- 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 'madurai'.
Found 7 results
I had filed 3 RTIs asking for DPR of Madurai Smart City projects. They have denied information saying it has Drawing, Elevation, Plan, Section, DPR, Estimate, Structural Drawing, Note File & Current File , Agreement, Bidder furnished bid document and is more than 1000 pages and is voluminous information. However I have specifically asked for information in electronic form like CD. They have also quoted a State Information Commission SA-11683/2016 dated 02.02.2017 order stating that information supplying which causes hurdles in day to day functioning of office is exempted. Sent from my SM-J510FN using RTI INDIA mobile app
Sir I had filed an RTI Online using the government website to NHAI seeking details of flyovers u/c in Madurai. But I have received a reply that my petition is disposed of -" Reply sent to petitioner vide Lr. No. 1924 Dt. 04.08.17" with CPIO details and first appellate authority details. But I have not the said letter via email or physical post. My questions 1. When RTI is filed online in electronic form isn't it mandatory to give reply via electronic form? Can the preference for mode of reply be indicated in the application itself? Will the preference given by us be adhered to or is it better to add some clauses for our preferred mode of reply? 2. Given that I have not received any letter as stated in the reply, is it worth to wait for the reply. 3. Has my RTI been transferred to another PIO? Since RTI is filed with the CPIO isn't it the responsibilty of the CPIO to collect the information and provide it to me. The reply I received just states " Reply sent to petitioner vide Lr. No. 1924 Dt. 04.08.17" but I have not received the contents of Lr. No. 1924. Please advice.
akhilesh yadav posted a topic in RTI in MediaMADURAI: Health and human rights activists here who found anomalies in the implementation of the state health insurance scheme on Thursday demanded a social audit into the scheme. Based on information gathered through Right to Information (RTI) Act, the activists alleged that greed for incentives was encouraging doctors at poorly equipped taluk-level hospitals to carry out major surgeries. Read more at: Government scheme peps up small hospitals in Madurai - The Times of India
rti happenings: Madras HC seeks chief information commissioner's response on denial of info under RTI Act
akhilesh yadav posted a topic in RTI in MediaMADURAI: A petition has been filed in the Madurai bench of the Madras high court seeking its intervention to get information under the RTI Act on the appointment of 23 district judges in Tamil Nadu. In his petition, Madurai-based K Kathiresan said he submitted an application to the Madras high court registrar (administration), who is the public information officer (PIO), on November 25 last year seeking the copies of application forms and police verification reports of the 23 district judges (entry level) who were appointed in 2013. Read at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Madras-HC-seeks-chief-information-commissioners-response-on-denial-of-info-under-RTI-Act/articleshow/46864916.cms
Is information given under RTI Act right? as reported by Mohamed Imranullah S in the HINDU, MADURAI : Jun 08, 2010 Access to information has been universally accepted as an essential requirement for empowerment of people. Proving it right, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 has established itself to be one of the most beneficial legislations for information-seekers. However, many officials, who are information-providers, find it to be a pain in the neck for reasons aplenty. An official in the Madras High Court Bench here says that the RTI applicants do not restrict their queries to the official functions of the court. They go beyond and seek information about personal visits made by judges to various places, expenses incurred on such trips and the government accommodation, if any, provided to them in those places. “As of now, we obtain the concurrence of the Chief Justice even while replying to queries related to cases filed in the High Court. We also forward some of the applications to the Principal Seat in Chennai whenever we find it not advisable to take a decision here and the applicants are asked to appear in person in order to ascertain their genuineness,” he added. On the other hand, the counsel of a woman litigant, M. Shanthi of Karur, says that the government officials are bound to follow the law and there is no use cribbing about a legislation enacted by Parliament. He claims that the High Court Bench here has not provided even simple information about a pending case sought by his client as early as on February 25. “The officials are not serious when it comes to providing information under RTI,” he says. His statement is strengthened by the contradictory answers provided by the High Court Bench in reply to a set of questions posed by an RTI applicant from Madurai relating to the disposal of cases ever since the establishment of the Bench here on July 24, 2004. Answering one of the questions, the APIO of the Bench stated that a former judge M.E.N. Patrudu (since dead) did not sit in the Bench even for a single day in 2006. Conversely, replying to another question, the APIO stated that the judge had disposed of 512 cases while being part of four different Division Benches and 247 cases individually in the same year. The statement given by the High Court Bench stated that former judge N. Kannadasan had disposed of 252 criminal cases and three civil cases in 2006 notwithstanding the fact that he ceased to be a judge as early as November 2005 itself because his tenure as an Additional Judge of the High Court was neither extended nor was he made permanent. This is not all. The RTI reply also stated that Justice Aruna Jagadeesan, who was elevated as a High Court judge only in 2009, had disposed of a Civil Revision Petition in 2007 itself. The APIO further stated that the High Court Bench was closed for 44 days on account of summer vacation in 2004 though the fact remains that the Bench was inaugurated only on July 24 that year. The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Madurai News : Is information given under RTI Act right?
karira posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported by Mohamed Imranullah S. in thehindu.com on 08 April 2010: The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Madurai News : RTI applicant surprised by High Court official's response RTI applicant surprised by High Court official's response MADURAI: An applicant under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, who wanted to know the status of a case originally filed before the principal seat of the Madras High Court in Chennai in 2001 and subsequently transferred to its Madurai Bench in 2004, has taken by surprise by the response asking her to appear in person for verification of her identity, residential address and signature. M. Shanthi of Karur had filed an RTI application on February 25 seeking details of a civil miscellaneous appeal filed by an insurance company in 2001 against a judgment passed by a lower court earlier. Stating that the case was not listed for hearing for a long time, she sought to know whether it was still pending or had been disposed of. N. Vijayakumar, Deputy Registrar (Administration) of the Bench and also Assistant Public Information Officer, replied to the application on March 3. Instead of giving a direct answer to the question, he asked the woman applicant to approach her advocate for obtaining the required information. Not satisfied with the reply, Ms. Shanthi filed an appeal, under the RTI Act, before the Registrar (Administration) of the High Court Bench on March 13, 2010. Subsequently, she received another letter from R. Susheela Devi, Deputy Registrar (RTI) dated March 31 asking her to come to the Bench during office hours at the earliest for verification of her residential address and signature. The issue gains significance in view of the fact that there is no provision in the RTI Act which entitles a public information officer to ask an applicant to prove his/her identity. Section 6(2) of the Act categorically states a person seeking information need not give any personal details except those that were required for contacting him.