- 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 'financial'.
Found 5 results
akhilesh yadav posted a topic in RTI in MediaNEW DELHI: A file related to delegation of financial powers to chief information commissioner is untraceable in the government according to a RTI response. According to the RTI Act, only chief information commissioner (CIC) has financial, administrative and general superintendence powers. Read at: ?Docu on delegation of fiscal powers to CIC goes missing? - The Times of India
BJP RTI cell of Karbi Anglong Saturday accused chief executive member of Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council (KAAC), Tuliram Ronghang on his involvement in embezzlement of hundreds of crore rupees by manipulating several Government of India subsidized schemes in Irrigation department under the administrative control of KAAC in the past few years. Convenor, media cell, Ronjeet Ronghang and convenor, RTI cell BJP Karbi Anglong district committee, Mohon Rongpi in a joint press note has alleged that the CEM was answerable as to how the total subsidized scheme amount of Rs. 150, 52, 00002 work has been settled against Rs.19,58,334.34 through tender process while no tender process was followed for the remaining amount. Read more at: BJP accuse CEM KAAC of financial embezzlement : Nagaland Post
If RTI queries involve financial matter, e.g information about recruitment of personnels, award of tender or auction of office materials etc, As I understand, these things involve large public interest because of Govt. money utilisation. Please tell me whether these information can be asked by any citizens of India to any Govt. Dept. /PSU/Coperative Society or not.
karira posted a topic in Off TopicInvestors, depositors have right to seek compensation in financial fraud In an historical decision, the NCDRC held that the remedy before a consumer forum is primarily a civil remedy, whereas the prosecution before and conviction by a designated court constituted under MPID Act is a criminal remedy The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), in a significant decision, has held that investors and depositors have a right to seek compensation under the Consumer Protection Act in case of defaults from a financial establishment. In a related case, the apex consumer Commission has asked Nagpur-based Shivaji Estate Livestock And Farms Pvt Ltd to refund money invested along with a 9% interest from filing the complaint. The NCDRC also directed the company to pay 10% of the amount invested as compensation and Rs1,000 as cost of litigation to the complainant. The NCDRC judgement ratifies a financial consumer's right to seek compensation for a fraudulent default on part of a financial establishment. A Bench of Justice VK Jain and Dr BC Gupta, said, "It would be seen from a perusal of the provisions contained in Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (MPID) Act that the designated court has no power to grant compensation to a person who is a victim of the fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment. Therefore, it would be difficult to say that the said MPID Act provides an adequate redressal of the grievances of a person who suffers on account of the fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment, where such defaults also constitutes deficiency in the services rendered by a service provider to its consumer. We are also in agreement with the learned counsel for the complainant that the remedy before a consumer forum is primarily a civil remedy, whereas the prosecution before and conviction by a designated court constituted under MPID Act is a criminal remedy available to the victim of a fraudulent default on the part of a Financial Establishment." In this case, the complainants, Pratibha Adelkar and 372 others were represented by Adv Shirish Deshpande of the Mumbai Grahak Panchayat. Shivaji Estate Livestock invited investors to invest in its goat farming and allied activities by purchasing units of several schemes floated by it. In its brochure, Shivaji Estate Livestock said it has arranged about 500 goats in each goat shed with 25-50 such shed in each rearing centre, 100% of the livestock would be insured and there would be 100% guarantee of the invested amount. The company also told investors that they would have hypothetical charge on 1,000 sq ft of land of Shivaji Estate Livestock and one time investment would offer consistent benefit for 15 years, experienced vets and professionals would look after livestock. The company also assured minimum expected return on the investment and if targets are achieved, investors were also promised additional bonus. The schemes also provided for pre-mature withdrawals by giving 45 days’ notice. Initially, Shivaji Estate Livestock made payments of some instalments due to the investors under the schemes but later on did not fulfil the terms (for repayment to investors). When the investors applied for pre-mature withdrawals, the company failed to honour its commitment. Alleging deficiency in the services offered by Shivaji Estate Livestock, the complainants filed appeal before the NCDRC. No one except a director of Shivaji Estate Livestock filed any reply. In the reply, the company director took a preliminary objection that in view of the provisions contained in the MPID Act, the NCDRC has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since the Act provides complete machinery for recovery of investors' deposits. It also stated that a complaint and FIR was filed against the company. A charge sheet was filed against the Company and nine others, under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 and 4 of the MPID Act and the case was pending before the Designated Court. Shivaji Estate Livestock, however did not deny floating of schemes and accepting deposits from the complainants. The NDCRD Bench, said, "As per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, 'consumer' means any person, who either buys goods or hires or avails services for a consideration, but does not include a person, who avails of such services for any commercial purpose. The term 'service' has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Act to mean service of any description, which is made available to potential users. The Complainants hired or availed the services of the opposite party for investing their savings in the schemes floated by Shivaji Estate Livestock, and deposited money with it for investing on their behalf in goat farming and allied activities. Therefore, it can hardly be disputed that the complainants are consumers of Shivaji Estate Livestock within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act." The Bench then decided on whether the jurisdiction of NCDRC is barred under sub-section of Section 6 of the MPID Act. Adv Deshpande contented that since the consumer forum is not a court; the provisions of Section 6(2) of the MPID Act are not applicable to such forum. He also submitted that the remedy provided before a consumer forum is a civil remedy in a case where the fraudulent default, as defined in MPID Act also constitutes deficiency in the services rendered by a service provider, whereas MPID Act provides for criminal prosecution and punishment of the persons indulging in such fraudulent defaults. "...the designated court constituted under the provisions of MPID Act has no power to grant compensation, which a consumer forum can grant in a case of deficiency in the services rendered to a consumer," Adv Deshpande pointed out. Accepting the contention, the Bench said, "Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act provides that the provisions of the said Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The MPID Act came to be enacted much later than enactment of the Consumer Protection Act. Despite that the Legislation in its wisdom used only the expression 'Court' and not the expression 'Court or any other forum' in sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the said Act. In these circumstances, it would be difficult to say that the legislative intent behind the enactment of sub-Section (2) of the Section 6 was also to exclude the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in a case where fraudulent default on the part of the Financial Establishment also constitutes deficiency in the service rendered to a consumer. Therefore, in our view, for the purpose of the sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the MPID Act, consumer forum cannot be said to be a 'court'." While disposing of the complaint, the apex consumer forum, then directed Shivaji Estate Livestock to refund to investors, money deposited in different schemes along with an interest of 9% from the date of filing complaint. Read More: Investors, depositors have right to seek compensation in financial fraud - Moneylife
karira posted a topic in RTI in MediaCIC favours greater financial, administrative autonomy New Delhi, (PTI): The Central Information Commission that has blazed a new trail in ensuring transparency in governance favours greater financial and administrative autonomy so that it is not dependent on government for its functioning. However, the apex body itself is not clamouring for amendment of the RTI Act to vest itself with more powers, since it would like to test the limits of the existing law before doing that. "What is really required is administrative and financial autonomy. At present, we are totally dependent upon the government both for administrative structure and for our finances," Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), Wajahat Habibullah, said. He said Parliament should make a direct grant to the Commission instead of routing fund allocation through the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). Stating that the Commission being a quasi-judicial body cannot function like any other government department which has deputy secretaries and joint secretaries, he said, what we need is "court masters and people with judicial background." Habibullah also made a case for freedom to recruit staff as opposed to the current practice of deputing personnels to the Commission from the government. "For this, first we will have to frame our own recruitment rules," he said. "We have placed a restructured kind of a proposal," he said, adding the Finance ministry was favourably disposed towards it. On amending the RTI law, Habibullah said he did not favour more teeth for the Commission "as the RTI Act is still to be tested for all its limits." To a question on changing the law to provide for a contempt clause to deal with officials who fail to comply with the Commission's decisions, he said that in his view, it was not necessary at the moment. Acknowledging that such powers would make the implementation of the Commission's orders easier, Habibullah said "we must not necessarily seek the easiest way out because the RTI Act (in its present form) has a great deal of potential." He said the general consensus amongst Information Commissioners from other states was to add contempt provisions to the RTI Act so as to deal with the problems of non-compliance of orders by the Public Information Officers. The Information Commissioners at a conference last month recommended that contempt provisions should be included in the RTI Act to ensure greater enforcement of the orders. The recommendations will be examined by a Parliamentary Standing Committee. Habibullah further pointed out that "the RTI Act is potentially a very powerful legislation...we are probably the most advanced in the whole world in terms of the Act, but not necessarily in terms of its implementation." Replying to a question on bureaucratic resistance to part with information, he said "contrary to the common impression within the bureaucracy, there are a lot of people who have welcomed the Act...many have said it gives them a better way of monitoring their own departments." The CIC chief said he backed extending the RTI's purview to include inquiry into judicial misconducts as proposed under the Judges (Inquiry) Bill 2006. "I don't see why the judiciary should be treated differently," he said. To a question on institutions not covered under the RTI Act, Habibullah said the Cabinet Secretariat was mulling changes in the list of exempted organisations, as the list appeared to have been made "hurriedly." Reading out names of organisations from the list (termed as schedule II under the RTI Act), he said that some of these seemed to have been wrongfully granted exemption under the Act. Asked if the Commission had suggested changes in the list, he said, "We cannot seek any changes. It is for the government to do that and the government has sought the changes. The Commission has no role to play in this at all nor is our view taken as to which organisation is to be included or not." While the list of organisations excluded from the purview of the RTI Act includes Intelligence Bureau and Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) amongst others, the central investigative agency CBI is also known to have sought exemptions under the Act, as stated in the Commission's First Annual Report. Asked about opposition among officials to share file notings with RTI applicants, Habibullah said that access to file notings was essential for the success of the legislation. "File notings are no longer an issue and they are very much a part of the RTI Act," he clarified. The Hindu News Update Service