Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Shrawan

      Bookmark your favourites   03/14/2018

      Bookmarks is an easy and convenient way to save and bookmark content that you want to find later: Want to save a long topic for later reading? Don't want to lose your spot in an interesting topic? Need to mark something for moderator review?   Curious about other people's favorite bookmarks?   Bookmarks at RTI INDIA saves you the hassle of rummaging through multiple pages, searching, and navigating to find that one post you wanted to later review. With one click, you can save any post as a bookmark.  It offers a convenient way to compile, store, and organize your most favorite posts from around the community into your own set of bookmarks. This is especially helpful for those helping others, so they can refer those important posts, blog, page, thread and post it in the new thread they are replying. FEATURES Bookmarks offers the following features: Public Bookmarks - Public bookmarks are viewable by other members and guests on a tab on the member's profile page.   Private Bookmarks - Private bookmarks are viewed only by yourself.  This is perfect for the posts you secretly love to return to!   Unlimited Bookmarks - Let your users save as many bookmarks as they want!   Notifications - The content creator can get a notification when somebody bookmarks his content Bookmarks works with the following content items: Topic Posts Blog Entries Blog Comments Download Files Download Comments Gallery Images Gallery Comments Gallery Albums New Articles FAST & FRIENDLY Bookmarks is designed to be super fast and user-friendly.  You can add or remove the bookmark, the bookmark is instantly removed without reloading the page - giving an instant and seamless transition to you. Some Screenshots

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'high court'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Request for Community Support
    • Ask for RTI Support
    • Post your RTI Success here
    • Ask for Non RTI Support
  • Connect with Community
    • Discussions on RTI
    • Off Topic
  • Learn about RTI
    • RTI Act Circulars
    • RTI Appeals decisions
  • Website News & Support
    • Announcements
    • RTI in Media
  • Read RTI News & Stories


  • 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 Act


  • News


  • Quotes


  • RTI Directory
  • Important Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts, Circulars & Decisions


  • Karira Blog
  • J.P.Shah
  • Dhirendra Prasad Blog
  • Sunil Ahya Blog
  • Raveena O Blog
  • A blog by CHITTABARIK
  • Yogi M. P. Singh Blog
  • Common Man Insights
  • faizanraza717's Blog
  • pankaj bhalla's Blog
  • WalterShannon's Blog
  • Asha Kanta Sharma


There are no results to display.

Found 77 results

  1. Version

    1 download

    Chief Information Officer is not a Court for the purpose of Contempt of Courts Act 4. First and foremost, I am of the opinion that the Chief Information Officer is not a Court for the purpose of Contempt of Courts Act. Section 18 of the Right to Information Act cloths the said authorities with certain powers of a Court. In Sub-Section (3) of Section 18, it is provided as under:- "18(3) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things; (b) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavit; (d) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any Court or office;" Section 20 of the Right to Information Act pertains to penalties, which can be imposed when it is found that the Public Information Officer or the Public Information Officer has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 or malafide denied request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information, which was the subject matter of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing information. It can thus be seen that all acts or omissions connected with information which is mala fide withheld or information supplied is incorrect or incomplete or misleading, are dealt with under Section 20 by making such action penal. In this context, if one peruses Section 18, it clearly emerges that Information Commission is entrusted with the powers of Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for specified purposes such as summoning and enforcing attendance of persons and to compel them to give evidence, requiring the discovery and inspection of documents, receiving evidence on affidavit, requisitioning any public record or copies for issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents. Such powers cannot be construed as converting the said authority into a Court for all purposes much less for the purpose of Contempt of Courts Act.
  2. Version

    1 download

    The writ petition challenging the order of the CIC is to be heard by a Single Judge of this Court but the same is listed before us because the petitioner has also sought a declaration of “Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 as ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”. It is contended, that the ‘proviso’ virtually takes away the exemption provided for in Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) and is too widely worded leaving unguided discretion in the Competent Authority to override the exemption by citing public interest, without defining “larger public interest” and is thus arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is alternatively contended that the said ‘proviso’ may be required to be “read down”. We are unable to find any merit in the challenge to the vires of the ‘proviso’ aforesaid to Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e).
  3. Version


    The strident approach of the Commission had the most undesirable effect of terrorizing the appellant into subservience, and the materials on records suggest that the Civil Surgeon constituted a medical board to examine the extent of visual impairment of the concerned candidate(s). It will bear repetition to state that the authorities under the Act are vested with the power to ensure supply of information sought for as obtaining on the records, rather than the ideal or the legal state of affairs. We are mindful of the position that the selection process to the extent relevant in the present context concerns visually impaired persons. But the Commission illegally took upon itself the task of injecting validity to the selection process. Instead of ensuring supply of factual position, he has gone to the length of directing the Director, Primary Education, to ensure action against the erring official. Such an approach is wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission, being an authority of limited jurisdiction.- पटना हाई कोर्ट।
  4. Version


    The Information Commission receives innumerable requests from various aggrieved parties. The Commission is a multi-member body and has to arrange its own business dealing with those appeals. Even if there has been any unreasonable delay, if a party approaches this Court, then the Commission must be put on notice before fixing a time limit for the Information Commission to hear those appeals either expeditiously or out of turn by jumping the queue. In such cases, the petitioner must make out a case for a deliberate delay dealing with those appeals and that the particular appeal of the aggrieved petitioner must be so important that in public interest such direction can be given. A writ of mandamus is issued to a public authority including a quasi-judicial authority to do a statutory obligation or to refrain from performing an act contrary to the Statute. Unless it is proved that the Commission did not discharge its obligation, no direction can be issued to the Commission by this Court and even if any such direction is to be issued, the same cannot be done without notice to the Commission. When the Government Advocate has no right to represent the Commission and only represent the Government Department and Information Offices appointed by such Department, no direction should have been issued to the Commission. Keeping this request and anguish of the Commission in mind, this Court declared that when an order of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission is under challenge, Information Commission need not be made as a party to those proceedings and even if counsels make them as a party, in the array of parties, they should be struck of from the writ petition. It is also indicated that all that this Court can do is to make a copy to the Information Commission either interim or final order, so that the Commission follow the same as a legal precedent.
  5. Version


    On a perusal of the information sought and the time consumed, we find that reasonable period has been spent and hence, that would tantamount to an explanation for delay caused by the officer concerned. In view of the aforesaid, the reduction of the penalty by the learned single Judge is justified. Before parting with the case, we may hasten to add that the issue that was raised on the initial occasion with regard to locus standi of the CIC to prefer an appeal is kept open. The appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
  6. Version

    1 download

    While entertaining an application for information made under the Act, the locus standi or the intention of the applicant cannot be questioned and is required to furnish all the information sought by him except what has been exempted under Section 8 therein.
  7. The High Court has struck down CIC order that file noting by one officer meant for the next officer with whom he may be in a hierarchical relationship, is in the nature of a fiduciary entrustment, it should not ordinarily be disclosed and surely not without any concurrence of the officer preparing that note. High Court ruled that "Any noting made in the official records of the Government/public authority is information belonging to the concerned Government/public authority. The question whether the information relates to a third party is to be determined by the nature of the information and not its source." The reasoning, that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, was considered flawed. Court further stated that "Section 8 of the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain information and none of the provisions of Section 8 provides for a blanket exemption that entitles the respondent to withhold all notings on a file." CIC has earlier made the decision on the basis that when the file noting by one officer meant for the next officer with whom he may be in a hierarchical relationship, is in the nature of a fiduciary entrustment, it should not ordinarily be disclosed and surely not without any concurrence of the officer preparing that note. The file noting for a confidential and secret part would attract the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) as well as Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The contention of the CIC was struck down and the court directed CIC to take the decision within 3 months. Earlier, however, Central Information Commission (CIC) in their Decision No. ICPB/A-1/CIC/2006 dt.31.01.2006, has held that “file notings are not, as a matter of law, exempt from disclosure”. Usefulness of the High Court Order The above decision is highly relevant for users who are filing RTI to know the Status of their earlier RTI. RTI Applicant can now use following questions in their RTI application Complete details of file notings made on the above said file number as on date. Separately the daily progress made in case of above said file till date i.e. when did it reach which officer/functionary, how long did it stay with that officer/functionary and what did that officer/functionary, do during that period on the said letter together with file noting and name and designation of each officer/functionary List of the officers with their designation to whom before the said file is placed. Also, provide me with the noting made by them on the said file.
  8. In a significant decision of Dr. Nazrul Islam vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 31 August, 2016, Calcutta high court has ruled that "It is the Department who has to compensate a citizen for any loss, detriment or harassment suffered by him by reason of failure of its officers to perform their duty.". The Department cannot claim that "responsibility and liability should be fixed only on its officers". The court further added that "In fact, the Department should recover from its concerned officers the compensation that the Department has to pay to the affected citizen." Department not Officer should pay compensation to affected citizen The Department has appointed SPIO and a first Appellate Authority who are officers of the Department. If such Officers did not discharge their duties, the department must own up responsibility for the same. The Department must accept the liability for any negligent act of commission or omission on the part of its officers in the course of their employment or discharge of their duty. This is akin to vicarious liability, a well- recognized tortious principle of law. It is the Department who has to compensate a citizen for any loss, detriment or harassment suffered by him by reason of failure of its officers to perform their duty. It makes little difference whether such duty is statutory or non-statutory. It does not lie in the mouth of the Department to say that it is an inanimate or impersonal entity and responsibility and liability should be fixed only on its officers. The Department must make good the loss suffered by a citizen by non-discharging of their duties by the Department's recalcitrant and indolent officers and, thereafter the Department is at liberty to take appropriate steps against its erring officers and bring them to books. In fact, the Department should recover from its concerned officers the compensation that the Department has to pay to the affected citizen. The High court further added that "in contrast to Sec. 20 of the RTI Act, Sec. 19 does not require that a Public Authority against whom the Commission awards compensation, must be given a prior hearing." The decision of the High Court can be downloaded from here!
  9. In the attached order dated 24 Aug 2014, CIC has recommended to the Delhi HC to reduce the application fees by amending its RTI Rules. Hence Commission finds that the rule and practice of the respondent public authority in this case, in relation to the exercise of its functions under this Act as far as imposition of fee of Rs 50 for first appeal is concerned, does not conform with the provisions and spirit of this Act. Invoking the duty to recommend under Section 25(5) of RTI Act, the Commission, therefore, recommends the respondent Public Authority, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, to amend the rules to bring it in conformity with RTI Act, for effective provision of access to information and to bring uniformity with the rules made by DoPT which are also followed by the Supreme Court. The copy of this order shall be sent to concerned High Courts, to bring the rules in conformity with RTI Act and DoPT Rules. CIC order Delhi HC Fees reduction.pdf
  10. 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
  11. RTI High Court

    I want to know what actions have been taken regarding my complaints sent regarding a single matter through four emails on different dates, to the CJ of Alld High Court. What should be the format of my plea, I mean what exactly shd I ask? And how much fee should I attach at the rate of Rs 50 per info? Thanks.
  12. Hi Sir, Do High Courts have any jurisdiction over the Consumer Cases initiated under any section(s) of the Consumer Protection Act -1986(As Amended upto date)? If so, pl. define the prescribed procedural details, and if not why Hon'ble Delhi High Court is exceeding its jurisdiction in the Consumer Matters and the Consumer cases against M/s. Triveni Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd., New Delhi while their jurisdiction (both original and and appellate) exclusively and entirely vests in the Consumer courts (Distt., Forum, State commission and National Commission and finally with the Hon'ble Supreme court. What is the remedy for the hundreds of aggrieved Consumers of the services of the defaulting company who are coerced to take their cases to a Committee Court created by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, even when they have already been decided by the proper and appropriate Consumer Fora. One such case is Execution case No.504 of 2010 u/s27 of CPA -1986 Sandeep Maheshwari Vs. the Developers still pending before the Hon'ble Distt. Forum No. X, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-110 016 since more than a year?. there could be several such cases as the notorious company has gravely and severely defaulted in providing the necessary services for which they have collected huge sums for their various projects from the hundreds of Consumers. Even vested with the powers of !st Class Magistrate, the Consumer courts for reasons better known to them are shying away from awarding the defaulting company the deterrent punishment and prison term as provided under the Consumer Protection Law.
  13. As per the attached decision of the CIC, it seems that the Calcutta HC has reduced the RTI application fee to Rs. 10.00 and also removed the fee for first appeal. The CIC also asked the Calcutta HC to update its website with the latest RTI rules so that there is clarity for applicants. Calcutta HC reduces application fee.pdf
  14. RTIFED NEWS CHANDIGARH: 12 JANUARY 2012 HC INTEREFERES FOR DIRECTING HSSC TO DISCLOSE MARKS OF WRITTEN TEST OF ASSTT. SECRETARY’S EXAMINATION In a peculiar case of its own kind, a civil writ petition filed by Sukhwant Kaur of Fatehabad, seeking a direction to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission to produce her answer sheet of the written test conducted for appointment to post of Assistant Secretary by the HSSC, came up for consideration before the Justice K. Kannan today. The petitioner leveled a serious allegation that the HSSC is not disclosing her marks obtained by her in written test and interview despite two applications submitted by her, in addition to another application submitted by her under the RTI Act . She alleged that the HSSC had declared the result of selection on 18 October 2011, and that the last candidate in general category had been stated to have been awarded 248 marks in aggregate, in written test and interview. She alleged that as per her private information, she scored more than 300 marks in written test alone, and was bound to be selected even if awarded zero marks in interview, and that the HSSC is deliberately delaying the supply of information to her, and is likely to destroy the answer sheets of candidates, as per its practice, on expiry of 3 months from the date of declaration of result of selection, which period is expiring on January 18th itself. Accepting the submissions made by her Counsel, H.C. Arora, Justice Kannan issued notice to the HSSC for February 10th through the State Government’s Law Officer, and directed him to seek the requisite information from HSSC on the next date of hearing. ________________________________________ – As reported by Advocate H.C. Arora, Counsel for Petitioner. He is a practicing Lawyer at Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh and is President of RTIFED. DELETED EXTERNAL LINK
  15. ]RTI NEWS CHANDIGARH 17 DECEMBER 2011 A ‘RULE 49-O’ VOTE CASTED IN POLLING BOOTH IN SECTOR 22-D CHANDIGARH DURING MUNICIPALITY ELECTIONS[ [/b] During the General Election of Councilors for the purpose of constituting the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh under Section 4, which are conducted under Election Commission appointed under Section 7 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act.1957, having the superintendence, direction and control of elections to the preparation of the electoral rolls for and the conduct of all Election to the Corporation and responsible for the functions conferred on the Election Commission. During the these Elections on 17 December 2011 an unprecedented feat has been made in the History of Chandigarh as a voter exercised his right under Regulation 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, in Polling Booth No. 12 in Ward No. 3 by abstaining from the voting after marking himself present at the Booth and signing the register for the purpose. After getting his left index finger marked with indelible ink mark, instead of moving to the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) to cast his vote, the voter moved to the Presiding Officer of the Booth. He announced to the Presiding Officer that he want to exercise his right under Rule 49-O. A near chaos prevailed in the Polling booth, as this was beyond the imagination of the Presiding Officer and other Election Staff on duty in the booth. In a huff the entire staff just become anxious and started looking at the rule book. The presiding officer comforted Voter offer him a chair outside the booth, while they look for the solution. Presiding Officer made some inquiries over telephone to his superiors and, after a while returned to the voter and said, that “Sir, since you are rejecting all the candidates, a remark to the effect “voter rejected vote” will be entered in the register where voter had signed earlier. The presiding Officer did that, Shook hand with the voter and thanked him. Voter moved out leaving everybody perplexed. His voting in this manner will not count but will stand out. He has done so in the wake of notices sent to Election Commission of India to provide a Button on the EVM for Rule 49-O Voting so that the ballot remains secret. On a PIL filed by local lawyer and RTI Activist, H.C. Arora, a Division Bench of the HC comprising CJ Ranjan Gagoi and Justice Surya Kant issued notices for 02 February to Election Commission of India, Chief Electoral Officer Punjab, Union Law and Home Ministries, and State of Punjab. But in the existing procedure the name of the abstaining voter is revealed as the Register on which the voter was made to sign before abstaining is a public record for everyone to access and see. Also under RTI this information and record cannot be denied. Thus, the voter is exposed to exploitation by the vested interests, only due to the faulty procedure, which Election Commission has refused to set right, till now. He plans to obtain the record of the Register signed in the Polling Booth under RTI Act 2005 from the Chief Electoral Officer Chandigarh on Monday 19 December 2011. That humble voter was 59-year old Surendera M. Bhanot, Voter No. 389 in the Part 144 of the Voting List of Poling Booth No. 12 in Sector 22-D, of UT, Chandigarh.
  16. RTIFED News TOMORROW NEWS TODAY CHANDIGARH: 10 DECEMBER 2011 ]ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AUDIT) REPORT LAMBASTS PUNJAB MINISTERS ON DISCRETIONARY GRANTS In response to a PIL filed by RTI Activists-cum-Advocate, H.C. Arora, praying for issuance of direction to the State of Punjab to introduce some effective safeguards against misuse of discretionary grants by CM/Ministers and Chief Parliamentary Secretaries, the Accountant General (Audit), Punjab has filed its affidavit through Sh. Raghubir Singh, Deputy Accountant General (Inspection Civil and Administration), clarifying the manner in which the audit of discretionary grants disbursed by Punjab Chief Minister and Cabinet Ministers, including Parliamentary Secretaries, are audited. The AG (Audit) Punjab, alongwith its affidavit has enclosed “Theme audit report” which states that AG (Audit) Punjab is not authorized to audit the accounts of the, Clubs, Colleges or other NGOs to whom the grants are issued by the State Government out of public funds. However, under “The Comptroller and Auditor General Duties/Powers and Conditions of Service Act, 1971”, the Governor can direct the audit of the accounts of such NGOs also. The AG, Punjab (Audit) has further stated in its audit reports that under Punjab Financial Rules, Volume-I, discretionary grants can be sanctioned only upon satisfaction of certain conditions, including the requirement to submit the audited statements of accounts before the sanction of such grants so that the grant may be justified by the financial position of the grantee, and to ensure that the previous grants, if any, given for the purpose had been utilized for which those were given. Besides, the beneficiary of discretionary grant has to execute a bond that it shall abide by the conditions of grant and shall refund the grant in case of breach of terms and conditions of the bond. This condition is also required to be incorporated in the sanction letter. The aforesaid provisions of rules are not being complied with while sanctioning discretionary grants in Punjab. In the “theme audit report” for the period 2009-2010 of the discretionary grants, it is stated that under the guidelines for disbursement of discretionary grants by Cabinet Ministers, a Cabinet Minister cannot sanction discretionary grants exceeding 50 per cent of the quota in his own constituency, however, “Sh. Manoranjan Kalia sanctioned grants of 80 per cent approximately in his own Constituency, during the period 2009-10, which is irregular”. The audit report states that although the grants can be sanctioned for repair, maintenance and renovation of school buildings, such grants are not permitted for construction of rooms of the school building. However, during the year 2009-2010, an amount of Rs. 63.90 lacs in 21 cases was sanctioned and disbursed to the colleges and school management for construction of rooms in contravention of the approved guidelines. The audit report further discloses that while under the guidelines, the discretionary grant cannot be sanctioned for the same purpose during the same year, and a certificate is required to be obtained from grantee/institutions specifying clearly that said institutions has not been sanctioned any grant for the same purpose by any other departments during the same period, “yet an amount of Rs. 65.50 lacs by way of discretionary grants has been sanctioned and disbursed in the same financial year, which reveals that undue favour was given to the beneficiary.” As the requisite certificate was not obtained from the grantees, in the absence of which it could not be ascertained whether any such beneficiary had not obtained any monetary benefit in the shape of grant during the same period. The audit report also gives some instances of issues of misutilisation of discretionary grants by the beneficiaries, and it has been pointed out that a grant of Rs. 10 lacs was released in September, 2009 to “Chandigarh-Punjab Union of Journalists” for overall social development works. However, an amount of Rs. 2.30 lacs was used for the purposes not covered under the social works, and an amount of Rs. 7.70 lacs is still lying unspent with the aforesaid association. “This had resulted not only into the misutilisation of Government funds, but also resulted in blockade of Government money without any requirement.” The audit report further points out that a discretionary grant of Rs. 5 lacs was sanctioned in favour of “Indian Media Centre” (IMC), Ludhiana, during 2009-2010 for construction of new shopping complex”. However, the IMC is operating its office in a rented building and construction was not allowed therein. It was further revealed through discussion that money was lying unspent with IMC till June. This shows the callousness attitude of DDO as he should verify the facts about the beneficiary to whom the grant was released. The affidavit points out that huge amount out of sanction grants are being disbursed with an inordinate delay by the concerned officers. The audit report, however points out that utilization certificates were not being received from the departmental officers. It is pointed out that as on June, 2010, utilization certificates for Rs. 8.86 crores in respect of 459 grants released upto November, 2009 had not been received till June, 2010. Thus, the utilization of grant for intended purpose could not be ascertained. Coming to the grants sanctioned out of the Small Savings Schemes, it is pointed out that scrutiny of records in March, 2010 of the Director Small Savings Punjab, revealed that the net savings collections mobilized during the year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 was minus (negative). However, at the instance of the Chief Minister and Finance Minister, annual budget of grants from Small Savings Scheme was sanctioned at Rs. 3 crores and Rs. 2 crores each for discretionary use of CM and FM respectively, for the year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. This was done in the face of guidelines of the department of Small Savings Punjab, that only 1 per cent of the Net Saving collections mobilized in the preceding year in the Small Savings Schemes launched by Government of India is to be used by CM and FM every year as Prize money. It is pointed out that out of the discretionary grants given from Small Savings Schemes, an amount of Rs. 10 Crore was sanctioned and disbursed between 2008 -2010 by the District Small Savings Officers in disregard of the provisions contained in rules, and without satisfying the requisite condition of submission of audited statement of accounts and execution of a bond for re-fund of the grant in the case of breach of terms and conditions of sanction of grants. l As regards the receipt of utilization certificates against grants out of small savings, it is stated that the utilization certificates for an amount of Rs. 7 crores (out of total amount sanctioned/disbursed as Rs. 9.7 Crores) are yet to be received pertaining to the years 2008-2010. Indicting, though without naming the CM, it is stated in the audit report accompanying the affidavit that in violation of the finance rules, and even without stating clearly the purpose for sanctioning the grant, an amount or Rs. 1.50 crore was sanctioned/released to the Deputy Commissioners of Muktsar and Bathinda Districts, out of Small Savings Schemes, without specifying the purpose, and that too at the fag-end of the year, and those grants were latter disbursed to the beneficiaries without obtaining the requisite documents and execution of bonds. The aforesaid PIL is now scheduled to be listed for further hearing before the Punjab and Haryana High Court on12 December next. ________________________________________ – As reported by Advocate H.C. Arora, Petitioner In Person. He is a practicing Lawyer at Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.
  17. RTI against HIgh Court

    Hello! I am a law student and I am willing to file an RTI application against the HP Hgh Court. History: I got selected for working in our college legal aid committee. The committee undertook the project "LITIGATION FREE VILLAGE" by virtue of which our college collected information regarding the pendency of cases of villagers in any of the courts in Himachal Pradesh. "Litigation free village" is a project that was carried under the directions of Himachal Pradesh High Court whereby all such data collected shall be scrutinized and the cases that are pending of such villagers in any of the courts in Himachal Pradesh shall heard on priority basis and be disposed within a year. Purpose: Purpose of this project was litigation free village. Failure: This project took place last year and there has been no updates on this from the Hon'ble High Court. My work: So being a law student and also having worked on this project I want to file an RTI application in order to know the current status of this project i.e. Litigation Free Village. I want to find out whether any of the cases that we submitted were entertained or not? So if you are reading this then please guide me as to how I should proceed in my endeavours. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Arjun Thakur [Anticipating your response]
  18. PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT - NOTICE ON PIL SEEKING, INTER-ALIA, QUASHING OF APPOINTMENT OF BIDHI CHAND AND CHANDER PARKASH AS PUNJAB STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS A Division Bench of the HC comprising ACJ Adarsh Goel and Justice A.K. Mittal today issued notices for December 1st, to States of Punjab and Haryana, on a PIL filed by Advocate H.C. Arora, seeking appropriate directions to the two States to lay down procedure for selection and appointment of State Information Commissioners, which should contain provision for advertisement of vacancies, setting up of an Empanelment Committee, and calling for intelligence reports about antecedents of candidates before clearing their appointments; Additionally, the petitioner has sought quashing of selection and appointment of Bidhi Chand, (IAS Retd.) and Chander Parkash, a journalist, as Information Commissioners in Punjab. Petitioner has alleged that respondent-States are not advertising posts of State Information Commissioners; applications sent by interested and eligible persons for appointment as Info. Commissioners are not put up before the Selection Committee (comprising respective CM, One Minister and Leader of Opposition); No empanelment committees have been set up, and intelligence reports about the antecedents of selected candidates are not sought before giving them appointment. Resultantly, the petitioner alleged, One Ashok Mehta was appointed as Information Commissioner by Haryana Government in Jan.,2008; later on, it was found that his law degree was fake; eventually, Mehta submitted resignation from post of Information Commissioners, when exposed in news papers. Likewise, One Asha Sharma, who was also appointed as Information Commissioner by Haryana Government in Jan.,2008, was facing a criminal case for alleged tempering with some documents, and the related case was filed against her after sanction of Union Home Ministry; she is still facing the said criminal case in a Court at Chandigarh, while continuing as State Information Commissioner. Leveling a serious charge, petitioner has alleged that Chander Parkash, a journalist, and the Information Commissioner designate, selected by Punjab Government, had remained under suspension for a couple of months while in service of his present employer; This material fact has been withheld from the Selection Committee as well as Governor by the Government. He further alleged that Punjab Governor had referred back the cases of Bidhi Chand and Chander Parkash, with the observation that report about their “integrity” ,as envisaged in P.J. Thomas, CVC’s case, be also submitted regarding these two selectees; However, the Government sent back the cases again to Governor without obtaining any intelligence reports on their antecedents and integrity. ADVOCATE H.C. ARORA IS PRESIDENT OF RTI ACTIVIST FEDERATION AND HE APPEARED AS PETITIONER IN PERSON RTIFED -BN -05 August 2011.pdf
  19. I reproduce relevant paragraphs from judgement dated 02-11-2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM in WP©.No. 31039 of 2009(Y) [available at http://judis.nic.in/judis_kerala/chejudis.aspx. 4. I shall now deal with the contention of the petitioner that the third respondent should have moved the first appellate authority instead of moving the State Information Commission. Section 18 of the Act empowers the State Information Commission to enquire into a complaint that there has been no response to the request to furnish information within the time limit specified under Section 7(1) of the Act. Section 7(2) of the Act states that if the information sought is not furnished within the time limit of 30 days, the application should be deemed to have been refused. Therefore by operation of law a deeming friction is created under which the person seeking information is given the right to file an appeal before the first appellate authority under Section 19 of the Act even though the original authority may not have rejected the application. The mere fact that a person seeking information is entitled to prefer an appeal on the 31st day after his application for information was submitted is not a ground to hold that the State Information Commission is denuded of its power to enquire into a complaint that there has been no response to the request for information or access to information within the time limit of 30 days. It is open to the person seeking information to move the State Information Commission complaining about the inaction of the State Public Information Officer, instead of filing an appeal. The remedies are concurrent and the mere fact that an appeal lies after the expiry of 30 days to the first appellate authority is no ground to hold that the State Information Commission cannot exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Section 18 of the Act, before the first appeal is disposed of. I therefore overrule the petitioner's contention that the third respondent ought to have filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Act before the first appellate authority instead of straight away moving the State Information Commission. 5. The last contention urged is that the petitioner has not without reasonable cause declined to furnish the information. Ext.P4 discloses that the petitioner was heard on 25.7.2009. His only answer to the complaint levelled against him was that due to pressure of work in the office, he could not furnish the information in time. Apart from that contention he had no other explanation for the delay in furnishing the information. If the said ground is taken as a reasonable explanation, every Government servant can escape from the consequences of non disposal of applications for information within the period of 30 days by pleading that he had attend to other official duties and therefore he could not furnish the information sought within 30 days. After the Right to Information Act was enacted and brought into force, every Government servant who is designated as the State Public Information Officer is bound to discharge the duty cast on him under the Act. He cannot decline to take any action on the requests under the Right to Information Act on the ground that he has other duties to attend to. As the State Public Information Officer, the petitioner has a duty to discharge his functions under the Right to Information Act also. Therefore the mere fact that there was pressure of work on the petitioner, is not a ground to hold that he was not bound to furnish the information within the stipulated period of 30 days.........
  20. Hello, I am doing some research work in Hamburg, Germany. I need data on judicial system in India like the number of courts (including district courts), number of cases filed, disposed and pending in courts of India state wise. Also, if possible the number of computers in each court. Such information is not available on the internet. So I thought I might ask for them using RTI. Kindly tell me who should I ask for this information. Do I need to write to the Union Law ministry or to every state government? Also, is it possible to get this information in Hamburg? There is an Indian consulate here. This is the first time I am using RTI, so do not know how to proceed with it. Thank You.
  21. As reported by Ajay Sura at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 10 May 2011 CHANDIGARH: Some of Punjab`s cash-rich institutions, including the Punjab Cricket Association (PCA), will be under the purview of the Right to Information Act. Upholding a State Information Commission, Punjab, order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday brought PCA under the RTI. The court has also directed that the Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association, Gymkhana Club, Jallandhar, Sutlej Club, Ludhiana, will come under the RTI. Also included are all co-operative societies, co-operative sugar mills, co-operative house building societies and co-operative banks in Punjab and Haryana and private schools controlled under the Education Act in Haryana. Justice MS Sullar heard a bunch of petitions filed by various organizations challenging the orders passed by the state information commissions of Punjab and Haryana. The petitions were regarding the applicability of RTI Act to sports associations, sports clubs, co-operative sugar mills, co-operative house building societies and co-operative banks in the two states. Petitioners had also sought direction to declare those bodies as "public authorities" under the RTI Act. Sullar expressed shock over the growing tendency on the part of institutions to deny information and attempting to defeat the RTI Act, which has been enacted to introduce transparency. He also referred to "corruption eating into the democratic fabric like a parasite." Justice Sullar said PCA was given 13.56 acre land at a token rental of Rs100 a year. It has received grants from PUDA (Rs 10.15 lakh), Punjab Sports Council (Rs 15 lakh), Punjab Small Savings (Rs 77 lakh) and BCCI (Rs 2,026.66 lakh). It has also received Rs 8.50 crore from PUDA to construct the stadium and Rs.1.65 lakh for the construction of Club House. This makes it a "public authority," the judge said. He also noted that exemption from entertainment duty to PCA and other sports bodies by the government also amounted to "substantial finance" to them.
  22. NGO ordered to pay Rs.75,000 for transparency law abuse AS reported in ThaiINdian.Com Oct 20 2010, by IANS ( Leave a comment ) New Delhi, Oct 20 (IANS) The Delhi High Court Wednesday imposed a cost of Rs.75,000 on an NGO which had sought an inquiry into the role of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) engineers in the alleged mismanagement of Commonwealth Games (CWG) projects. The court dismissed the petition after the MCD submitted that the petitioner NGO, Pardarshita Public Welfare Foundation, had questioned the parentage of the engineers through a Right to Information (RTI) application. Dismissing the petition, Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Manmohan said the present petition amounted to abuse of law. “Seeking information about the parentage of a person and his medical history is unwarranted and uncalled for. (Such) information is bound to create a storm in anybody’s mind,” said the bench. The bench said that the RTI law was not enacted for abusing people and seeking personal details. While dismissing the petition, the court directed the petitioner NGO to deposit the cost of Rs.75,000 within a period of four weeks. In its petition, the NGO alleged engineers of the MCD indulged in corrupt practices in connection with the several projects of the Commonwealth Games. It alleged that several MCD engineers misused public money for personal gains. “According to the NGO, several letters were written to the officials of the MCD but no action was taken. Allegations have been made against the officials but without any grounds,” said the bench. The court also took strong cognizance of the RTI application filed by Har Kishan Das Nijhawan, general secretary of the NGO, asking an MCD engineer about his parentage. He also asked whether the civic agency’s engineers were suffering from any sexual disorders, whether they had carried out a DNA test for their mother, whether their mother was a surrogate mother or step mother, and also sought the name of their biological father and step mother. “It’s an abuse of provisions under the RTI Act. We cannot give any type of clean chit to the MCD engineer, but the information which has been asked by the petitioner exposes vindictive attitude,” said the bench. The petitioner defended his move and said that the engineers were blackmailing him and also used unparliamentary language against him, so he asked certain questions through his RTI application. The court rejected the contention saying that the petitioner could have filed a complaint against such people instead of abusing the process of law. –Indo-Asian News service pks/rah/vt NGO ordered to pay Rs.75,000 for transparency law abuse
  23. HC orders compensation for not providing info under RTI Act as reported in Yahoo! News Oct 1 2010 New Delhi, Oct 1 (PTI) The Delhi High Court has asked the Public Information Officer of Directorate of Delhi Health Service(DHS) to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation to a poor man for not providing information pertaining to his treatment in a hospital within the stipulated time under RTI Act. Justice S Muralidhar upheld Central Information Commission''s(CIC) August 20 order and dismissed an appeal filed by DHS challenging the compensation awarded by the CIC. ". Any delay in providing timely information can result in a person belonging to the Economic Weaker Section (EWS) having to needlessly spend valuable resources for medical treatment which should otherwise be available to such person free of cost. The present case is an indicator of why many belonging to the EWS category are unable to avail of freeship facility in the hospitals in Delhi," the court said. Puran Chand, a Below Poverty Line(BPL) card holder, was undergoing treatment for a serious disease of compression of the spine in Indian Spinal Injury Center(ISIC), run by Delhi government, and sought freeship facility in August last year. However, he was given a bill of Rs 1.75 lakh for the treatment, after which he filed an application under RTI Act for the detailed information. The PIO of DHS had failed to provide information on time and as a result he had to undergo surgery in a private hospital in September last year. Source : HC orders compensation for not providing info under RTI Act - Yahoo! India News
  24. Distrcit Court RTI Rules cannot have exemptions over and above the main RTI Act and FAA cannot review his decision In a recent order, related to District courts in Delhi, the CIC has ruled that: 1. The Court RTI Rules cannot have exemptions over and above those in Sec 8 or 9 of the RTI Act. 2. The FAA cannot review his own decision. The full order is attached to this post. Court's rules.pdf
  25. HC rejects ex-RAW official’s plea for info under RTI As reported in Indian Express, Fri Jul 02 2010 The Delhi High Court today turned down the plea of a retired Director of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) seeking direction to the agency to disclose information under the RTI Act. Justice S Muralidhar dismissed the plea of Brig (Retd) Ujjal Dasgupta, a former official of the intelligence agency, who was arrested for allegedly leaking sensitive information to a CIA agent. The court passed the order on a petition of Dasgupta filed against the Centre for not disclosing information about the software ‘Anveshak’ which was crucial to his defence in the espionage case filed against him. Dasgupta, former Director (Computers), RAW, was arrested in 2006 for allegedly violating the Official Secrets Act by passing on sensitive information to an American diplomat Rosanna Minchew. Under the RTI Act, Dasgupta had sought details about the development of ‘Anveshak’, the way it was transferred to RAW -- by floppy disk, CD or pen drive, the agency responsible for installation at the premises of RAW and other such details but the plea was refused by the government agencies. HC rejects ex-RAW official