- 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 'final'.
Found 5 results
karira posted a topic in RTI in MediaSIC no to making service books of 164 officers public The Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission has quashed the order of first appellate officer in which it was directed topublic information officer to provide free of charge information of service books of 164 officers and employees. Generally, the citizens make second (final) appeal to the Commission against appellate officer and public information officer. In a rare case, a public information officer lodges second appeal against the appellate officer.The Commission in its hearing by its commissioner Atmadeep accepted the appeal and rejected the order of the first appellate officer. The rejection of the order will lead to a stop on making personal information public of more than 150 officers and employees along with principal of Govt. Kamlaraja Girls PG Autonomous College, Gwalior. Read More: SIC no to making service books of 164 officers public - Free Press Journal
murgie posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportThis is related to the thread on my request to SEBI for FII data (http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/1604-sebi-fii-data-question-regarding-what-post-site-relating-frustrating-rti-experience.html). I've just received the attached Notice of Hearing which asks me to be in Bombay at 10.30am on Wed, April 30, 2008, for the final hearing. (Given the delay that is evident from the CIC website, I suspect that subject matter has something to do with this relatively short lag since filing my appeal.) I am writing to ask for help I may need from someone in Bombay, who may also have an interest in the same matter, in case I am unable to attend the hearing myself. Since the SEBI officials are located in Bombay, and I had said in an earlier email I could be in Bombay in late April, they've scheduled the hearing for 11am, on Wed, April 30, 2008, through videoconference at the NIC site in Bombay. Even if I do come home in late April I have to get back to to the US to teach by April 29, so I've asked for a reconsideration of the date. If for some reason CIC cannot reschedule -- and they are so overburdened right now I can't blame them -- I will need to find a proxy to be present in my place. To be prepared for that I am writing to as many people as I can to find someone who will have the time and the interest to attend a hearing at 10.30am on April 30, 2008, in Bombay. An academic who is also hungry for the same FII data would be ideal. But the matter itself is certainly not rocket science, the facts are all very elementary, and even someone merely sympathetic to academic research, and who can make some time will do. The matter does not require a lawyer or a journalist -- whatever understanding of the RTI Act 2005 is needed for this matter I am sure I can provide (and this site can help many times more). In case you can think of a name of someone who may be able and willing to help, please let me know. Remember, once the FII data is available, it is available to all. (The history of the matter viewed from my end -- my initial request, SEBI's denial, my appeal, SEBI's subsequent denial, and my appeal filed with the CIC -- is now public information, and available on this website on the original thread referenced above.) Any other ideas, comments, suggestions, welcome. Best, Murgie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Murgie Krishnan Date: Dec 4, 2007 8:13 AM Subject: Re: Hearing through Video Conferencing on 30.4.2008 at 11:00 AM To: DC Singh Dear Shri DC Singh: Ref -- Case No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01251 On Wed, April 30, 2008, it is not feasible for me to be in Bombay, as I will have to be back in the US by April 29, to teach. The previous week, April 21-25, 2008, will be feasible, if I have to be in Bombay. On Wed, April 30, 11am will be 1.30am for me here in NJ the US. I CAN participate from home (through video over IP using software like SKYPE, which will however require that at the other end appropriate arrangements are made). Please let me know if you can consider some alternative to the arrangement stipulated in your notice of hearing. Else can I try and be represented by someone else on my behalf at this hearing through NIC in Bombay at 11am on April 30 in Bombay? (Since SEBI did not give me any opportunity to be heard even during the 1st appeal, despite my pleading for one, I am very keen to be present at a hearing myself at least now, so this alternative is LESS preferred. ) Please let me know what you can do with respect to the date of the hearing. I am very happy you have requested comments in advance on my appeal from the CPIO and Appellate Authority at SEBI, and directed them to furnish me a copy as well. Whether you will be able to monitor (before the hearing) if they do really send me a copy is a matter of some concern to me. I plan to send you email 3 weeks from now telling you if I have received any comments from SEBI on my appeal. Thank you for your time and attention. Best, Murgie Krishnan On Dec 4, 2007 6:30 AM, DC Singh wrote: Dear Mr. Murugappa (Murgie) Krishnan, This has reference to your e.mail dated 29.11.2007. The hearing in case no. CIC/AT/A/2007/01251 has been fixed through Video Conferencing on 30.4.2008 at 11:00 AM. Copy of notice is attached. Regards, D.C. Singh. from_CIC_Dec_4_2008_Hearing_Notice.doc
dear SN Gupta, I am reproducing the final order of the CIC. Pl. suggest action to be taken as they too have either come under inflluence of the bureaucrats, or the concerned officials have showed them some fabricated document, as the document on the basis of which action has been taken by them (the document sought by me) does not exist as that was never given to them by the russian customs, and it has to be given to me as it is the relied upon document on the basis of which action has been taken against me. so obtaining that document is my fundamental right. Central Information Commission ***** No.CIC/OK/A/2007/00555 Dated: 26 July 2007 Name of the Appellant : Shri Rajeev Verma B-I/592, Janakpuri New Delhi â€“ 110 058 Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of External Affairs Background: Shri Rajeev Verma of New Delhi filed an application with the PIO, Ministry of External Affairs, wherein the Appellant stated that on the basis of certain unsubstantiated and contradictory information from the Indian Embassy, the DGRI had taken severe penal action against the Appellant in India and the DRI had in the Show Cause Notice dated 24 December 2004 alleged that consignees in Russia to whom goods were being exported were either non-existent or had no import-export operations. For clearing his name, the Appellant requested for a photocopy of the letter written by the Russian Customs to the Indian Embassy. The CPIO vide his letter dated 22 August 2006 supplied the information. Not satisfied with the information, the Appellant filed an appeal with the first Appellate Authority on 12 September 2006. The bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the matter on 16 April 2007. 2. The case concernd the correspondence the Indian Embassy in Russia, had with the Department of Revenue Intelligence. From the two letters presented before the Commission, the stand taken by the Ministry of External Affairs seemed to be self-contradictory and hence the Commission felt that there may be a case of corruption involved in the whole issue. Therefore, although the Act provides for the fact that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence be kept outside the (DRI) purview of the RTI-Act as listed in Schedule II, the Commission took recourse to Section 2A(1) wherein it is stated: "Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security Organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being Organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such Organisations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:" 3. As this case seemed to fall into the latter category, the Commission felt that the records should be opened up to the Appellant. However, on a submission from the Respondents, the Commission agreed that the documents including the correspondence with the Russian Customs may be placed before the Commission itself in the first instance, which may then take a decision on whether this could be disclosed to the Appellant. The Commission accepted their submission. 4. During the hearing, the Respondents also maintained that much of the correspondence relating to the issue rested with the Indian Embassy in Moscow and that they would require some time to get these over. The Commission agreed that authenticated photocopies of the relevant documents may be got from the Indian Embassy in Moscow and placed before the Commission together with the records that are available here. 5. The Commission decided to call for all the documents on 18 July 2007. 6. Shri A.K. Nag, Joint Secretary, MEA, Shri Deepankar Aron, Joint Director, DRI and Shri Nand Kishore, Under Secretary, MEA, were present at the time of the submission of the documents. 7. The Commission recalled its first hearing in the case. The Appellant had produced before the Commission two letters which amounted to a contradiction in the status of a firm called Eurotag. Whereas in one letter, the statement made was that the firm did not exist, in the other that it did exist. The Appellant while producing these two letters alleged corruption on the part of the Indian Embassy official saying that he had tampered with the documents and introduced this element of contradiction on his own. As this would amount to a case of corruption, the Commission decided to go through the documents itself to ascertain the basis of such a contradiction. 8. Accordingly, the MEA officials including the DRI representative, appeared before the Commission together with the correspondence related to the matter mentioned above. The Commission went through these documents and was satisfied that whatever the Indian official had noted down and conveyed was exactly what was conveyed by the Russian authorities. There was no element of interpolation, alteration or tampering of any document by any member of the Indian Embassy. 9. The case is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (O.P. Kejariwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy: Sd/- (G. Subramanian) Assistant Registrar Cc: 1. Shri Rajeev Verma, B-1/592, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058. 2. Shri A.K. Nag, Joint Secretary (Wel & Inf) & CPIO, Room No. 207, Akbar Bhavan, Ministry of External Affairs, Chankyapuri, New Delhi-110021. 3. Shri Ajay Choudhary, Additional Secretary (PP) & Appellate Authority, Room No. - 144 C, South Block, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi-110011. 4. Officer Incharge, NIC 5. Press E Group, CIC
Pvt firm petitions against CIC order, HC issues notices: Acting on a petition filed by Enviro Technology Ltd (ETL), a private company that owns and operates the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) in Ankleshwar GIDC estate, Justice D N Patel of Gujarat High Court has issued notices to Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB), the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and environment activist Mahesh Pandya. The ETL had moved a petition in the High Court challenging a January 22 order passed by State CIC R N Das pertaining to ETLâ€™s denial of an audit report to environment activist Mahesh Pandya.
JNNURM: Residents to fix final course of action By IE Tuesday August 14, 02:12 AM THE opposition against urban poor housing under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal mission (JNNURM) in Karelibaug is again spearheading with local residents fearing a move to change the plot usage under town planning rules. While one of them has sought information under Right to Information(RTI) Act, a meeting of local residents alongwith BJP MLA Yogesh Patel was held late on Wednesday to chalk out further course of action. Vadodara Municipal Corporation had to cancel construction work at the plot under JNNURM following stiff opposition and agitation by local residents who are demanding that the plot is reserved for garden and not for urban poor housing scheme. So much so that it has also backing of both BJP and Congress local leaders in the vicinity. While residents had submitted their opposition to change of usage as per the town planning rules to VMC, residents now fear that their opposition is being discounted. "We have sought information under the RTI Act and now are holding meeting today to finalise further course of action'' said Shobha Rawal, a Karelibaugh resident who has resorted to using theRTI Act to get exact opposition. Meanwhile BJP MLA Yogesh Patel admitted that he will be participating in the meet, adding that Vadodara BJP has yet not spelled out specifically that an urban poor housing scheme should not come out at that site. Meanwhile, fearing an hostile delegation of agitating Karelibaug residents, security was upped at VMC headquarters at Khanderao Market. JNNURM: Residents to fix final course of action - Yahoo! India News