority : Transport Department (GNCT),Delhi (Shri Ashok Kumar, MLO) Date of Hearing : 02 December 2013 Date of Decision : 02 December 2013 Decision: http://rti.cc/2u (Smt. Deepak Sandhu) Chief Information Commissioner
Atul Patankar posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported at indopia.in on 25 August 2009 New Delhi, Aug 25 (PTI) Former media advisor to the Prime Minister Deepak Sandhu is among the front runners for the post of Information Commissioner in Central Information Commission, official sources said today. Her name is understood to have figured during a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and attended by leader of opposition L K Advani, they said. The post fell vacant after Omita Paul joined as Official on Special Duty to Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee. The Commission which can have maximum of 10 information commissioners, as per the RTI Act, has seven members including the Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah. The appointment of Information Commissioners at the transparency panel is done by a committee comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and a Union Minister nominated by the PM. Source: National : Deepak Sandhu front runner for the post of Info Commissioner : 660233