Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'faa'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Request for Community Support
  • Connect with Community
  • Learn about RTI
  • Website News & Support
  • Read RTI News & Stories
  • RTI Act Critics's RTI Act Critics Topics
  • Fans of RTI India's Fans of RTI India Topics
  • Insurance Consumer's Insurance Consumer Topics
  • Activists of Transparency and Accountability's Activists of Transparency and Accountability Topics
  • Issues with BWSSB's Issues with BWSSB Topics
  • Law+Order-Bangalore-32's Law+Order-Bangalore-32 Topics
  • Issues With Electricity Board's Issues With Electricity Board Topics
  • RTI Activists's RTI Activists Topics
  • YOGA's YOGA Topics
  • help each other's help each other Topics
  • forest and wild life's forest and wild life Topics
  • Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C.'s Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C. Topics
  • RTI Activist+Politics's RTI Activist+Politics Topics
  • hostels and lodging places's hostels and lodging places Topics
  • RTI Activists in Rajasthan.'s RTI Activists in Rajasthan. Topics
  • RTI info warriors in Haryana's RTI info warriors in Haryana Topics
  • DisABILITY Rights and RTI's DisABILITY Rights and RTI Topics
  • Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI.'s Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI. Topics
  • Eco club's Eco club Topics
  • Self Employment in Sport's Self Employment in Sport Topics
  • RTI related to land issue's RTI related to land issue Topics
  • Open SourceTechnology support to RTI's Open SourceTechnology support to RTI Topics
  • TRAP group's TRAP group Topics
  • Odisha RTI Activists's Odisha RTI Activists Topics
  • right to information activists's right to information activists Topics
  • Mumbai's Mumbai Topics
  • Chartered Accountants's Chartered Accountants Topics
  • ngosamachar's ngosamachar Topics
  • Growing INDIA's Growing INDIA Topics
  • we are all friends.'s we are all friends. Topics
  • RTI for Government employees's RTI for Government employees Topics
  • Dhanus - Pending Salaries's Dhanus - Pending Salaries Topics
  • Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors's Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Topics
  • Mahamumbai's Mahamumbai Topics
  • M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech's M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech Topics
  • Corruption's Corruption Topics
  • minority engineering colleges in maharashtra's minority engineering colleges in maharashtra Topics
  • RiGhTs's RiGhTs Topics
  • ram's ram Topics
  • anti corrupt police's anti corrupt police Topics
  • Save Girl in Punjab's Save Girl in Punjab Topics
  • Rent Apartment in US's Rent Apartment in US Topics
  • RTI Kerala's RTI Kerala Topics
  • maharashtra's maharashtra Topics
  • Right Way Of India(RTI)'s Right Way Of India(RTI) Topics
  • Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India's Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India Topics
  • Navi Mumbai's Navi Mumbai Topics
  • electricity curruption in up's electricity curruption in up Topics
  • SHARE n STOCKS trading's SHARE n STOCKS trading Topics
  • Civil Engineers-CAD's Civil Engineers-CAD Topics
  • Nitin Aggarwal's Nitin Aggarwal Topics
  • ex-serviceman activities's ex-serviceman activities Topics
  • SSCC's SSCC Topics
  • Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates's Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates Topics
  • jharkhand RTI activist group's jharkhand RTI activist group Topics
  • Suhail's Suhail Topics
  • govt.servant's govt.servant Topics
  • RTI Uttar pradesh's RTI Uttar pradesh Topics
  • anti-corruption team's anti-corruption team Topics
  • Manaism's Manaism Topics
  • Insurance's Insurance Topics
  • sonitpur datri sewa samity's sonitpur datri sewa samity Topics
  • indian youth manch's indian youth manch Topics
  • HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies's HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies Topics
  • youth's youth Topics
  • aastha's aastha Topics
  • RTI for Citizens's RTI for Citizens Topics
  • learn always's learn always Topics
  • R.T.I.'s R.T.I. Topics
  • Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana's Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana Topics
  • Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna's Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna Topics
  • MBA, business and new entrepreneur.....'s MBA, business and new entrepreneur..... Topics
  • students seeking help's students seeking help Topics
  • RTI Corporate's RTI Corporate Topics
  • Electrical group's Electrical group Topics
  • V4LRights's V4LRights Topics
  • Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool's Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool Topics
  • Gaming's Gaming Topics
  • WE Born to help's WE Born to help Topics
  • help the elderly citizen's help the elderly citizen Topics
  • Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association's Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association Topics
  • Corruption free Country's Corruption free Country Topics
  • surajyam's surajyam Topics
  • kanpurvictims's kanpurvictims Topics
  • Railway Group A Services's Railway Group A Services Topics
  • Encroachment of public property by private giants's Encroachment of public property by private giants Topics
  • Case Status - Anti Corruption's Case Status - Anti Corruption Topics
  • Aam Aadmi (The Common Man)'s Aam Aadmi (The Common Man) Topics
  • Court Marriage in Punjab's Court Marriage in Punjab Topics
  • ALL's ALL Topics
  • Youth India Social Group (YISG)'s Youth India Social Group (YISG) Topics
  • ye kya fandda h's ye kya fandda h Topics
  • mindset's mindset Topics
  • anti corruption's anti corruption Topics
  • activism's activism Topics
  • common's common Topics
  • state group's state group Topics
  • social help group's social help group Topics
  • landlords of uttar pradesh's landlords of uttar pradesh Topics
  • Concern Citizens Forum for India's Concern Citizens Forum for India Topics
  • edusystem's edusystem Topics
  • Ratna Jyoti's Ratna Jyoti Topics
  • development in indian village's development in indian village Topics
  • technovision's technovision Topics
  • Mighty India's Mighty India Topics
  • Against Corporate Fraud's Against Corporate Fraud Topics
  • Stop crime's Stop crime Topics
  • NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti's NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Topics
  • Authenticated Public Plateform's Authenticated Public Plateform Topics
  • shalin's shalin Topics
  • terminater's terminater Topics
  • RTI Wind Energy's RTI Wind Energy Topics
  • Go..................?'s Go..................? Topics
  • Co-Op Housing Society's Co-Op Housing Society Topics
  • we are equal's we are equal Topics
  • Phoenix Deals's Phoenix Deals Topics
  • Theft Cases in chandigarh's Theft Cases in chandigarh Topics
  • Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits's Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits Topics
  • Solar Systems's Solar Systems Topics
  • Get aware about ur Education and related rights's Get aware about ur Education and related rights Topics
  • Save Mumbai's Save Mumbai Topics
  • Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board's Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board Topics
  • ashayen's ashayen Topics
  • unemployment's unemployment Topics
  • Employee Solution's Employee Solution Topics
  • is kanpur university against sc/st's is kanpur university against sc/st Topics
  • prayatna's prayatna Topics
  • Parking woes's Parking woes Topics
  • Helping RTI INDIA web development's Helping RTI INDIA web development Topics


  • Uncategorized
  • Section 18 (1)
  • Section 11
  • For Common Man
  • Section 16
  • Section 2(h)
  • Section 8 (1)(j)
  • Simplified RTI
  • Government Employee and RTI
  • RTI Act 2005
  • Success Stories
  • Exempt Organisation
  • DG IT
  • Section 8 (1) (e)
  • Section 2 (h) (d) (i)
  • Supreme Court Decisions
  • Section 2 (j) (i)
  • Section 2
  • Section 8
  • Section 20
  • Section 19
  • SIC Punjab
  • High Court Decisions
  • Section 9
  • Section 24
  • DoPT
  • RTI Awareness
  • Section 6 (3)
  • Section 6
  • Section 2 (f)
  • Opinion
  • Department of Posts
  • Ministry of Railways
  • Departments
  • Ministry of Home Affairs
  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs
  • Ministry of Law & Justice
  • Government of NCT of Delhi
  • Delhi Police
  • Ministry of Human Resource Development
  • Staff Selection Commission
  • Court Decisions
  • CIC Decisions
  • Activism
  • Section 25
  • University
  • Section 7
  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Section 3
  • RTI Discussions
  • Section 19 (8) (b)
  • Section (1) (d)
  • Section 8 (1) (d)
  • DIrectorate of Education
  • Govt of NCT of Delhi
  • Cooperative Housing Society
  • RTI for School
  • Member RTI
  • Municipal Corporation
  • Ministry of Defence


  • RTI Directory
  • Important RTI Decisions
  • Other Important Court Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts & Circulars


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...

Found 38 results

  1. 1. The PIO has not provide information against point no. xx, xx etc. of the RTI application. 2. The PIO has declined information against point no. xx of the RTI application by merely quoting the exemption to information under section 8(1)(h) / 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 without giving meaningful justification for arriving at that reason for denial. This is against letter and spirit of RTI Act. Please find the following persuasive precedents wherein the concerned authorities have ruled that merely quoting the bare clause of the Act does not imply that the reasons have been given: Decisions of CIC [Central Information Commission]: A] CIC/OK/A/2006/00163 dated 7 July, 2006: B] CIC/SG/A/2011/003607/17371 dated 10-03-2012: C] CIC/BS/A/2013/000681/4968 dated 24-04- 2014: COURT JUDGMENTS: D] Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF DELHI in W. P. © 12428/2009 & CM APPL 12874/2009 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE versus D.K.SHARMA –Judgement dated 15-12-2010: E] Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Ibrahim Kunju v. State of Kerala AIR 1970 Ker 65: F] Judgment of HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI in WP© No. 3114/2007 decided on 03.12.2007 : 3. Also, please find the following Case Laws / Persuasive Precedents wherein the concerned authorities have ruled disclosure of information pertaining to police investigation, Police Diary / Daily Diary / Case Diary: A] IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI in W.P.© 12428/2009, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ….. Petitioner versus D.K.SHARMA ….. Respondent In person. B] Smt. Jagvinder Kaur v/s. PIO,Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda: Following is the relevant excerpt from the Decision of the Hon’ble Punjab State Information Commission: C] Sri Virag R. Dhulia Versus (i) PIO & lnspector of Police, Mahadevapur Police Station, Bangalore (ii) FAA & Deputy police Commissioner, DCP East Zone, Ulsoor Police Station, Bangalore Following is the relevant excerpt from the Decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka State Information Commission: 4. Thus, non-disclosure of such information would be against the letter and spirit of the objectives to be achieved vide the enactment of the preamble of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which lays down as follows (emphasis added): Furthermore, with due respect to the police inspectors who are investigating these said incidents, it needs to be acknowledged that, in a democracy, it is the citizens who are the ultimate inspectors over and above their (police inspector's) work, and which is evident from the letter and spirit of section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005, which lays down as follows:
  2. 15 downloads

    A perusal of Section 20 of the Act shows that it makes a provision to impose penalty either on Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer. However, there is no provision to initiate a departmental inquiry against the First Appellate Authority as per the Section 20 of the Act.
  3. RTI Act - Section 6(3) Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information,— (i) which is held by another public authority; or (ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made. shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such transfer: Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later than five days from the date of receipt of the application. Cabinet Secretariat is a public authority under RTI Act. It has number of departments/sections located in various buildings in Delhi. Recently a CPIO in Cabinet Secretariat transferred my RTI application to another CPIO in Cabinet Secretariat under Section 6(3) of RTI Act. I filed first appeal against this decision as Section 6(3) is for transfer of RTI application from one public authority to another public authority. To my surprise FAA rejected my appeal saying that as other CPIO is sitting in another building CPIO has rightly transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3). I request your views on this.
  4. First Appellate Authority decided the case without inviting RTI Applicant for hearing. Central Information Commission remanded back the RTI case to First Appellate Authority (FAA) with directions to decide the appeal after affording an opportunity to the appellant for hearing. Not giving personal hearing to the appellant to make their submissions is against the principles of natural justice and even the provisions of Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act 2005. Thus, it is not legally tenable. (Learn how to file RTI Online here with our simple guide) Earlier the CPIO vide his response had simply denied the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under Section 11 of the RTI Act 2005 without mentioning as to whether the comments of the Third Party was invited or not. Surprisingly, FAA mentioned that the procedure laid down relating to third party has been followed by the CPIO and the parties concerned have given in writing that the applicant has family disputes and business rivalry with them and as per the Section 11 of the RTI Act 2005, no such information may be given to him. CIC recorded that "the views of CPIO and FAA are in a divergent direction. As such, these are not legally tenable." Personal hearing important while deciding first appeal under RTI The Commission was of the considered view that it is a fit case to be remanded back to learned FAA with a direction to disposed of the appellant’s First Appeal, under the provisions of RTI Act 2005, afresh, after affording an opportunity to the appellant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. As such, the case is remanded back. Shri S P Goyal Vs The Dy. Commissioner cum CPIO O/o. the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot (GRFL) Sahnewal, G T Road, Ludhiana, File No. CIC/KY/A/2014/0000287 dated 01.07.2014 (This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must read and download the decision from the CIC website. If you have any query, kindly post it over our website here!)
  5. If First Appellate Authority claims that applicant has expressed satisfaction with the information furnished before the appellate authority, does the Appellant is precluded from preferring a second appeal on the same RTI application.? The Central Information Commission rejected the claim and directed the FAA to again hear the applicant afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing. The Commission relied on Section–102 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which is extracted hereinafter: 102. On whom burden of proof lies.-The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Still file Second Appeal The onus to prove the fact of having made a statement of satisfaction as well as contents thereof lies on the Respondent. The Commission cannot adjudicate a question of fact in absence of any corroboration tendered by the respondents. The decision can be read here: CIC_CC_A_2014_001218_M_180551 You can discuss the issue on our forums here!
  6. Central Information Commission in one of the decision opined that "as far as possible give the appellant including the third party, if any, an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant." You can read the RTI Act here! CIC further states that "It is needless to say that rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is conducive to fairness and transparency and accords with the principles of natural justice. An opportunity of hearing to the parties also brings greater clarity to the adjudicating authorities." It noted that "This Commission always gives an opportunity of hearing to the parties but this does not appear to be usually done by the FAAs, as probably there are practical difficulties therein, partly arising out of the number of appeals involved and partly due to the limited time frame in which the matters are required to be decided." Hearing during second appeal Earlier the RTI applicant has stated that inspite of specific request the First Appellate Authority decided his appeal without giving him any opportunity of hearing which is against the basic principles of natural justice. The decision can be read from here! You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
  7. Hearing of first appeal by FAA a must after issue of hearing notice The CIC has ruled that it is mandatory for a FAA to conduct a proper hearing after issuing a Notice of Hearing to the appellant. Otherwise the order of the FAA can be set aside. Summary: 1. Passing orders in first appeal without hearing or sending hearing notice is illegaland will render the order invalid. The Commission sets aside the order of FirstAppellate Authority for violating RTI Act and breach of natural justice by denying theappellant a chance of presenting his case and by raising entirely a new defencewhich was never claimed. Commission finds it deserves action though theconcerned officer retired from service and recommends Public Authority to initiatedisciplinary action against the concerned FAO for acting totally against the RTI Actin this case. First Appeal hearing mandatory.pdf
  8. NGT Registrar General passed 'illegal' RTI orders as FAA: CIC New Delhi: Central Information Commission has come down heavily on Registrar General ofNational Green Tribunal for issuing "illegal" orders "without application of mind" on RTI pleas, saying such actions will obstruct furnishing of information and scare away applicants. While issuing a show-cause notice to Registrar General Sanjay Kumar, Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu also recommended that he be replaced from the post of First Appellate Authority (FAA) under RTI matters at the Tribunal. Kumar, the senior most officer in NGT, was directed to explain why he passed "such illegal orders, why he spent so much of time without hearing the appeal within the time prescribed by the Right to Information Act and insisted on personal presence and presentation of affidavits." Acharyulu said as the NGT is suffering from absence of coordination within the office, the Environment Secretary should look into administrative problems of the Tribunal. The case relates to activist Subhash Agrawal who had sought to know, through multiple RTI applications, the details of vehicles purchased and sold by NGT, rules and procedures etc on sanctioning of leave, LTC etc of the Chairman and members besides statistics about RTI applications and first appeals. National Green Tribunal is the legal body for adjudication of environmental issues. Not getting response in time, Agrawal approached the Commission alleging Kumar caused him serious harassment by insisting on his presence to prove originality of his RTI application, to explain about his RTI applications and prove number of envelops, postal orders and their genuineness. Kumar also wanted him to file affidavit duly verified and attested by the competent authority mentioning all the facts. "The Commission finds that there is substance in the complaints made by the complainant. Some of the aspects of the interim orders of the FAA are funny and strange. They will definitely impose obstructions in the process of furnishing information according to the RTI Act. It will scare away the information seekers," Acharyulu said. He said Kumar has not "applied his mind" to the facts, law and the circumstances of the case and made the hearing of the first appeal a very elaborate and unnecessary exercise on trivial matters because of which furnishing of information was totally obstructed. "The Commission also observes that the FAA orders reflect lack of understanding of law in furnishing the information which is harmful to the public authority (NGT)," he said. The Central Public Information Officer of NGT, sub-ordinate of FAA, who was present during the hearing said he does not want to continue to handle RTI responses as he was over burdened with work as he is also Accounts Officer of the Tribunal looking after Accounts Division. He said he has to personally go to another section to use the computer for typing the RTI responses. Acharyulu said, "Having heard the submissions, the Commission comes to conclusion that it is not proper to burden an Accounts Officer with RTI related work. "The Commission recommends the Public Authority to replace the CPIO with another officer by providing necessary infrastructure including the computer operator, so that he could attend the RTI matters in a careful manner, which is desirable for an esteemed organisation like the NGT which is dealing with important matters like environment/pollution." Read More: NGT Registrar General passed 'illegal' RTI orders as FAA: CIC | Zee News
  9. 1. The noble act called RTI was enacted by the former UPA Government. It was a great contribution by the former UPA Government to democracy. The present NDA Government is committed to good governance, containing corruption & institution building. But the Central Information Commission is flooded and stagnated with over 36,000 matters in the form of appeals and complaints. Why? 2. Had the First Appellate Authority decided the matter on merits and disposed the first appeal with fairness and justice, there would have been no need for the appellant / complainant to take the matter to Central Information Commission to flood the said commission with many simple matters that must have been disposed at the level of First Appellate Authority. 3. Why didn’t First Appellate Authority decide the matter with fairness and justice? There is no legal obligation on First Appellate Authority to dispose the matter with fairness and justice because there is no penal provision in the said act even if he decides the first appeal otherwise. 4. There is penal provision only for Public Information Officer, the subordinate of First Appellate Authority. Administratively the Public Information Officer has to act in obedience to First Appellate Authority, a superior officer. Therefore, virtually the decision of the Public Information Officer is the decision of the First Appellate Authority only. Ipso facto, the First Appellate Authority can’t decide against that decision of the Public Information Officer, which is challenged by the appellant, actually because of conflict of interest and moreover it was simply because the First Appellate Authority has to pass an order against his own virtual decision and stand defeated in the eye of the Public Information Officer later in the event of disposal of first appeal with fairness and justice. 5. However, there are many First Appellate Authorities who pass reasoned, speaking order with fairness and justice notwithstanding the decision of the Public Information Officer. Treating fair & just First Appellate Authorities equally with unfair & unjust First Appellate Authorities is not good governance. 6. Hence, the law has to make course corrections by changing the worst things best to prevent continued and compounding accumulation of Second Appeals and Complaints in Hon’ble Central Information Commission. Had the First Appellate Authorities rendered justice fairly and squarely, the present unfortunate condition of the Hon’ble Central Information Commission would not have come. 7. It is also embarrassing for the Hon’ble Central Information Commission because it can’t dispose matters in time but has to penalize officers below for not disposing matters timely, fairly and justly. This poor indicator of democracy needs to be improved by the present Government sensitive to people-centered growth and development. 8. It is also unfair to punish the lower level officers only for the decisions of the public authorities, which are managed, supervised and controlled by superior officers, the First Appellate Authorities, who are spared unfairly and unjustly because of the said loophole in the RTI Act, 2005, that burdens the said Hon’ble Central Information Commission. 9. Today the RTI Act, 2005, has come to a standstill at its highest temple of justice. Any good Government will take cognizance of this injury to democracy and will contribute to such institution building, responsive to pleadings of citizens of this nation. 10. Therefore, on 16-01-2015, I submitted a representation to Hon’ble Prime Minister, Hon’ble Law Minister, Hon’ble Minister for Personnel, requesting them to arrange for bringing in amendments to RTI Act, 2005, enacting penal provisions for First Appellate Authority. My representation is attached herewith for your kind perusal, please. 11. If the readers of this thread in this forum feel that I have liberty to request them, they need to do the needful in the form of similar representations, signature campaigns, coordinated demonstrations, and other forms of expression of interests in this matter seeking amendments to RTI Act, 2005, to enact penal provisions to First Appellate Authority to save the institution called Central Information Commission and of course the ​information democracy. Thanking you and this forum....​ RELATED THREADS IN THIS FORUM Appellate Authority can be recommended for Disciplinary action if he acts like a normal "senior officer" http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/9145-appellate-authority-can-recommended-disciplinary-action-if-2.html Punish FAA http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/5760-punish-faa.html Are there any instances/judgments in which FAA has been punished etc? http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/64931-there-any-instances-judgments-faa-has-been.html Ensuring the integrity / accountability of First appeals http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/128558-ensuring-integrity-accountability-first-appeals.html REPRESENTATION TO UNION MINISTERS - AMENDMENT SEEKING PENALTY FOR FAA IN RTI ACT- 16-01-2015..pdf
  10. Please refer attachment, where this issue is discussed in details and will be useful to serious users of RTI BCAI JAN 2015.pdf
  11. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB SCO No. 84-85, SECTOR-17-C,CHANDIGARH. ( www.infocommpunjab.com) Shri Rohit Sabharwal, Kundan Bhawan, 126, Model Gram, Ludhiana. ….Appellant Vs Public Information Officer, O/o Municipal Corporation Ludhiana. Respondent AC-410/2009(earlier CC- 940 /2009) Present: Shri Rohit Sabharwal, Appellant in personandShri Saurabh Gupta, Advocate, on behalf of the Appellant Shri Vinod Sharda, Assistant Commissioner-cum-PIO and Shri Harish Bhagat Legal Assistant-cum-Nodal APIO, on behalf of the Respondent. ORDER 1. The case was last heard on 23.06.2009 when Shri Vinod Sharda, Assistant Commissioner-cum-PIO was issued show cause notice for imposing penalty upon him for the delay in the supply of information and for awarding compensation to the Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him. 2. Shri Vinod Sharda places on record an affidavit dated 7.7.2009 explaining reasons for delay alongwith orders of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana appointing him as PIO. One copy is handed over to the Appellant in the Court today in our presence. 3. The Respondent hands over requisite information running into 299 sheets to the Appellant in the court today in our presence. The Appellant states that he wants time to study the information. He further states that action may be taken against the PIO for the delay in the supply of information. 4. Shri Vinod Sharda states that he was appointed as PIO on 18.5.2009 and prior to his appointment Shri K. S. Kahlon and Shri Devinder Singh, PCS were the PIOs. Accordingly, Shri Sharda is directed to supply a list of PIOs during the period in question so that responsibility could be fixed and necessary action could be taken against the concerned PIO for the delay in the supply of information. 5. The Appellant informs the Commission that First Appellate Authority did not take any action on the first appeal filed by him and requests that action under Section 20(2) of RTI Act, 2005 may be taken against the First Appellate Authority. 6. Accordingly, Principal Secretary Local Government may take necessary action against Shri G. S. Ghuman, PCS, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana for not deciding the first appeal filed by the Appellant on 7.3.2009. 7. The case is adjourned and fixed for further hearing on 06.08.2009. 8. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties, Principal Secretary, Local Government, Punjab and Shri G. S. Ghuman, PCS, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. Sd/- Surinder Singh State Information Commissioner Sd/- Darbara Singh Kahlon State Information Commissioner Place: Chandigarh Dated: 07. 07. 2009 CC: 1. Principal Secretary Local Government Punjab, Mini Secretariat Punjab, Sector:9, Chandigarh. 2. Shri G. S. Ghuman, PCS, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. Action Against First Appellate Authority.doc
  12. In a extensively discussed and elaborated order, CIC (order is by IC A N Tiwari) has ruled that a Appellate Authority can be recommended for Disciplinary action under Sec 20(2) of the RTI Act if he acts more like a senior officer discharging his normal administrative duties. The appellant asked for some information from the CPIO of the LIC Zonal Office in Chennai. The information pertained to a lift which was not functioning properly in LIC's building. The CPIO gave vague replies and claimed that records are missing. The FAA did not give any reasoned order and just stated that as soon as records are found, they will be sent to the applicant. Moreover, the First Appeal Order was signed by the CPIO. The FAA is the Zonal Manager of LIC in Chennai. Matter went to Second Appeal and CIC: - Issued a show cause notice to the CPIO for penalty - Issued a show cause notice to FAA for disciplinary action - Asked the Chairman of LIC to investigate the matter - Asked Chairman of LIC to show cause as to why applicant should not be compensated In the second hearing at the CIC (when the notices were "returnable"), the CPIO/FAA/LIC Chairman/PA were represented by Senior Supreme Court Advocate P.N. Lekhi and Advocate Kamal Mehta. It is a 28 page order and members should read it because it not only raises several issues about the role of the Appellate Authority (as discussed many times in this forum) but also draws on many other High Court and Supreme Court orders. The CIC concluded that: 1. First Appellate Authority only performs a "quasi-judicial function". He cannot be equated to a court of law. Therefore he can be made a party to the CIC's proceedings. 2. The CIC has a right to impleade the FAA as a party to the hearing and also direct him to appear before it. 3. AA must sign the First appeal order himself and it cannot be signed by a CPIO. If it is so done, it can be concluded that the AA is delegating his duty to a subordinate, who is a party to the proceeding. 4. The FAA must act as a Appellate Authority and not as a senior officer of the Public Authority, discharging his normal administrative duties. If he does so, he is equally liable to Penalty under Sec 20(1) and Disciplinary Action under Sec 20(2), because he is acting like any other officer of the PA. 5. The head of the Public Authority (LIC Chairman) has been recommended to take disciplinary action against the FAA. 6. Compensation of Rs. 10,000 awarded to the applicant. 7. CIC asks the head of the Public Authority and CAG to to examine and study if Officers, who are found negligent in the matter of disclosure of information under the RTI Act 2005 or preventing its disclosure, should be allowed to defend themselves before the commission at the cost of the Public Authority - presumably, this means cost of expensive lawyers, advocates, legal advisers and other expenses like TA/DA which are all borne by the PA. The full order is attached to this post. AT-24102008-09.pdf
  13. The Supreme court in Appeal (civil) 3320-21 of 2001 - INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS (I) Vs. INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WELFARE & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/05/2002 explained in detail between an administrative act and quasi judicial act. The Supreme court held - The legal principles laying down when an act of a statutory authority would be a quasi-judicial act, which emerge from the aforestated decisions are these : Where - (a) a statutory authority empowered under a statute to do any act (b) which would prejudicially affect the subject © although there is no lis or two contending parties and the contest is between the authority and the subject and (d) the statutory authority is required to act judicially under the statute, the decision of the said authority is quasi-judicial. Applying the aforesaid principle, we are of the view that the presence of a lis or contest between the contending parties before a statutory authority, in the absence of any other attributes of a quasi-judicial authority is sufficient to hold that such a statutory authority is quasi judicial authority. However, in the absence of a lis before a statutory authority, the authority would be quasi-judicial authority if it is required to act judicially. Mere presence of one or two attributes of quasi judicial authority would not make an administrative act as quasi-judicial act. In some case, an administrative authority may determine question of fact before arriving at a decision which may affect the right of an appellant but such a decision would not be quasi-judicial act. It is different thing that in some cases fair-play may demand affording of an opportunity to the claimant whose right is going to be affected by the act of the administrative authority, still such an administrative authority would not be quasi-judicial authority. What distinguishes an administrative act from quasi-judicial act is, in the case of quasi-judicial functions under the relevant law the statutory authority is required to act judicially. In other words, where law requires that an authority before arriving at decision must make an enquiry, such a requirement of law makes the authority a quasi-judicial authority. It must be borne in mind that another test which distinguishes administrative function from quasi-judicial function is, the authority who acts quasi-judicially is required to act according to the rules, whereas the authority which acts administratively is dictated by the policy and expediency. Based on the clarifications provided by the supreme court it can be concluded that (a) The First appellate authority is a quasi-judicial authority. (b) A public information officer, who is bound by the statutory third party procedure under the RTI act, 2005, when dealing with third party information issues a notice of hearing to third party, thereby becomes a quasi judicial authority. The decision of the supreme court is attached with this post. Apex court - Explanation of the terms administrative function and quasi judical function.pdf
  14. While Public Information Officer denied the information on a question asked regarding steps taken for implementation of the DOPT guidelines regarding proactive disclosure of tours of officials of the rank of Joint Secretaries and above to implement and copies of all tour orders issued and details of TA/DA paid for each of Joint Secretaries of Central Vigilance Commission by quoting Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, however, on the other hand First Appellate Authority (FAA) has brought in a totally new provision by denying information u/s 8(1)(g) by quoting a CIC decision. FAA denied the information without giving a hearing to the RTI Applicant. What are your views? Use the comments in the article to post. You can discuss it at our forum too. The Appellant had argued in front of the CIC that the FAA by doing this, has brought in a totally new provision for denial of information which is not tenable as he was not allowed an opportunity to question this and he was not given a hearing. He further submitted that the CPIO vide letter dt 2.8.13 has already provided information relating to foreign and domestic travel of officers of the rank of JS and above. When such information has already been provided, he would be satisfied if similar information is provided in respect of the remaining staff also. Can First Appellate Authority bring in fresh provisions of RTI Act to deny information? The Commission remanded the case to the FAA with directions that he should provide a hearing to the appellant in terms of the Commission’s earlier orders and to provide information in respect of queries. CIC further recorded that "We also take an adverse view of the fact that the designated CPIO/FAA of the CVC failed to attend the hearing. A copy of this order be marked to Shri Pradeep Kumar, CVC, who may like to issue appropriate orders to his officials dealing with RTI matters to ensure that officials of the CVC, of an appropriate level, attend the hearings of the Commission." While going through the CIC decision quoted by FAA case no. CIC/AT/A/2009/000100 in the case of Shri Nihar Ranjan Banerjee, CVO and Shri Bidya Nand Mishra, DGM(Vig), Coal India Ltd Vs Shri MN Ghosh, it is found that CIC while reviewing it's own order has denied the information about the tour details, vehicle logbooks, purpose of visits, overtime payments of vigilance officer on following grounds: No public interest is served by their disclosure. On the contrary, there is a distinct possibility that disclosure of this information will compromise the functioning of the Vigilance Officers ⎯ the review-petitioners ⎯ and not only expose them to physical risks and intimidations, but impair their ability to carry-out their sensitive assignments. Information should be declined within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act During the hearing, it was submitted by the review-petitioners that the type of information which appellant had requested has always been held ⎯ insofar as it related to the officers of the Vigilance Department ⎯ as confidential within the meaning of Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act was designed for such contingencies and is entirely consistent with the provisions of RTI Act (Section 11(1)). Now, while the RTI Act, no-doubt, takes precedence over the Indian Evidence Act in a matter of inconsistency between their provisions, when the provisions of two Acts are consistent, the RTI Act and the Indian Evidence Act provisions should be harmoniously construed. I find that there is ample consistency between Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 11(1) of the RTI Act read with Section 2(n) of the same Act. In the circumstances and the atmosphere in which they work and the specificity of their sensitive assignment, the requested information had the potentiality of endangering the officers’ life and their physical safety, apart from leading to identification of the source of information or assistance given in confidence for discharge of their law-enforcement functions as Vigilance Officers. (in terms of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act) The citation is available here: Shri R.K. Jain Vs Central Vigilance Commission, File No: CIC/SM/A/2013/001325/RM dated 30.07.2014 You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
  15. I am a senior citizen from Mangalore trying to investigate suspected to be a major land scam by a Asylum Society Institution now more than 130 years old. I have written about it in this forum before see: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/116239-asylum-land-scam.html So, a couple of month before, I submitted RTI to the Sub-Registrar PIO seeking for the Society registration document of the Asylum during the period 1879 to 1890.The PIO replied ‘The society registration started in this office only since 1900-09 before which no society have been registered’. I find this reply malafide and misleading. Apart from that I find the manner of the reply totally disrespectful (if not contemptuous) to the RTI Act including Section7(8). For the reasons given in the following. 1.There is no name of the PIO below the signature or anywhere else in the reply. 2. Absolutely no mention of the period within which I should file my First Appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA). 3. The information about the FAA not given in the main reply but relegated to the end as a Foot note in bracket way below the signature, in the section of official use. However the most shocking was the 4the point; 4. The office address of the FAA given was of Bangalore which is some 365 Kilometer far from my city. I sent my First appeal to the FAA among other things requested the FAA hearing should be held in Mangalore. However received the FAA reply that I should attend to the FA hearing in their office Bangalore on 23rd April 2014. Immediately again I sent a “grievance” letter to the FAA mentioning the following:-- “I am a senior citizen retired and with health problems also no income of my own. At this stage I cannot afford to come to such a long distance place to attend my FAA Appeal hearing , neither afford a lawyer to do so. I believe it is totally discouraging and unacceptable to impose such a heavy financial burden on the poor lower-middle class people like me by asking them to attend their FAA Appeal hearing in such unaffordable costly way. It is unfair, I believe it goes entirely against the fundamental objective of the RTI Act2005”.--Thereby I asked the FAA to hold the hearing in Mangalore where the issue and PIO belong. I also suggested to the FAA if possible to instruct the PIO to be co-operative and settle the issue with me amicably so no need of any further Appeal . However no reply from them so far. Here are my main Inquiry/question to the forum: 1.Can the FAA hold the RTI First Appeal hearing in such a long distance place without giving the Appellate any option (despite the request) which make the appellant unable to attend the FAA hearing. 2. Is it necessary to mention the name of the PIO in his reply. 3. Is the mentioning of the period within which to apply FAA important in the PIO reply? Will the SIC consider all this as a serious violation of the RTI act? Anxiously waiting for your reply. Valerian Texeira Date: 25-4-2014
  16. Pl. let us know how to proceed in such cases? Have to move to High Court first to get the orders for reconstitution of missing records and then again confront the CIC with High Court"s order to that effect. In short, how should one go about constructing such case to get the requested records claimed 'missing' by the P.I.O of a Public Authority and the FAA and the CIC both condoning the callously casual attitude of the P.I.O in withholding the records and the information claiming them to be missing. As there are so many cases of this type it will help lot of information seekers who have thus been cheated by PIOs who claimed non availability of the requested records with impunity and the CIC condoning their act. I can cite at least four such cases. It will be of much help if the whole procedure is described in detail for our information and taking necessary action, when confronted with such a situation-SANJOG MAHESHWARI
  17. Many members and guests of this portal have posted their bitter experiences with SICs and specially the CIC for: 1. Mixing up Complaint and Appeal - ie registering a complaint as an second appeal or vice-versa 2. Passing orders without conducting a hearing 3. Remanding matters back to the FAA by using standard copy/paste orders Attached is a series of letters / orders in the case of Mr R K Jain v/s CESTAT which will guide and help members to combat such a situation. Surprisingly these orders have been removed from CIC website - for obvious reasons. 1. CIC remanding back a second appeal to the FAA - this is one of those typical copy/paste orders of IC SS, IC RM, IC DS, IC VS and IC BS. 2. Application from appellant requesting CIC to withdraw this order of remanding back a Complaint 3. Copy of CIC order "withdrawing the earlier order" 4. CIC adjunct order after rehearing the Complaint imposing penalty on CPIO ======== From the above, it is clear that if one fights with the CIC on strong grounds, then one can stop such illegal orders being passed by the CIC / SIC. Rectification Application to CIC against ex-party remand by IC 18 Feb 2012.pdf CIC allowing R K Jain Rectification of ex parte remand of Complaint.PDF CIC Order on Rehearing after R K Jain rectification Application.pdf CIC order remanding back to FAA 09 Feb 2012.pdf
  18. Could anybody tell me who is the PIO and FAA of a Tehsil office in Uttar Pradesh. AFAIK, the Tehsildar is APIO. Please also cite the source of your info if possible.
  19. Dear RTI Activists Greetings In GHMC Hyderabad it has become a practice. 1) When we file FA with FAA which is zonal commissioner, they call applicants to be present physically and conduct hearing like info commissioner in 2nd appeals. When there is no response from PIO and applicant file FA, what is the necessity of the applicant to be present. It should be between PIO and concerned FAA for not responding. 2) I applied for certain info with PIO circle 10 of GHMC. When there was no response, I filed FA. After filing FA, PIO gave me information, that too not complete. PIO took 71 days to respond. Mean time FAA called me for hearing and in hearing he asked the PIO to provide me required info , he did provide info but not complete. My question is:- If the way of conducting hearing is justifies ? if there is any provision in the act for conduction hearing by FAA 3) Can FAA fine or penalize PIO for delay 4) What is option available to applicant to get relief or compensation. Thanks in advance Habibuddin
  20. narendrapsin

    FAA after district magistrate,

    I filed an RTI to District magistrate for my pending arms license for 2 years. Please inform me that who is the FAA as I have not received answer from district magistrate , and will i have to attach postal order again in order to file first appeal?
  21. Dear RTI COMRADES, I faced many situations where the SPIO do not respond/reply to applicant. But after the FAA is shooted, they wake up only to send a back dated reply, which is sent in ordinary post, STATING they need MORE TIME as the data compilation needs time. The questions that strike my common sense are: 1. No reply from SPIO within 30 days NEVER raise any warning bell that a PROVISION OF LAW IS VIOLATED, which attracts PENALTY. 2. FAA never bother to instruct SPIO to reply on WAR-FOOTING. 3. That, the worst practice of BACK DATING is adopted. FAA is not concerned with these immoral practices. (I can quote, in my experience the WEST BENGAL POLICE DIRECTORATE, states in a letter which is back dated by 45 days that the base record on which my RTI is based is MISSING.) (Another case in this topic is, WEST BENGAL PERSONAL & ADMIN ISTRATIVE REFORMS - WBPAR. Here, the SPIO did not bother to reply and after my FAA, to my surprise, I got a "ORDER" dated Feb 6th 2012, stating that the matter of my application dated Dec2, 2011 was much conneceted with another department (HOME RTI DEPARTMENT, which is also officed in the same building complex), and said that it had transfered my application as per application of secion 6(3). It also stated that the transfer happened on January 25th, 2012 and the same had ALREADY BEEN COMMUNICATED TO ME. THE SHARP CONTRAST is that the FAA's ORDER cannot be termed as an ORDER. It is just a way of DISPOSAL which TRANSFERED the application to SPIO of another department but SHOCKINGLY IT IGNORED THE EMPHASIS OF SECTION 6(3) PARA 2, which states THAT SUCH TRANSFER BE DONE WITHIN 5 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF APPLICATION AND THE SAME BE COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICATION IMMEDIATELY. THE FUNNIEST PART OF IT IS THAT I RECEIVED THE TRANSFER CONFIRMATION WHICH SAID TO BE DATED JAN 25, 2012 REACHED ME ON FEB 17, 2012, WHEREAS THE FAA'S ORDER DATED FEB 6TH 2012 ALREADY HAD AN ATTACHMENT OF IT. 4. That RTI replies, which is a legal document are being dispatched through NORMAL post. 5. After all these hassles, the reply only contain that the info/data required is tedious and need MUCH time. Here also, the SPIO does not express the 'time required' in measurable terms (days) 6. In these situations can I again write to FAA insisting a hearing wherein I can discuss and solve the above 5 points or can i shoot Second Appeal or Complaint with SCIC...? Please comment.... Regards, S. Sridhar, Kolkata (Southwind)
  22. I am looking for First Appellate Authority of MHRD( Ministry of Human Resource Development). The RTI application that I filed with MHRD exceeded 35 days,, I will wait for 5 more days and proceed with first appeal. I couldn't find details about FAA in MHRD website.. Can someone help me out on this.. ? One more question.. In case I want to file a second appeal, to whom should I address the appeal..
  23. I filed RTI to get the information for the sanctioned post of lab assistant(which I later come to know that was taken back by the government in 1996) in my department in 1990.The PIO did'nt found the required information in his office.I took this chance to convey my grievance to senior official.The FAA heard me and direct the PIO to send him a fresh proposal for the revival of the post........! Thanks to RTI...........
  24. Hi All, Aggrieved by the insufficient and incomplete information provided by the Public Information Officer, I had filed the First Appeal with the First Appellate Authority which was received in his office on 7th February 2011 and The FAA is suppose to reply and dispose off the appeal before 22nd March 2011 (45 days). BUt, He didn't responded to my appeal, neither disposed the same off. Though I can file a Second appeal / Complaint with the information commission, I didn't do it Rather I had sent a reminder (as advised in this RTI Forum) reminding the FAA about my appeal. I had received the response for the same in early June But surprisingly, He disposed off the appeal rejecting the sought information on the same grounds mentioned by Public Information Officer, Though I had clearly explained in the appeal as to How those things won't comply with my case and how the Public Information Officer had intentionally dodged the information. The FAA seemed to have not read the appeal at all but just denied the information on the same grounds. Its been more than 90 days after these events happened (Time after filing the First appeal + receiving no response + sending a reminder + responding to the reminder but no information provided).. It is almost 6 months after the same. Is there any chance I can file a Second appeal with the Information Commission Now? Its been more than 90 days. But I heard that There are cases where commissions condone the delay in filing the second appeal following inclusion of necessary and required prayers in the appeal. I request the forum members to help me out with this. If I can file the second appeal even now, What are the relevant prayers/grounds I can mention in the appeal as the reasons for delay? If I cant file it now, is there any other way to go? Thanks and Regards Raghavendra
  25. Sir, CPIO has provided incomplete info so I had First appeal with FAA but more than a month over he is not responding. What I hv to do ? Tell me the procedure.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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