- 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 'multiple'.
Found 4 results
MANOJ B. PATEL posted a topic in RTI in MediaGURGAON: Aggrieved allottees have filed four fresh FIRs against HUDA and original owners at the Civil Lines and Sector 56 police stations, complaining about the Authority allotting multiple plots to the same person, leaving close to 300-odd new owners in the lurch after HUDA served cancellation notices against the allotments. All four FIRs were filed on July 19. Shashi Bhushan Vij said he had bought a plot in Sector 57 in 2005 from Sumitra Devi. "While buying it, the original allottee got a 'transfer permission' from HUDA in my favour. I was even issused a re-allotment letter," he said. Read more at; Four new FIRs filed in Gurgaon on multiple plot allotments - The Times of India
karira posted a topic in RTI Appeals decisionsIn a recent decision, IC SA in the CIC has admonished a RTI applicant for filing multiple RTI applications: http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SA_A_2014_900708_M_148306.pdf Summary:The appellant/complainant repeatedly stated: “Ï will repeatedly file RTIapplications till I get the information, what can you do?” The Commission holds that: a) Once the information is given to the appellant it is held by the appellant, or if itis kept on website or public domain, or when legally refused by the appropriateauthority, i.e., CPIO (after appeal period is exhausted), or First AppellateAuthority (after period for second appeal is exhausted) or InformationCommission, the appellant has no right to file another RTI request for thatinformation. b) In such cases it is deemed that the Authority ceased to hold that information tothe extent of applicant’s RTI request. c) The information which public authority does not hold cannot be given. d) An RTI applicant has no right to ask the same question/s or substantially samequestion/s with slightly altered sentences. e) The RTI Act has not provided anywhere that the applicant can file RTI requeststill the information sought is given. f) If any appellant asks for it, such an application could be rejected. g) If the appellant files further appeal before the Commission the Commission canimpose costs on the appellant to compensate the loss suffered by CPIO, FirstAppellate Authority and the Commission, as they cannot waste public moneyand time on these repeated applications. The Commission observes that any repetition of a RTI application or adding one or twopoints to the already sought information via previous RTI application would cause wasteof time and energy of the Public Authority & the Commission, which is unreasonable asthe appellant is already holding the information given to his earlier application. Therefore, the Commission advises the appellant, an advocate himself, who ispresumed to know the law, to restrain himself from abuse by repetition of a RTIapplication.The appellant abused Right to Information and also used insinuate and defamatorylanguage against the Central Information Commissioner repeatedly. In P. Jayasankar v.Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu and Gunaseelan, I.P.S. decided by MadrasHigh Court on 18.2.2013, it was held that “no information seeker can be allowed toinsinuate or defame the Commissioners in the guise of prosecuting their cases….Undersuch circumstances, when specific power is vested on the Commissioner and theCommission had proceeded against the information seeker, who had abused the ChiefInformation Commissioner in the course of his proceedings, it will be open to the saidauthority to disqualify a particular information seeker by passing a speaking order.Commission, preferred to admonish him.
ManmohanSingh posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportHello, Greetings of the day , I have applied for Information to Department of Women and Child Development as I have made a complaint to same department . But now when I want to know the status of my complaint they are stating that " The matter pertains to State Government of U.P. and Ministry of Home Govt. of India. The applicant is advised to contact them." There was a Shailesh Gandhi's order in which he have very precisely said that as per section 6 (3) the RTI application to be transferred to multiple authorities.
karira posted a topic in RTI in MediaTwo brothers, retd colonels, got 31 plots under HUDA quota Two retired Army colonels being probed as part of an investigation into allegedly fraudulent multiple allotment of plots to individuals by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) had between them got as many as 31 plots. Karan Singh Yadav and Dharam Singh Yadav, who are brothers, were allotted these plots in various urban estates of Haryana between 1998 and 2004 (including the time they were serving), documents submitted in the Punjab & Haryana High Court show. The scam is being probed by HUDA on the orders of the court. Over 325 FIRs have been registered against beneficiaries, including 188 defence personnel, who allegedly got more than one plot in their name, or in the name of their spouse or children. The Yadavs have got an interim stay on their arrest. Read More: Two brothers, retd colonels, got 31 plots under HUDA quota | The Indian Express