- 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 'goa sic'.
Found 6 results
Could anyone help me with some decisions and judgements to the effect that Governors and Raj Bhavans come within the ambit of RTI. Many thanks, Aires Rodrigues Goa XXXXXXXXXXXX - Deleted mobile number - posting against forum rules
Atul Patankar posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on Sep 23, 2010 PANAJI: The Goa State Information Commission (GSIC) has ordered that Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) XVII inspection report pertaining to the Goa Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd (GUCBL) be traced. The order was passed following an application filed by one Rui Ferreira against the office of the registrar of co-operative societies for not furnishing the copy of the report. In its order, GSIC's chief information commissioner M S Keny observed thus: "In the instant case, it is strange as well as surprising that that XVI inspection report is available and XVII inspection report is missing. Even otherwise if such a contention is accepted that document is untraceable, then it would be rather impossible to implement the RTI Act." The commission noted that as on March 29, 2010, the report was available but after June 14, the same was not traceable. Earlier on June 14 the commission had directed the public information officer (PIO) of the registrar of co-operative societies to furnish both the reports within 15 days to the applicant, who is a shareholder of the bank. Subsequently, on July 9, the applicant received a letter from the PIO asking him to collect the copy of the XVI inspection report. However, RBI's XVII report was not given to the applicant. Hence, the applicant again approached the commission and sought penal action. After hearing the parties, the commission also directed that responsibility for the missing/misplaced documents be fixed and to initiate action against the 'delinquent officials', in case the report is not found. The commission has also issued a notice to the PIO as to why penal action should not be taken against him for causing the delay in furnishing the information. Read more: GSIC orders tracing of RBI report on Goa urban coop bank - The Times of India GSIC orders tracing of RBI report on Goa urban coop bank - The Times of India
As reported in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 18 August 2010: 'Poor implementation of RTI' - Goa - City - The Times of India 'Poor implementation of RTI' PANAJI: Parivartan, the Delhi-based NGO run by Magsaysay award-winning social activist Arvind Kejriwal, has blown the lid off just how receptive the Goa state information commission is to the much-vaunted Right To Information (RTI) Act. According to the NGO, the commission on an average takes three months to hear an appeal filed under provisions of the Act, and among other flaws, has also failed to penalize officers who do not provide complete and correct information on time. The NGO arrived at these conclusions after analyzing the commission's 254 cases in 2008. Reacting to the analysis, Pratap Singh Meena, secretary, Goa state information commission, said the lack of courtrooms and other infrastructural shortcomings faced by the commission could be the reason for the same. The analysis report states, "In 2008, the pendency of cases (with the commission) increased from 58 to 112. If 100 people approached the commission, pro-disclosure orders were given in 62 cases. Of these, only 20 to 30 people finally got information." The analysis further revealed that the commission ordered disclosure of information in just 58% cases, far lower than the national average of 68%. It also showed that information was denied in 34% cases. "Only 20-30% of the pro-disclosure orders of the commissioner could be finally implemented. Despite favourable and pro-disclosure orders, 80 to 90% appellants did not get information," the report reads. In sharp contrast, 90% appellants in the North Eastern state of Arunachal Pradesh returned satisfied with the information given by the commission there, found the NGO. Documenting Goa's poor rate of compliance to RTI orders, the report reveals that in most cases the commission closes a case after passing orders that information be provided, without ensuring compliance. "If the order is not complied with subsequently, the appellant has to approach the commission again with a complaint," the report states. "But many appellants get tired and do not file complaints again. Even when a complaint is filed, the same comes up for hearing in its due course after a few months due to huge pendency, thus causing hardships to appellants," it observes. In the hearing, the case is again closed with directions to the officer to provide information rather than taking any penal action. The order is again mostly, not complied with, the report states. Parivarthan has suggested to the Goa state information commission that it hold hearings to ensure compliance. "Such a practice ensures transparency, success and is followed dutifully by Punjab, Bihar, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh and Karnataka," it states. The RTI mandates imposition of a penalty on officers who do not provide complete and correct information, within the prescribed time, unless there is reasonable cause. In Goa, where pro-disclosure orders were passed in 96 cases, a large number of officers who did not provide information on time were not even questioned about the reasons for delay, found the NGO. While notices were issued in 27 cases asking for reasons for the delay, this was not done in the rest of the cases, the report states.
As reported at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 12 August, 2009 PANAJI: The Goa State Information Commission has directed the Bardez block development officer to furnish the information requested by a Moira resident even though she sought it on the letterhead of the Moira Civic and Consumer Forum. The Moira resident, Vigilia de Sa, on November 3, 2008 sought information under the Right to Information Act from the BDO requesting for a copy of the observer's report on the gram sabha held in Moira village on October 26, 2008. The BDO did not furnish the information on the grounds that de Sa had asked the information on behalf of the Moira Civic and Consumer Forum which does not fall within the definition of citizen and only citizens are entitled for information under section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Aggrieved by this decision, de Sa approached the Information Commission and contended that the information was sought in her individual capacity though she is a member of the forum. The BDO submitted that de Sa had signed the application for information for the forum and the forum, not being a citizen as per provisions of the RTI Act, was not entitled for information. After scrutinizing the records, the commission noted that de Sa's request was written on the forum's letterhead and signed by her as for Moira Civic and Consumer Forum. However it also noted, "No doubt that a company, a firm or an association cannot seek information under the RTI Act since, as per section 3 of the RTI Act, only citizens have a right to information. In the present case however, the complainant sought information on the letterhead of and signed for Moira Civic and Consumer Forum, for all purposes she sought the information as an individual citizen and not as an executive member of the forum." The commission also noted that the BDO addressed his reply-letter dated November 13, 2008 not to the Moira Civic and Consumer Forum but to de Sa. Using the letterhead of the Moira Civic and Consumer Forum, it can be considered as an address of the complainant for contact for the purpose of dealing with information under the RTI Act, the commission observed. Information commissioner, Afonso Araujo, therefore directed the BDO Bardez to provide a copy of the observer's report within 20 days from the receipt of his order. Source: Furnish info to Moira resident: Commission - Goa - City - NEWS - The Times of India
As reported at oheraldo.in on July 17, 2009 CCP’s refusal to provide info back-fires Goa State Information Commission has asked the Director of Municipal Administration to hold an inquiry in respect of the file pertaining to the shop token No 26 allotted to Ronnie Rodrigues in the new market and also regarding the list of shops, stalls, gaddas, owners and allottees in the new Corporation Market in Phase I, II and III. In his order, the State Information Commissioner Afonso Araujo also directed the Director of Municipal Administration to submit his report within period of three months of the inquiry. Mr Araujo, a former Sessions court judge also ordered the CCP to pay a compensation of Rs 5000 to the complainant Ronnie Rodrigues “for the harm and injury caused to him due to delay in providing the information”. The complainant had been trying to get information from CCP under Right to Information Act pertaining to the allocation of a shop to him in the market. He had approached the Information Officer and the DMA had ordered that the information sought by Rodrigues should be given to him. As the CCP tried to play hide-and-seek on the presumption that the file had been lying with the Vigilance Department, the complaint approached the State Information Commission. He was made to run from pillar to post. The Commission by an order dated 30/12/2008 directing that the information be furnished by the CCP within ten days but its direction were not followed by the CCP when Melvyn Vaz was the commissioner. It was found later that the file was not with the Vigilance and that it was with the CCP from where it apparently made a disappearing act. The Commissioner in his order, said that for all purposes, the files in question are missing for which an inquiry is required to be held on the whereabouts of the file pertaining to the allotment of shop to the Complainant, and item No. 4 of the letter dated 28/01/2008. This inquiry is necessary in order to place the responsibility on those persons who has caused for the files not being available for the purpose of information under the Act and according to the outcome of this inquiry place the responsibility on those persons for the purpose of penalty under the RTI Act. Right from 28/01/2008 the complainant has been deprived to the information sought and in such circumstances the compensation has to be given to the Complainant for the harm and injury and inconvenience caused to him for the delay in obtaining the information, the Information Commissioner said. Source: oHERALDo :: DMA told to probe into shop allocation file
Atul Patankar posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 25 May 2009 PANAJI: The mere fact that a chargesheet is filed against an RTI appellant in the court of the magistrate and he being an offender facing prosecution, does not mean he is not entitled to the information required. This is the recent judgement of the state information commissioner Afonso Araujo, who ordered the superintendent of police (SP), police headquarters (PHQ), Panaji, to furnish the requested information to the appellant within 15 days of the order. The order pertains to the application of Socorro D'Souza from Dongor Waddo, Fatorda, who on August 28, 2008 approached the SP PHQ seeking information under the Right to Information Act 2005. D'Souza required copies of the statements of witnesses recorded in the inquiry instituted against police sub-inspector Navlesh Dessai. D'Souza is one of the accused in crime number 257/07 and the criminal case is pending trial. D'Souza made a representation to the chairman of ad-hoc committee (home affairs) stating that on a false complaint filed by one Prakash Pandey, PSI Navlesh Dessai registered the offence of extortion. In an inquiry conducted against PSI Navlesh Dessai, statements of a number of witnesses were recorded by senior superintendent of police V V Chowdary. D'Souza requested for those statements recorded in the inquiry conducted against PSI Navlesh Dessai. The SP PHQ, however, denied the information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act on grounds that the exemption from disclosure clause was attracted. D'Souza then filed his first appeal before the inspector general of police Kishan Kumar, who also upheld the denial of information by the SP PHQ. The counsel for D'Souza submitted that he required the statements recorded in the inquiry conducted against PSI Navlesh Dessai by senior superintendent of police (SSP) V B Chowdhury and that as D'Souza is the complainant in the inquiry, he is entitled to the copies of statements of witnesses whose names are mentioned in the application. The counsel also produced copies of application and order of anticipatory bail, order of State Police Complaints Authority and stated that a false case was filed against D'Souza. He stated that the exemption from disclosure clause was not attracted in this case. On the other hand, counsel for police submitted that D'Souza was one of the accused and that there was no need of the inquiry as charge sheet has been filed in the court. Police counsel stated that the information was rightly denied under section 8(1)(h) of the Act as the appellant may use those statements in the case and damage the prosecution case. The state information commissioner, however, noted that the mere fact that a chargesheet is filed in the court and the appellant being an offender facing prosecution, does not mean that he is not entitled for the information required. The commissioner made several observations; the appellant always maintained that a false case was registered against him by PSI Dessai for which an inquiry was conducted; the SP Headquarters has not indicated how the statements of the witnesses recorded in the inquiry will affect the prosecution of the appellant. The commissioner also noted that although the appellant was implicated in a serious offence of extortion, the State Police Authority indicated prima facie a case of misconduct of PSI Dessai. Noting that providing the statements of the witnesses recorded in the inquiry in no way will hamper the prosecution case, the commissioner ordered that the information be provided to D'Souza within 15 days of the order. Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Goa/Chargsheeted-appellant-cant-be-denied-info-under-RTI/articleshow/4573073.cms