Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'penalty'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Request for Community Support
  • Connect with Community
  • Learn about RTI
  • Website News & Support
  • Read RTI News & Stories
  • RTI Act Critics's RTI Act Critics Topics
  • Fans of RTI India's Fans of RTI India Topics
  • Insurance Consumer's Insurance Consumer Topics
  • Activists of Transparency and Accountability's Activists of Transparency and Accountability Topics
  • Issues with BWSSB's Issues with BWSSB Topics
  • Law+Order-Bangalore-32's Law+Order-Bangalore-32 Topics
  • Issues With Electricity Board's Issues With Electricity Board Topics
  • RTI Activists's RTI Activists Topics
  • YOGA's YOGA Topics
  • help each other's help each other Topics
  • forest and wild life's forest and wild life Topics
  • Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C.'s Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C. Topics
  • RTI Activist+Politics's RTI Activist+Politics Topics
  • hostels and lodging places's hostels and lodging places Topics
  • RTI Activists in Rajasthan.'s RTI Activists in Rajasthan. Topics
  • RTI info warriors in Haryana's RTI info warriors in Haryana Topics
  • DisABILITY Rights and RTI's DisABILITY Rights and RTI Topics
  • Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI.'s Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI. Topics
  • Eco club's Eco club Topics
  • Self Employment in Sport's Self Employment in Sport Topics
  • RTI related to land issue's RTI related to land issue Topics
  • Open SourceTechnology support to RTI's Open SourceTechnology support to RTI Topics
  • TRAP group's TRAP group Topics
  • Odisha RTI Activists's Odisha RTI Activists Topics
  • right to information activists's right to information activists Topics
  • Mumbai's Mumbai Topics
  • Chartered Accountants's Chartered Accountants Topics
  • ngosamachar's ngosamachar Topics
  • Growing INDIA's Growing INDIA Topics
  • we are all friends.'s we are all friends. Topics
  • RTI for Government employees's RTI for Government employees Topics
  • Dhanus - Pending Salaries's Dhanus - Pending Salaries Topics
  • Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors's Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Topics
  • Mahamumbai's Mahamumbai Topics
  • M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech's M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech Topics
  • Corruption's Corruption Topics
  • minority engineering colleges in maharashtra's minority engineering colleges in maharashtra Topics
  • RiGhTs's RiGhTs Topics
  • ram's ram Topics
  • anti corrupt police's anti corrupt police Topics
  • Save Girl in Punjab's Save Girl in Punjab Topics
  • Rent Apartment in US's Rent Apartment in US Topics
  • RTI Kerala's RTI Kerala Topics
  • maharashtra's maharashtra Topics
  • Right Way Of India(RTI)'s Right Way Of India(RTI) Topics
  • Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India's Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India Topics
  • Navi Mumbai's Navi Mumbai Topics
  • electricity curruption in up's electricity curruption in up Topics
  • SHARE n STOCKS trading's SHARE n STOCKS trading Topics
  • Civil Engineers-CAD's Civil Engineers-CAD Topics
  • Nitin Aggarwal's Nitin Aggarwal Topics
  • ex-serviceman activities's ex-serviceman activities Topics
  • SSCC's SSCC Topics
  • Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates's Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates Topics
  • jharkhand RTI activist group's jharkhand RTI activist group Topics
  • Suhail's Suhail Topics
  • govt.servant's govt.servant Topics
  • RTI Uttar pradesh's RTI Uttar pradesh Topics
  • anti-corruption team's anti-corruption team Topics
  • Manaism's Manaism Topics
  • Insurance's Insurance Topics
  • sonitpur datri sewa samity's sonitpur datri sewa samity Topics
  • indian youth manch's indian youth manch Topics
  • HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies's HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies Topics
  • youth's youth Topics
  • aastha's aastha Topics
  • RTI for Citizens's RTI for Citizens Topics
  • learn always's learn always Topics
  • R.T.I.'s R.T.I. Topics
  • Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana's Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana Topics
  • Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna's Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna Topics
  • MBA, business and new entrepreneur.....'s MBA, business and new entrepreneur..... Topics
  • students seeking help's students seeking help Topics
  • RTI Corporate's RTI Corporate Topics
  • Electrical group's Electrical group Topics
  • V4LRights's V4LRights Topics
  • Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool's Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool Topics
  • Gaming's Gaming Topics
  • WE Born to help's WE Born to help Topics
  • help the elderly citizen's help the elderly citizen Topics
  • Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association's Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association Topics
  • Corruption free Country's Corruption free Country Topics
  • surajyam's surajyam Topics
  • kanpurvictims's kanpurvictims Topics
  • Railway Group A Services's Railway Group A Services Topics
  • Encroachment of public property by private giants's Encroachment of public property by private giants Topics
  • Case Status - Anti Corruption's Case Status - Anti Corruption Topics
  • Aam Aadmi (The Common Man)'s Aam Aadmi (The Common Man) Topics
  • Court Marriage in Punjab's Court Marriage in Punjab Topics
  • ALL's ALL Topics
  • Youth India Social Group (YISG)'s Youth India Social Group (YISG) Topics
  • ye kya fandda h's ye kya fandda h Topics
  • mindset's mindset Topics
  • anti corruption's anti corruption Topics
  • activism's activism Topics
  • common's common Topics
  • state group's state group Topics
  • social help group's social help group Topics
  • landlords of uttar pradesh's landlords of uttar pradesh Topics
  • Concern Citizens Forum for India's Concern Citizens Forum for India Topics
  • edusystem's edusystem Topics
  • Ratna Jyoti's Ratna Jyoti Topics
  • development in indian village's development in indian village Topics
  • technovision's technovision Topics
  • Mighty India's Mighty India Topics
  • Against Corporate Fraud's Against Corporate Fraud Topics
  • Stop crime's Stop crime Topics
  • NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti's NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Topics
  • Authenticated Public Plateform's Authenticated Public Plateform Topics
  • shalin's shalin Topics
  • terminater's terminater Topics
  • RTI Wind Energy's RTI Wind Energy Topics
  • Go..................?'s Go..................? Topics
  • Co-Op Housing Society's Co-Op Housing Society Topics
  • we are equal's we are equal Topics
  • Phoenix Deals's Phoenix Deals Topics
  • Theft Cases in chandigarh's Theft Cases in chandigarh Topics
  • Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits's Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits Topics
  • Solar Systems's Solar Systems Topics
  • Get aware about ur Education and related rights's Get aware about ur Education and related rights Topics
  • Save Mumbai's Save Mumbai Topics
  • Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board's Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board Topics
  • ashayen's ashayen Topics
  • unemployment's unemployment Topics
  • Employee Solution's Employee Solution Topics
  • is kanpur university against sc/st's is kanpur university against sc/st Topics
  • prayatna's prayatna Topics
  • Parking woes's Parking woes Topics
  • Helping RTI INDIA web development's Helping RTI INDIA web development Topics


  • 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 Directory
  • Important RTI Decisions
  • Other Important Court Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts & Circulars


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...

Found 71 results

  1. nk agarwal

    Lesser Penalty by SIC

    In one of my recent 2nd Appeal, IC of a SIC imposed a "token" penalty of Rs 2500/-on PIO admitting a delay of more than 100 days; the IC was well aware of different judgements on Penalty by Hon'b'e Apex court and High Courts wherein it is clearly made out that the ICs have to take a decision on either penalty or no penalty but, cannot change the prescribed the rate of penalty. IS THIS NOT MAKING A JOKE OUT OF RTI ACT-2005 by SIC What is the solution before the Appellant now?
  2. State Information Commission ordered Penalty of Rs 15,000/- on PIO in the year 2009 with directions to PA for deductions. To my surprise, on enquiry from SIC office it is learnt that no penalty has been paid but, the PIO has submitted a letter of compliance. On repeatedly pursuing with SIC, I have been informed that perhaps, the PIO has filed an appeal with High Court and obtained stay order etc. My query is that - (1) Can the PIO/PA file an appeal/ challenge the SIC order without making the appellant a party in the appeal before the HC? (2) Can the PIO/PA file a compliance report to SIC and at the same time challenge its order in HC?
  3. 15 downloads

    A perusal of Section 20 of the Act shows that it makes a provision to impose penalty either on Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer. However, there is no provision to initiate a departmental inquiry against the First Appellate Authority as per the Section 20 of the Act.
  4. 11 downloads

    High Court of HImachal Pradesh We find no provision in the Act which empowers the Commission to either reduce or enhance this penalty. If the Commission comes to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds for delay or that the Public Information Officer (P.I.O) concerned has satisfactorily explained the delay then no penalty can be imposed. However, once the Commission comes to the conclusion that the penalty has to be imposed then the same must be @ Rs.250/- per day and not at any other rate at the whims and fancy of the Commission. To this extent the petitioner is absolutely right. The penalty either has to be imposed at the rate fixed or no penalty has to be imposed.
  5. One of my friends has been informed by Nodal CPIO of Central Information Commission vide his letter No. CIC/CPIO/2012/1128 dated 04-10-2012 as under: “The total amount of penalty imposed since 2007-2008 onwards is Rs.15804275/- out of this Rs.9216264/- has been recovered so far. The Commission does not maintain year-wise data in this regards. In certain cases, the PIOs have preferred writ for waiver and stay of penalty amount. Although in some cases, the Commission has been made a party but there are many instances where the Commission is not made a party. The figures regarding recovery of penalty is based on inputs received from the PIOs and Pay & Accounts Office.”
  6. In a recent order, CIC has imposed the maximum penalty and also recommended disciplinary action on the PIO for misleading the commission. Full order is attached to this post. Further, Commission notes that Shri Rajinder Prasad Dagar was present for the hearing on 21 May 2013 and made false and misleading statements before the Commission which are recorded in order of even number dated 21 May 2013 in para 6 of the order. Shri RP Dagar falsely stated that he is in no way connected with the case whereas in fact it is Shri RP Dagar who has signed the original note dated 18 October 2012 which was forwarded to the appellant by the CPIO as noted above. It is also observed that Shri Rajinder Prasad Dagar signed his name as Rajinder (the word Prasad is not clearly written) even on the attendance sheet of the Commission on 21 May 2013 with a view to concealing his true identity and to mislead the Commission as his name could not be properly noted in the Commission’s order of that date. Max Penalty and Disciplinary action for misleading statements.pdf
  7. The CIC has refused to accept the explanation of a PIO of the Staff Selection Commission that he delayed providing information (requested in Nov 2011 and provided in Jan 2013) since he was overloaded with work. 4. From the above, it is obvious that the Appellant received the information nearly 14 months after he requested for it. Giving the information so late makes little sense. The then CPIO submitted during the hearing that he had not been able to provide the information because of the huge volume of work he had to handle during this period being in charge of the confidential branch of the SSC. He explained that this branch dealt with very large number of examination related papers and extracting any specific answer sheet from the pile of documents was very time consuming if not often impossible. 5. This is not a very convincing explanation. Even if it is assumed that the CPIO had been making efforts to locate the answer sheet, nothing stopped him from informing the information seeker, from time to time, about such efforts. He had no courtesy to keep the Appellant informed about the fate of his RTI application. This is very unfortunate, to say the least. For this lapse on his part, we impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on him and direct the present CPIO to get this amount deducted from his salary in 2 equal monthly installments beginning 1 June 2013 and remit to the CIC by way of demand draft drawn in favour of the PAO, CAT payable at New Delhi. The full order is attached to this post. Penalty even if overloaded with work.pdf
  8. As reported in deccanherald.com on 18 Jan 2013: SC raps K’taka information commissioner [h=1]SC raps K’taka information commissioner[/h] The Supreme Court on Friday expressed displeasure over a petition filed by the Karnataka information commissioner, challenging a Karnataka High Court order rejecting his direction to divulge details on a pending writ petition under the RTI Act. A bench of justices G S Singhvi and H L Gokhale pointed out that the information commission was a judicial body and the commissioner could not be aggrieved in personal capacity by a high court order. “What is the locus of the petitioner (Karnataka Information Commissioner) to file this petition? Who has authorised him to do so? Has the information commissioner paid the entire litigation cost from his pocket,” the bench asked advocate V N Raghupathy, appearing for the petitioner. Describing the petition as “frivolous,” the court imposed cost before dismissing it. Perusing the case title, the court became livid and asked the counsel if it should summon the information commissioner. “It is mischief,” the court observed, adding that only the person who was denied information could be aggrieved. It was hearing a special leave petition listed as “Karnataka Information Commissioner versus State Public Information Officer and another.” The court said the information commissioner could not be aggrieved if an order passed by him, to reveal details in a case under the Right to Information Act, was set aside by the high court. In the instant case, the information seeker sought details of the pending writ petition from the Karnataka High Court’s registrar. The official asked the applicant to apply for a certified copy, according to the rules. The information seeker approached the state transparency panel, which directed the registrar to pass the information to him.
  9. My friend has accessed above data of CIC. I am attaching the same for information of our members [2 pages]. CIC DATA JUNE12.pdf
  10. I filed an RTI query to TRAI and got a very surprising resp; here are the details: On the NDNC website, they have mentioned following line: "In case of non-compliance to the Telecom Unsolicited Commercial Communications Regulations, 2007, the Service Provider is also liable to pay an amount by way of financial disincentive, not exceeding Rs.5000/- for first non-compliance of the regulation" I interpreted the above text (specially, underlined words) as a fine (or penalty) to be paid by the service provider to the victim called party. When I tried to clarify the same with TRAI (via ant RTI query, thanks to this website for help), TRAI replied with one liner "No compensation", without explaining the meaning of their above clause. Neither did they say that the above clause is obsolete. In RTI reply (against my queries), TRAI said they do not maintain any data regarding how many subscribers have raised complaints for unsolicited calls! You should note that TRAI _does_ maintain (and publish) the data of misc subscribers' complaints and how timely the providers have fixed those complaints! It seems that something is fishy in this business.
  11. ajayjangid

    complain 18(1)

    RTI Application date : 24/10/2011 PIO (A) transfered under 6(3) (same PA) to PIO (B) and PIO © on 02/11/2011 (after 10 days ) PIO (B) transfered another PA after 34 days ... made complain under 18(1) for PIO (A) 10 days and PIO (B) for 34 days for transfer the application.. Now today get a letter PIO © transfer the application to PIO(D,E and F) same PA after 50 days... now how can i add the name of PIO © in my filed complain to GIC 5 days ago??? or file new complain for the same???? how to teach RTI to these PIO????
  12. arvindschauhan

    fine on first appellate authority

    whether information commissioner may impose penalty on first appellate authority.
  13. Under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, CIC/SIC has power to impose penalty on a PIO upto Rs.25,000/-. But is there any provision under which CIC/SIC can attach property of the PIO for recovery of this penalty?
  14. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/HC-upholds-fine-of-Rs-2000-imposed-on-dy-collector/articleshow/8983778.cms The Times of India, Goa HC upholds fine of Rs 2000 imposed on dy collector TNN | Jun 25, 2011, 04.18am IST PANAJI: The high court of Bombay at Goa recently dismissed a petition filed by deputy collector Johnson Fernandes challenging a fine of Rs 2000 imposed on him by the Goa state information commission (GSIC) for delay in furnishing information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Fernandes, who is also a public information officer (PIO), had failed to give information sought by an applicant Minguel Monterio within a period of 30 days. The applicant's lawyer Valmiki Menezes submitted that it is the duty of the PIO to supply the information to the RTI applicant within 30 days directly and not by furnishing the information in the pleadings when the matter is taken up in appeal. The petitioner's advocate, J Lobo, pointed out that information was given to the applicant while giving reply to the first appeal filed by the applicant. As this reply was served on the respondent (applicant), the requirement of giving information was complied with, Lobo said. Therefore, the appeal filed before the GSIC was unwarranted, he contended. While dismissing the petition, Justice S A Bobde observed thus: "Having regard to the admitted fact that there was a delay in supplying information, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the impugned order. In fact, the information commissioner has shown some degree of leniency in imposing the penalty." The court also said that if the petitioner intended to furnish the information to the applicant, he could have communicated it without waiting for the applicant to file an appeal. On May 3, 2010, the applicant had sought to know the name and designation of the officer who had put his notings under his signature in a land revenue case. According to the applicant there was delay of two months in furnishing the information. The information was furnished only after the applicant filed an appeal against the PIO on August 2, 2010.
  15. "I bought a small flat from a promoter which was registered 4 years back. Now as I intend to get it mutated by the Municipal authority, the municipal authority detected that the constructed flat is on a parking space as shown in the plan. The promoter has also been issued with a "Completion Certificate". Now I seek guidance as to whether penalty if any needs to be imposed for this irregularity for the irregularity on the part of the Promoter and for this who is to be penalized. The property was purchased with Bank Loan and all formalities of Legal scrutiny were to the satisfaction of the Banker. The loan now stands liquidated. Request help and guidance for enabling me to proceed for mutaion of the Flat.
  16. Two Bihar government officials fined under RTI Act As Reported in Outlook India, PATNA, MAY 20 (PTI) Bihar Information Commission (BIC) has fined two officials - one for not providing information sought under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and another for not providing information within stipulated time. The BIC fined the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Motihari Collectorate Rs 25,000 as the PIO was found guitly of not not responding to the application of one Nagendra Jaiswal who had sought certain information from him, Commission sources said. The BIC directed the East Champaran District Magistrate to ensure the compliance of the Commission's order and inform it accordingly, they said. The Commission asked the PIO to provide relevant information latest by July two and fixed July 10 as the next date of hearing in the case. Chief Information Commissioner Justice Shashank Kumar Singh slapped a fine of Rs 12,500 on the chief engineer of the Patna Muncipal Corporation R P Trivedi for not not supplying information to Indrani Sinha within the stipulated period. The fine would be deducted from the June and July salary of the chief engineer, BIC sources added. outlookindia.com | wired
  17. sivak64

    Penalty, where it goes?

    Suppose PIO was punished with penalty of 25000 by the CIC. In such case, whether PIO has to pay the penalty to PA or to CIC or to Govt.?
  18. Delhi slammed for delayed information, fined Rs.50,0000 as reported in SIFY News 2010-08-23 The Central Information Commission has slammed the Delhi government and asked it to pay a patient a compensation of Rs.50,000 for delay in providing him information on free treatment in private hospitals. Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi said that in cases where information sought by a right to information (RTI) applicant pertains to 'life or liberty' of the individual, the public information officer (PIO) should ensure it is provided within 48 hours. 'The instant case is reflective of the incompetence and callousness of the public authority,' Gandhi said. 'This case represents how the delivery systems to the poor fail. Unless all officers and systems can respond in a time-bound manner, governance cannot deliver to those who need it most,' said Gandhi. Pooran Chand, a resident of east Delhi, filed an RTI application Aug 31, 2009, seeking information from the directorate of health services on whether he could be treated free of cost at the Indian Spinal Injuries Centre (ISIC) here. The reply was received by Chand after a delay of 12 days. Chand, who was suffering from compression of spine and needed urgent treatment, moved the application after doctors at the ISIC informed him that his treatment would cost Rs.1.75 lakh. The PIO of the directorate received the application Sep 2, 2009, but failed to provide him the information within 48 hours. Due to the delay, Chand was forced to undergo treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital where he incurred a heavy expenditure. He also took a loan of Rs.84,000. 'If the PIO and all the officers had acted with urgency when the RTI application was received Sep 2, 2009, and provided the information within 48 hours, the complainant may have been able to avail the free service that he was entitled to,' the commission said. Gandhi slammed the PIO and said that if the PIO had acted pro-actively the information could have been provided over telephone to the complainant who had given his contact number on the RTI application. 'It is unfortunate that most schemes which promise to deliver to the poor fail because of lack of sensitivity in implementation,' said the commission. 'The government has allotted land to certain private hospitals at nominal rates on the condition that they will provide 10 percent of the beds to poor patients. This scheme is clearly intended for the economically weaker section of the society,' observed the commission. The commission criticised the government and the hospitals for not implementing the scheme meant for poor patients. 'The allotment of land at a nominal price is actually a loss to the exchequer and a gift to the private hospitals, on the tenet that the land given to the hospitals for private profit will benefit the weaker sections of the society. However, in reality most persons for whom such scheme is intended do not enjoy its benefits due to lack of proper implementation,' said the commission. Source : Delhi slammed for delayed information, fined Rs.50,0000
  19. Share data sermon to govt officers As reported by SANJEEV KUMAR VERMA in the TELEGRAPH Patna, Oct. 6: Not just the public information officers, any government official can face music for not providing information sought by an applicant under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Chief information commissioner of Bihar Ashok Kumar Choudhary. Telegraph picture Executive engineer of Patna Municipal Corporation’s new capital division (north) Kameshwar Prasad Singh today became the first such official in Bihar. The chief information commissioner of the state, Ashok Kumar Choudhary, penalised him for not co-operating with the Patna Municipal Corporation chief engineer in providing information to Mahendra Prasad Gupta, sought under the RTI Act. Choudhary observed in his judgment that Singh’s action was a fit case for imposing fine in accordance with the provisions of the act. He imposed a penalty of Rs 250 per day, subject to a maximum of Rs 25,000, on Singh. The chief information commissioner has directed the Patna Municipal Corporation commissioner to deduct Rs 2,000 per month from Singh’s salary for the first 12 months and Rs 1,000 for the 13th month. The deducted sum will be deposited under the funds earmarked for the penalty imposed under RTI. Choudhary has recommended the Patna Municipal Corporation commissioner to put the erring executive engineer under suspension and initiate departmental action. The chief information commissioner, in the concluding part of the judgment, has asked the Patna Municipal Corporation commissioner to provide information to the petitioner. He has also been asked to send a report to the commission. The case dates back to August 2009 when Gupta had sought information from the public information officers of the Patna Municipal Corporation about the steps taken to meet the underground drain repair demand of the residents. The state information panel in November 2009 directed the public information officer to provide data to the applicant latest by December 8, 2009. The commission set May 20, 2010 as the next date of hearing of the case. On May 20 this year, the public information officer said he had provided partial information to the petitioner, Gupta. The rest of the information had been sought from the chief engineer of the Patna Municipal Corporation. On the next date of hearing (August 4, 2010), the chief engineer informed the commission that the information was available with the executive engineer. The chief engineer had written to the executive engineer requesting him to provide the necessary information in June 2010 itself. After getting the order of the state information commission on August 4, he wrote to the Patna Municipal Corporation commissioner informing him that he contacted the executive engineer as directed by the commission several times but the executive engineer did not co-operate with him. He requested the Patna Municipal Corporation commissioner to direct the executive engineer to provide information to the petitioner. The copy of the letter was also sent to the state information commission. Pulling up the executive engineer for his act, the chief information commissioner observed that right to information was a fundamental right and it was the duty of the public authorities to provide information to petitioners. The institution of public information officer and assistant public information officer were created to ease the burden of the public authority and also to ensure uninterrupted flow of information to the citizens who seek information under the act, Choudhary said. “It does not, however, mean that if the public information officer or deemed public information officer refuses to provide information, the citizen will not get the information,” he added. Source : The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Bihar | Share data sermon to govt officers
  20. The Information Commissioner, Sri Ambaty Subba Rao of APSIC vide order in the application No.9318/SIC-ASR/2008, dt.30-06-2009 imposed penalty of 25,000/- to a PIO who responded in a different way to the show-cause notice in which the Information Commissioner written " under the second provision to Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, it is for the PIO to prove that he acted "reasonably" and "diligently" to avoid any punishment".The PIO has stated in his reply that the Commission should delete these expressions from its show-cause notice as the use of such words would amount to "Character assassination of an individual, who is not subservient to you under any stretch of imagination". The brief facts of the case are: The PIO has not implemented the previous direction in its order in Appeal No.5203/2008 dated 21-10-2008 to furnish complete information to the extent available within ten days. This was informed to the Commission by the appellant. The Commission issued show-case notices twice. To the second notice, the PIO responded as mentioned above. The Information Commissioner responded as follows on the attitude of the PIO. The tone and tenor of this letter indicate the laciferous conduct of the PIO.This sort of instances which are rare is indicative of the need to amend the RTI Act with stringent provisions to deal with, such situations punitively and deterrently, by conferring the power to punish for contempt. A copy of this order may be sent to the Central Information Commission and the Govt. of India to study on this aspect and for taking necessary action in this regard. The PIO is liable for punishment u/s 20 of the Act.He is liable for max. penalty of Rs.25,000 payable by him personally by way of Challlan.On failure, the competent authority shall recover the penalty amount from the PIO under Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. Communicate a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary to Govt. Revenue Department, Govt. of A.P for necessary action. As per the information received from the PIO, APSIC in response to my application under RTI, it is informed that no information received by APSIC regarding the remittance of the penalised amount by the PIO. Now I have to move another application to that P.A regarding the remittance particulars of the penalty imposed to the PIO.
  21. Failure to provide info costs babus Rs 80 lakh as reported by Prafulla Marpakwar, TNN, Jun 3, 2010 MUMBAI: Ever since the landmark Right To Information (RTI) Act came into force five years ago, nearly 750 babus have paid a fine of around Rs 80 lakh for their failure to provide documents as per the provisions of law. The performance of information officers and the misuse of the Act prominently figured in a high-level meeting between chief minister Ashok Chavan and chief information commissioner Suresh Joshi. “No doubt, on occasions the RTI Act is misused. However, the performance of our information commissioners is excellent. A total of 98% cases were disposed of and that too, in a time-bound period. We will consider an amendment of the RTI Act to stop its misuse,’’ Chavan said. Maharashtra was among the first states to enact the RTI Act after anti-corruption crusaders launched a statewide agitation for right to information. After the legislation was introduced in the state, the Centre enacted a new central legislation. Between 2005 and 2009, a total of 12.98lakh applications were filed before the competent authorities for securing information. “They were either original applications, first or second appeals before the competent authorities. Largest number of applications—4.4 lakh—were filed in 2009,’’ a senior official said. About the fine imposed on erring babus, the official said, “A total fine of nearly Rs 80 lakh was imposed on 750 babus during the last four years. The maximum fine was imposed by non-IAS commissioners—Vilas Patil (Nagpur), Vijay Kuvalekar (Pune) and T S Borge (Aurangabad). It was mainly for failure to provide information within the stipulated period or misleading the applicants. The fine has already been recovered from the salaries of the erring babus.’’ RTI activists alleged that even after five years of the enactment of the legislation, several information officers still had an indifferent attitude. “Several of them refused to part with basic information and preferred to pay the fine,’’ an RTI activist said. The activist said the appointment of retired IAS officers was the main hurdle. “The commitment of the officers is towards the government, as a result, whenever appeals pertaining to sensitive information are filed, they are either sent back to the information officers or no order is passed on such appeals,’’ he said. Source Failure to provide info costs babus Rs 80 lakh - Mumbai - City - The Times of India
  22. sidmis

    RTI whip on Tripura official

    RTI whip on Tripura official as Reported by SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT, The Telegraph Agartala, May 15: Tripura’s chief information commissioner B.K. Chakraborty today imposed a fine of Rs 24,000 on a block development officer for failing to provide information to an applicant under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Krishna Gopal Saha, 43, a resident of Shibnagar in Sadar subdivision, had sought information about the utilisation of funds under the NREGA scheme in the block in the last fiscal in a letter to BDO (Mohanpur) Pradip Acharjee on March 27. The officer, however, took no initiative to disseminate the information. After Saha failed to obtain the information, he appealed to the state information commission and, having gone through the case, Chakraborty directed Acharjee on April 28 to provide the necessary information within 10 days, but the BDO did not comply with the order. “The applicant approached us again with a plea for action. This morning, I imposed a fine of Rs 24,000 on the BDO and ordered his boss DM (West) to realise the amount of fine, deposit the same with the public exchequer and send a compliance report to the commission,” Chakraborty said. He said all documents submitted by a beneficiary of government job were public documents and should be disclosed to anyone seeking information about them. Chakraborty had stressed this in another landmark order passed yesterday. A source in the information commission said Premdas Saiya, 28, a resident of Haryana, had filed a letter under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, to subdivisional medical officer Dr Naresh Tripura on April 9 seeking information about documents submitted by newly appointed Dr Dayasish Chakma, 27, in Chhailengta hospital. But Tripura and the chief medical officer of Dhalai district, Dr Sujit Chakma, sat over the application. On May 6, the applicant approached the commission with a petition. After receiving summons from the commission, Tripura and Chakma filed written replies but subsequently queried the applicant why he needed the information. In his final order passed yesterday, Chakraborty described the documents submitted by a job-holder before joining service as “public documents” under provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 that can be made available to any applicant seeking information about them. He directed Tripura and Chakma to disseminate the information sought by Saiya. “I have also directed the director of health services to make available the documents to Naresh Tripura and Sujit Chakma in case they are not already in possession of them,” he said. Commenting on the orders, leading rights activist and senior advocate Purushottam Roy Barman today said they were “very important and beneficial decisions” for protecting the rights of information-seekers. “In the state administration, there are many who obtained jobs by submitting false or fake certificates. But in spite of knowing about them, we have been facing difficulties till now to seek redress in the absence of proper documentary evidence. The state information commission’s latest order will make our task easier,” he added. The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | Northeast | RTI whip on Tripura official
  23. Registrar fined for violation of RTI Act in Gujarat as reported by by Sh. Kapil Dave / DNA, May 12, 2010 Gandhinagar: Registrar and Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Saurashtra University has been fined Rs25,000 under the Right to Information (RTI) Act by the State Information Commission for violation of the Act. Pareshbhai Sagathia, a resident of Rajkot filed an RTI application and asked various questions regarding the qualification of the Registrar, Gajendra Jani and Controller of Examination, Jagdish Mamtora. He had also sought reasons behind the resignation of the heads of two departments and the details of the benefit of the California tour by the University team. However the Registrar did not respond to the application saying they had not received any. Looking at the evidences provided by the applicant, the Chief Information Commissioner, N Das,observed that even though the application was made through a registered post, the university had falsely denied receiving it. During the proceedings the university accepted the fact that they had received the application but the registrar argued that the applicant had asked questions and not information, so no information could be provided. However, the commission noted during the hearing that there were hardly two to three questions out of 11 to which information could not be provided. After the commission's intervention the university sent some information to the applicant but after long a delay. The commission observed, “The substantive issue is that the PIO has not furnished any reply or information in response to the applicationwithin 30 days from the date of receipt. The explanation given by the respondent for the delay did not satisfy the commission. Therefore, the respondent has failed to act reasonably to the application of the complainant and thus the commission holds the respondent responsible for the inordinate delay in providing the information.” Registrar fined for violation of RTI Act in Gujarat - dnaindia.com
  24. CIC tosses out ’staff shortage’ excuse, fines official AS Reported in Taragana By IANS March 24th, 2010 NEW DELHI - The Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that excuses like shortage of staff and work overload cannot be considered as reasons for not providing information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The commission penalised Mahesh Sharma, an officer of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Rs.25,000 for delaying answers to a petition filed by Shiv Babu, who wanted information about the number of illegal cycle-rickshaws caught, and the number of employees in the rickshaw department of the civic agency. The application was filed Oct 15 last year. The MCD PIO (Public Information Officer) had sought assistance of Sharma on the petition filed. But the information was provided by Sharma only on Jan 18 and that too was incomplete. The commission asked Sharma to explain the reasons for the delay. He states that he is very busy and has to move in the field to catch the illegal rickshaws. He states that he did not have enough knowledge on how to manage his work. He also states that he had a shortage of staff, Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi observed in his order. The RTI Act stipulates that information should be provided within 30 days, extendable to 45 days far valid reasons. These cannot be considered as reasons for not providing information under the RTI Act. All officers have to do all the jobs which their duty enjoins on them. Claiming shortage of staff and overload cannot be considered as excuses and the RTI Act has very clearly put the responsibility on the individual officers who are either PIOs or deemed PIOs. Mahesh Sharma has not advanced any reasonable cause for not providing the information, Gandhi noted. The commission directed the PIO to provide all the information to the petitioner before April 5. The CIC ruled this was a fit case for penalising the official and said: Since the delay in providing the correct information has been over 100 days, the commission is passing an order penalizing Mahesh Sharma Rs.25,000 (Rs.250 per day). The commission directed the MCD commissioner to recover the amount from Sharma’s salary in five months starting from April by deducting Rs.5,000 every month. CIC tosses out ’staff shortage’ excuse, fines official http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/SG-19032010-09.pdf SG-19032010-09.pdf
  25. Please help to solve my below issue for grant of my passport I had applied for my passport at Trichy RPO in my native place address Nagapattinam vide File No.TRY A04282509 on 18.09.2009 - proof submitted 1) Ration Card 2) Voter ID. My police verification completed on 02.10.2009 - while police verification they asked and I informed I am working in Tirupur. So, they written in their police report my proofs are correct but working in Coimbatire in Pvt Company. So, the passport delayed. I met passport officer Trichy RPO they asked me to pay penaly for not mentioning the present address at Tirupur. I paid the penaltly on the same day but they transfered my application file to Coimbatore as my present falling under Coimbatore RPO. Later I met Passport officer at Coimbatore and they checked my file and asked me to submit new application with present address. I had submitted my application with following proofs svailable in present address and my application accepted vide file no.CBE A02953709 DT.23.10.2009 1) Certificate from Employer of reputed companies on letter head 2) Statement of running bank account 3) Gas connection Bill 4) PAN card/Income Tax Assessment Order 5) Rental deed Apart from the above I have following proofs also for my present address 1) Driving Licence 2) LIC insurance bond My police verification completed against present address on 11.11.2009 and the same received by passport office. Now I received letter from Coimbatore passport office asking Ration card & voter ID for the present address. I am not having the same. Please advice can I get passport above address proofs. I had lot of stress due to above problem, please help me any one to solve this issue. Thanking you With regards Balashanmugam S email: baluexim@gmail.com
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy