Jump to content
News Ticker
  • 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 'prof. m. sridhar acharyulu'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • 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
  • RTI ACTIVISTS FROM KARNATAKA's RTI ACTIVISTS FROM KARNATAKA 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
  • FREE LEGAL HELP AND SUGGESTIONS's FREE LEGAL HELP AND SUGGESTIONS Topics
  • M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech's M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech Topics
  • Corruption's Corruption Topics
  • ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION's ASSOCIATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Topics
  • MAHARASHTRA- ADVOCATE/LAWYERS's MAHARASHTRA- ADVOCATE/LAWYERS Topics
  • INDIAN WOMEN- LAWYERS /ADVOCATES's INDIAN WOMEN- LAWYERS /ADVOCATES Topics
  • minority engineering colleges in maharashtra's minority engineering colleges in maharashtra Topics
  • AAKANKSHA's AAKANKSHA Topics
  • RTI AGAINST INDIAN AIR FORCE MALPRACTISE's RTI AGAINST INDIAN AIR FORCE MALPRACTISE Topics
  • RiGhTs's RiGhTs Topics
  • ram's ram Topics
  • JVG DUPED CUST.'s JVG DUPED CUST. 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
  • WEWANTJUSTICE's WEWANTJUSTICE Topics
  • Civil Engineers-CAD's Civil Engineers-CAD Topics
  • Nitin Aggarwal's Nitin Aggarwal Topics
  • MEWAT EDUCATION AWARENESS's MEWAT EDUCATION AWARENESS 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
  • ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS OF INDIA's ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICERS OF INDIA 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
  • UN-DO CORRUPTION's UN-DO CORRUPTION 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
  • NATIONAL ISSUE's NATIONAL ISSUE 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
  • RTI BALLIA's RTI BALLIA 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
  • RTI ACTIVISTS FROM MEERUT's RTI ACTIVISTS FROM MEERUT 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
  • PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION.'s PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION. 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
  • AMICE (INDIA)'s AMICE (INDIA) Topics
  • HELPING HAND !'s HELPING HAND ! 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
  • AHMEDABAD ACTIVISTS's AHMEDABAD ACTIVISTS 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
  • URBAN PLANNER PROFESSIONAL's URBAN PLANNER PROFESSIONAL Topics
  • RTI HELP INDIA's RTI HELP INDIA Topics
  • prayatna's prayatna Topics
  • Parking woes's Parking woes Topics
  • Helping RTI INDIA web development's Helping RTI INDIA web development Topics

Categories

  • 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)
  • BSNL & MTNL
  • 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

Categories

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

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Calendars

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Found 67 results

  1. Central Information Commission gave a title to the decision in which CPIO steadfast fought against the disgruntled employee, who blatantly misused RTI, subverted process of law with malicious intentions as Fight of a bold officer against abuse of RTI and directed the Public Authority to place this order in their official website under the heading ‘Fight of a bold officer against abuse of RTI’ in their RTI Section. (If you want to file an RTI , please go to our guide to file RTI online) Shri Sanjay Chaturvedi posted as a Principal & APIO in the Govt. Sarvodaya Bal Vidyalaya Chirag Enclave, New Delhi submitted to CIC that he is aggrieved with repeated RTI applications filed by Shri Ranjan Sharma (RTI Applicant) and the order passed by the Appellate Authority who allowed inspection of records and directed to provide the documents, free of cost. As the First Appellate Authority has no power to review its order once passed and communicated. CPIO being aggrieved with the decision of the First Appellate Authority, have approached Commission under Section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. For any RTI help, head straight to our forum and post your query. Fight of a bold officer against abuse of RTI He stated that RTI Applicant, Shri Ranjan Sharma has been charge sheeted under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and he Shri Sanjay Chaturvedi (Appellant) was appointed as Inquiry Officer in the matter by the Department. Since the initiation of enquiry, a number of RTI applications have been filed seeking unrelated information which does not warrant any public interest in any way as the sole motive behind filing these RTI applications was just to harass him. The Commission on perusal of the documents on record and after hearing the Appellant was of the opinion that this was a clear case of harassing a sincere officer by Shri Ranjan Sharma though filing frivolous RTI applications against Shri Sanjay Chaturvedi for being an Inquiry Officer in the disciplinary case against Shri Ranjan Sharma. The commission noted that the RTI Applicant had adopted a stratagem of contrivance to delay the disciplinary proceedings and even went to the extent of threatening civil and criminal action against the inquiry officer. Sanjay Chaturvedi Vs Ranjan Sharma Citation number: CIC/AD/A/2013/001721­SA dated 4.7.2014 (This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must read and download the decision from the CIC website. If you have any query, kindly post it over our website here!)
  2. Delhi Government 38 Departments are allowing Ping Pong with RTI Applications, claims the RTI Applicant. A senior Citizen RTI Application asking for handicapped pension for his wife was transferred to 29 Public Information Officers (PIOs). Among those authorities, some of them transferred the application to each other. The issue is in fact, multiple transfers of the RTI application from CM office to a number of PIOs, spending huge amount of money on the correspondence and yielding nothing. Can Govt spend public money on such purposeless transfers? There appears to be a serious governance crisis as the appellant and the citizens similarly placed, are not getting any information under the RTI Act from Delhi Government, noted CIC. Applicant stated that "When the question was nonpayment of pension, it is supposed to be decided by the office of the CM, and it cannot simply shirk its responsibility by transferring the RTI application to the MCD". Ping Pong with RTI Application The Commission finds larger public interest in the RTI request filed by the appellant. It is a major human rights problem for lakhs of pensioners who are found eligible to receive pension according to the Govt schemes and are not getting the pension. The appellant in this case questioned how the government could permit its 38 departments to spend money in transferring his RTI application and build up a huge file of papers. Is there no financial crunch for such activity? He also questioned that the Govt representatives attending the hearings in 1st/2nd appeals, are using the govt vehicles or private taxies paid by office, for which funds are available. When the government does not release the funds for payment of pension, how can the civic bodies and the departments can give any information on nonpayment of pension? The CMO should have replied the appellant that they are not in a position to release the funds and that they cannot pay pension. Instead they have transferred to various departments without leading to disclosure of any information. The Commission, therefore, directed the CMO to furnish a white paper on the status of all kinds of pensions in Delhi Government, reasons for nonpayment, time of resumption of payment of pension, time of payment of arrears, etc within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order. The decision can be read here!
  3. Central Information Commission came down heavily over Election Office for not providing details of Voter ID card stating that "It is clear that their inaction and non response to RTI application is violation of both of his rights- right to information and right to vote." Citing Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. vs Ramesh Chander Bawa on 14th May, 2010, W.P. © 6129/2007, where the Honble Delhi High Court held: Just as the right to vote of the “little” citizen is of profound significance in a democracy, so is the right to information. It is another small but potent key in the hands of India’s “little” people that can “unlock” and lay bare the internal workings of public authorities whose decisions affect their daily lives in myriad unknown ways… The Election Office, which spends huge money for campaign for enrolment of voters, but does not prefer to inform the applicant for the voter card under RTI also. Commission thinks that the Election Office machinery should have been responsive to voter card requirements and RTI applications. Right to vote and Right to Information CIC further stated that The voter has right to information about action on his application for voter card and also RTI under RTI Act. Article 325 of Indian Constitution categorically mandates that there shall be no discrimination in inclusion into the electoral rolls. By negligence or inaction, the Election Office has not included the applicant’s voter card in the electoral list and thus his constitutional right is breached. There is no statutory provision to give compensation to the applicant who could not get his votercard, which means his Constitutional right to vote, though he was eligible and submitted required documents has no remedy, but RTI Act provides for compensation if there is any loss or detriment caused to the voter. Thus the Commission directed the Election Office to show cause why suitable compensation should not be ordered to be paid by them to the applicant (for vote and information about not giving voter card). The decision can be read here- CIC_SA_A_2015_002048_M_180194
  4. First Appellate authority (FAA) under RTI Act rejected the Appeal just because it was filed beyond 30 days, in the pretext that "There is no provision under RTI for condoning the delay in filing the appeal". The commission retreated Section 19 (1) of RTI Act and directed FAA that "the First appellate authority should not reject the first appeal filed beyond the prescribed period without hearing the appellant and consider the reason of delay." First appellate authority should have considered the reasons for delay proposed by appellant as proviso to section 19 (1) of the RTI Act provides: “Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.” For RTI Discussions and help, log on to our forum here! No provision for condoning the delay in filing the appeal Earlier the FAA had rejected the appeal by stating that appeal is delayed beyond prescribed period of 30 days. The same has been filed after delay of more than three years. There is no provision under RTI for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The decision can be read here: CIC_SA_A_2015_001375_M_177829!
  5. Central Information Commission, after giving one of the important judgement "No provisions to deny information on grounds that it disproportionately divert the resources", citing case law from Kerala High Court now has issued show cause notice to Public Information Officer (PIO), as to why instead of giving the file under RTI Application, he has offered applicant to inspect the record. In a similar citation posted at out law segment here: Can PIO direct inspection of records under RTI without knowing where the information is?, Central Information Commission (CIC) has decided that Considering such response of asking appellate to do the inspection, where the PIO himself does not know where the information is, the Commission, considered such response as ‘Denial of Information” and directed the Public Authority to provide information An RTI was filed for seeking copy of file in which govt. is planning to approach SC for grant of 50000 additional auto rickshaw along with the file noting and released 15000 permits for SC/ST/OBC category. CPIO asked the complainant for inspection. The applicant made the complaint before commission for imposition of penalty for obstructing in providing information. Asking for inspection of record instead of giving file record CIC in it's decision here stated that "the then Motor Licensing Officer, Auto Rickshaw Unit, Burari (as on 7.2.14) to show cause as to why he offered inspection when the Complainant had sought the entire file. He is directed to submit his response so as to reach the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order." You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
  6. The CIC has brought both Bar Council and Bar Association under RTI. The Bar Council being the statutory body constituted under Advocates Act 1961, to protect ethical standards of Advocates and admonish the members for misconduct are not exempt under RTI Act, ruled the Central Information Commission. Similarly, though Bar Associations are different from Bar Councils, they are also constituted under a law made by Parliament, i.e., the Advocates Act, 1961. They too have a duty to inform the people about their activities. Bar Council and Bar Association now under RTI The appellant wanted information regarding the number of complaints against the advocates, how many cases were disposed of, number of advocates who had violated the provisions of Advocates Act, number and percentage of complaints disposed of within a year of the lodging of the complaint, etc. practising/registered with the Bar Associations and how many disciplinary cases against the advocates were sent to the Bar Council by the respective Bar Associations located. The appellant complained that he was not provided with the required information and his first appeals were also not heard by the FAA. The decision can be read here!
  7. If the information asked under RTI is available after the reply to RTI, the PIO should not wait for the second appeal to happen to give those documents, instead it should be provided to the RTI applicant immediately. The PIO has earlier furnished incomplete reply due to unavailability of the documents. However, subsequently he had the documents, but did not give to the RTI applicant for approximately a year. Instead it waited for the second appeal hearing at CIC for more than a year and then produced the documents in front of the CIC. If you have any question regarding RTI, please post at our forum here! Central Information Commission directed the PIO that he should not wait until he receives the hearing notice from the commission. The commission directed the PIO to stick to this principle that as and when he is able to collect the information sought by the applicant, it should be provided to the applicant immediately. Don't wait for the hearing Notice from CIC Earlier the applicant has filed RTI asking for copies of various orders issued by the respondent authority in 1997 and 1998 regarding recruitment of TGTs along with copies of panel of selected TGTs in 1997­98 and related details, etc. Claiming that the respondent authority i.e Directorate of Education Old Secretariat, GNCTD has not furnished complete information, the appellant filed 2nd appeal before the Commission. The respondent authority submitted that the information sought by the appellant was not available at the time of his RTI application. Now that the complete information is available, the respondent authority has presented a full set of information to the appellant during hearing, who has acknowledged the same. The citation can be read here: Sh. Dinesh Kumar Vs. Dte of Education You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
  8. When PIO looses certain records CIC has directed the authorities to come up with policy and action in alternative. Filing of FIR is no solution to missing files. When What will be alternative plan ? Who will be responsible for keeping record ? What action will be initiated to fix responsibility and consequences thereof ? In what appears to be deviation to set procedure of filing First Information Report (FIR) with Police for missing or lost record, Central Information Commission has given a new solution. If you have any question regarding Right to Information, you can post it at our forum here! You can access our all content from mobile phone by using our top Android App or iOS App for Apple. If this action plan is put into place, it will become much easier in Government Departments to fix responsibility and also evolve strategies to make a backup of the files. In these times when each Government Department (Central Ministries) are being asked to shift to eOffice application in a mission mode project, the data loss will be minimised once all records are digitised. Filing of FIR is no solution to missing files In the present case of Bhan Singh Vs SDM(Mehrauli), GNCTD the Commission noted that respondent authority office has mentioned about existence of order of 1989 referred by the appellant, but respondent authority stated that no other paper relating to that was available. The Commission directs the respondent authority to spell out the policy in case the record pertaining to key orders like 1989 of Tehsildar (Mehrauli) are not maintained or missing. The complete decision can be read here!
  9. 'Own records are not third party information.' Central Information Commission objected to Public Information Officer interpretation that asking for information about self through RTI is Personal information and is exempt under Section-8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The PIO had rejected the application on the grounds that information about own file is third party information under RTI Act and cannot be disclosed. CIC directed that PIO needs to understand that section 8 (1) (J) applies only in those cases wherein the information is sought by a third party, in the present case the information seeker is seeking her own information and in such cases the exemption cannot be applied. Own records are not third party The applicant Probation period was extended without her knowledge and she requested to know why. However, Public Information Officer denied the information. CIC decided in her favour and directed that exemption under Section-8(1)(j) cannot be applied for claiming exemption when the information is sought by the employee himself/herself. The decision can be read here!
  10. rtiindia

    Ministers under RTI

    In a big decision, Central Information Commission have brought Ministers under RTI and declared Ministers in the Union Government and all State Governments as ‘public authorities’ under Section 2(h)of the RTI Act. The Ministers have a duty to inform the people about their efforts to fulfill the promises they have made, through Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act and also to furnish the information as sought by their voters under other provisions of RTI Act. The commission has directed that a Public Information Officer within two months from the date of receipt of this order be appointed with each Minister Office. The Commission strongly recommends to implement the recommendations of NCRWC, Second ARC and replace the ‘oath of secrecy’ with ‘oath of transparency” so that the Minister will respect the right to information of the citizen, which was passed by the Parliament and considered as fundamental right intrinsic in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, and be answerable/accountable to the citizens. Ministers under RTI The question can came in front of CIC was Is ‘Minister’ a ‘public authority’? The Commission strongly recommended the Centre and States to provide necessary support to each minister, including designating some officers, or appointing as Public Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities. They also shall be given an official website for suo moto disclosure of the information with periodical updating as prescribed under Section 4 including the facility of meeting people since the Ministers deserve necessary assistance to receive, acknowledge and provide response to the representations given by the people and as Constitutional functionaries, the Ministers have a duty to inform the people about their efforts to fulfill the promises they have made, through Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act and also to furnish the information as sought by their voters under other provisions of RTI Act. The decision can be read here: MINISTER UNDER RTI! You can discuss this post at our forum here! The wiki article is available here for further information.
  11. The Public Authority claimed that records were eaten by the termite and the same could not be provided. It is pathetic to note that such an important department like “Department of Legal Affairs” comes up with an explanation that it could not give information as records were eaten away by termite, notes Central Information Commission. It was directed to produce termite eaten records. It sadly reflects the state of notary/legal records. Notary Public is an important public functionary which documents certain activities for the purpose of legal consideration of transactions in the court of law. If notaries claim that their records are not produced to regulatory or contend that they are eaten away by termite, it gives rise to serious suspicion about the genuineness of concerned notary transactions, which the public authority is duty bound to check. The Public authority and the notary are under a legal duty to protect and preserve such records/registers. If records are truly eaten away the termite, they owe an explanation to the people why they failed to prevent it. They also have a duty to give list of records damaged by termite; list of those survived termite attack and partially damaged records. termite eaten records If termite attack is claimed by the notary republic, the genuineness of same has to be verified by the regulatory. If it was found to be wrongful claim the public authority should have taken necessary action against persons responsible for same. Section 4(1)(a) and (b) imposed an obligation on notary and legal affairs department (public authority) to publish three lists. It was not done so far, hence there is a genuine doubt that registers might have been deliberately caused to disappear and being covered up blaming termite. If it is true they should show the remains of the termite eaten records. The decision can be read here: Termite eaten the records
  12. When an RTI Applicant sought information from National Bal Bhawan on enquiry report/orders of the two member committee inquiry about the purchase of 100 ACs for the National Bal Bhavan and the related electrical works First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied information on the grounds that it is exempted under RTI Act, the same is hit by Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as it is personal information and disclosure of which is not in larger public interest. Read more about what is Privacy under RTI Act. The Central Information Commission (CIC) declined to accept the contentions of the Respondent authority and directs them to furnish the 2 Member Inquiry report and other information sought by the appellant. The fact of the case is as under: The appellant filed the RTI application seeking copy of enquiry report/orders of the two member committee inquiry into the procurement of Air Conditioners and execution of civil work and electrical work in National Bal Bhawan and JBB, Mandi along with copy of action taken report, noting etc. on it by Ministry of HRD – Vigilance Wing. The CPIO transferred the matter to the Director, National Bal Bhawan for necessary action. The appellant filed appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) and the FAA denied information on the grounds that it is exempted under RTI Act as it is personal information and disclosure of which is not in larger public interest. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a second appeal before this Commission under section 19(3) of the RTI Act. The decision can be read from here!
  13. In an unprecedented decision, CIC imposed a penalty over RTI Applicant even though the RTI Act do not provide for the same. Central Information Commission while deciding the case recorded that "Though the RTI Act has not provided to impose penalty against the RTI applicant, the Commission record its contempt against RTI Applicant for misusing the RTI Act against the school child and imposed a penalty of Re. 10/­ which is to be paid to the Principal of the School". Commission, also directed the then CPIO and the Principal of the School to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on both of them and disciplinary action be initiated against both of them for not complying with the provision of Section 11 of RTI Act and causing breach of the privacy of the child and his parents. The Commission directs the Principal and CPIO to show cause why compensation of Rs 1000 each be paid to the child for the loss they caused by breaching his privacy. The Commission holds that information exempted under section 8(1)(j) was disclosed and because of which the right to privacy of the child and his parents was violated by the Principal and CPIO. The Commission directs the CPIO and Principal not to disclose the personal information of the students to any person, much less to his so called relatives without following the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act. CIC imposed penalty over both PIO and RTI Applicant Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of R.K Jain vs. Union of India [sLP © No.22609 of 2012] dated 16.04.2013 had Highlighted the importance of Section 11 of the RTI Act. Read more about Privacy under RTI Act here: What is Privacy under RTI Act. You can download the decision here: Lalit Kapur v. PIO, Deputy Director of Education (North East­B) Appellant had sought for information regarding a student of R.D Public School. He wanted copy of the transfer certificate of class XI on the basis of which the student got admission in class XII, details of the school no./roll no./school registration no. and date of admission of the school etc CIC noted that it is interrogative in nature and RTI Applicant is fishing to find basis to embarrass the child or his family not with a good motive and for some unspecified purpose, which is certainly not ‘public purpose’. The CPIO committed breach of S 11 of RTI Act and ignored the order of Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned case. The CPIO should have considered the question of welfare of the child from the relatives who were in family dispute with the parents of the child.
  14. Mr. S.C. Agarwal in his RTI application sought copies of communication made between the PMO and DoPT about IFS officer Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi. Commission by its Order had directed MoEFCC to provide point­wise information. Further, S.C. Agarawal in his RTI appeal stated that his RTI is concerned with larger public interest in constitutional governance and zero­ tolerance of corruption, and thus more information was allowed by CIC. Central Information Commission had directed the PMO to apply the doctrine of severability, while disclosing information of inter­departmental notes to the appellant, i.e., avoiding information which cannot be disclosed and provide the information about Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi. Meanwhile, Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi, the IFS officer, whose name appeared in the RTI application filed an application stating that he came to know from media report that an order has been passed by CIC with respect to CBI investigation into Haryana Forestry Scam, in an appeal filed by Mr. Subhash Chandra Agarwal against M/o Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Mr. Sanjiv claimed that the matter was very vital for his career and thus he should be permitted to intervene in the matter. Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi submitted that the opinion furnished by the DoPT to the appellant would have a serious implication on his career. Sanjiv Chaturvedi asserts himself as third party The Commission has now in turn given notice to PMO, DoPT and Mr. S.C. Agarwal to explain why Mr. Chaturvedi should not be permitted to participate in this case as third party to defend his interest. The decision is available here to view and download: CIC_SA_A_2015_000525_T_177558 You may be interested in reading more about 'Third Party' at our wiki. Here are more articles on third Party under RTI MLC can be disclosed after applying third party clause Unauthorized construction and encroachment does not require clearance from any third party No third party exemption on discrimination What satisfaction must be arrived at prior to disclosure of information to third party? RTI for Ration Card – Third Party Information under Larger Public Interest Vigilance proceedings against a third party Read all articles tagged with 'Third Party"
  15. Medico Legal Case (MLC) can be disclosed under RTI Act after applying third party procedure. The PIO has rejected the information stating that MLC is a legal paper and for obtaining this the person who is nominated and person concern can only get the copy of it. Without MLC no it cannot be provided. Even the First Appellate Authority has rejected the case claiming exemption under section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission on perusal of the documents on record and after hearing both sides directs the PIO to follow the third party procedure u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act and to take a decision based on the objection/consent of the third party and inform the Appellant accordingly. What is Medico Legal case (MLC).. The Following Category of Cases Should be Made as M.L.C. All injury cases, circumstances of which suggests commission of offence by someone. All burn injuries due to any cause. All vehicular, railway, aeroplane, ship, boat, factory, construction site or other unnatural accidents where there is likelihood of death or grievous hurt. Suspected or evident homicide, suicide including attempted. Suspected or evident poisoning. Suspected or evident sexual assaults. Suspected or evident criminal abortion. Unconscious cases where the cause is not natural or not clear. Cases brought dead with improper history creating suspicion of an offence. Cases referred by Courts or otherwise for age estimation. Dead on arrival cases, or patients who die shortly after being brought to the Casualty and before a definite diagnosis could be made. Any other case not falling under the above mentioned category but has legal implications. Patients dying suddenly after parenteral administration of a drug or medication. Patient falling down or any mishap in the Hospital, sustaining injury in the Hospital. Death on Operation table. Unexplained death after surgery or Interventional procedure. Unexplained ICU death. Patient treated and then referred from a private hospital or other Government hospital with complications of surgery or delivery or bleeding, where the cause of death unexplained. Relatives of the patient assault the treating doctor or other staff of the hospital. Relatives of the patient create a law and order problem in the hospital. When an autopsy is contemplated, these guidelines are to be followed to decide whether a Pathological or Medicolegal (Forensic) autopsy is to be requested: Pathological Autopsy is to be requested when death is due to unexplained disease process or in cases that are rare or in cases which have academic interest. Medicolegal (Forensic) Autopsy is to be requested in the above mentioned 1 to 20 circumstances. MLC can be disclosed after applying third party clause The RTI case decision is available here. You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
  16. Name and Educational Qualification can never be considered as private information. Address of an applicant in certain context can be protected from disclosure where security issues are raised. This was stated by Central Information Commission in one of its latest decision. The appellant had pleaded that when an applicant gives an application along with certain details which are required for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, then it cannot be considered as private information. It is the duty of authority to explain why particular application is considered while others are rejected, when a case is taken up naturally and why others are put in cold storage. Name and Educational Qualification PIO had denied information saying that information sought contains personal details of other applicants. The Commission finds that the concerned section has deliberately suppressing information by raising unnecessary excuses and directed the PIO to give all the details. The decision can be read here!
  17. In a significant decision Central Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that unless proved that record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/ retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by public authority. The decision has been posted at out wiki Segment, for those who want to use it as a reference. You can visit out wiki article here: Missing Files under RTI Act. Claim of file missing or not traceable has no legality as it is not recognized as exception by RTI Act. By practice ‘missing file’ cannot be read into as exception in addition to exceptions prescribed by RTI Act. It amounts to breach of Public Records Act, 1993 and punishable with imprisonment up to a term of five years or with fine or both. Public Authority has a duty to initiate action for this kind of loss of public record, in the form of ‘not traceable’ or ‘missing’. The Public Authority also has a duty to designate an officer as Records Officer and protect the records. A thorough search for the file, inquiry to find out public servant responsible, disciplinary action and action under Public Records Act, reconstruction of alternative file, relief to the person affected by the loss of file are the basic actions the Public Authority is legitimately expected to perform. Claim that a file is missing or is not traceable has no legality under RTI Since the Commission has the power to direct disclosure of information provided, it is not exempted from such disclosure, it would also have the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry into the matter wherever it is claimed by the PIO/CPIO that the information sought by the applicant is not traceable/readily traceable/currently traceable. Even in a case where the PIO/CPIO takes a plea that the information sought by the applicant was never available with the government but, the Commission on the basis of the material available to it forms a prima facie opinion that the said information was in fact available with the government, it would be justified in directing an inquiry by a responsible officer of the department/office concerned, to again look into the matter rather deeply and verify whether such an information was actually available in the records of the government at some point of time or not. After all, it is quite possible that the required information may be located if a thorough search is made in which event, it could be possible to supply it to the applicant. Fear of disciplinary action, against the person responsible for loss of the information, will also work as a deterrence against the willful suppression of the information, by vested interests. It would also be open to the Commission, to make an inquiry itself instead of directing an inquiry by the department/office concerned. The decision is available in the CIC website here: Sh.Om Prakash Vs. Land & Building Dept, GNCTD You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
  18. Appellant lost it because, instead of giving a fresh application she chose to file RTI with the help of NGO representatives.- Response of Public Information Officer (PIO) during hearing at Central Information Commission (CIC) CIC noted "It appears that the whole issue is of ego of the officers exhibiting anger for approaching through RTI and intolerance to the presence and support of NGO to the appellant." CIC observed that a woman officer was so unkind towards a 70­ yr­ old poor woman surviving on pension. After hearing the ‘explanation’ to show cause notice and reading written submission made by PIO/Dy Director (FAS) Women and Child Development Department, GNCTD, Delhi the Commission noticed that PIO tried to shift the blame on to the NGO for not helping appellant to act as per publicity given by Government. The Commission finds PIO has no regret and she is in no mood to restore pension or pay compensation. Hence, the Commission considers it a fit case to impose maximum penalty of Rs 25,000 to be recovered from her pay in 5 equal monthly instalments. If you have any questions, you can head straight to our forum and post. If you want to become RTI Activist, visit our site here on how to become RTI Activist. The Commission recommends the public authority to take disciplinary action against the PIO for defying RTI Act, order of the CIC, besides dereliction of duty, being adamant to right of appellant to pension, and information, and for non-­compliance of orders of Commission. CIC threatens to invoke IPC against Officer The Commission directs the head of the public authority to ensure compliance of the all the orders of CIC in this second appeal. If there is no compliance and compliance report is not received by the public authority within one month, the Commission will be compelled to initiate measures to prosecute officers guilty of non­-compliance under Indian Penal Code for following offences: S 166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person. S 187. Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance. S 188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.­ Case history: RTI Applicant had an account in Post Office and her pension earlier was being credited there. To prevent the various kinds of scams resulting in denial of pension to hundreds of old person and appropriation by the others, the Delhi Government, in 2009 took a policy decision to credit old age pension amount in bank accounts only and not in Post Office accounts any more, for that, it was directed that those having post office account, should open a bank account as a precondition to get pension regularly. Government had given a very wide publicity by publishing in print media, Radio­ jingles etc to make the people aware of the new policy to enable them to get their account transfer. Besides they have also organized camps at different places from time to time and visited the houses of people receiving old age pension personally. They were given prolonged 2­ year ­time to shift to bank. Three times the camps have been organized there but she did not turn­ up there and was not even found at home when officials visited. They made all their efforts to contact her and help but failed to trace her, then they have deleted her account in January 2013. PIO stated that instead of running behind NGO and waiting for date of hearing before the Commission, she should have applied for her pension afresh, then she would have got the pension. PIO ruled out payment of arrears under any circumstances because her account was deleted. A woman below poverty line, surviving only on pension sanctioned by the state is now left without any source of survival, despite complying with requirement of shifting Account from post office to Bank, even after CIC’s order. The rule of pension is that once government found her eligible to get pension as per the qualifications prescribed, the pension gets attached to her and it cannot abate until her death. It is the responsibility of respondent authority to inform her, see that she noticed the change of policy and understand need to have bank account. By opening account in bank, informing the authority about it and filing RTI appeal, she was seeking the payment of pension. But on the pretext that formal, separate and straight application was not filed before the officer, she was deprived of her pension. The complete case can be read here
  19. During the time of digitization, Delhi Food and Supply Department still cannot put the details of Fair Price Shops online. Department of Food and Supply of Delhi should disclose monthly stocks released to the Fair Price Shops (FPS) and the distribution of that stock along with the list of names of eligible ration card holders. This information should have been uploaded into the Public Domain and a hard copy of the same should have been displayed on the notice board of the Circle office and the respective ration shops. However, in the RTI hearing at CIC, the department submitted that the stocks available at the respective ration shops are displayed at the ration shops and the record is also kept at their circle office. At present, there is no system of uploading the stocks and sale position of the respective Fair Price Shops in their Circle. Therefore in the RTI reply asking for rations issued by this shop, Copy of the master register/daily sale register/inspection register etc the authority had asked the appellant to deposit Rs.2,808/towards costs for supplying the copies of information. You can read and find about how many requests we receive at our forum regarding ration cards here. One of the oldest cards of Government of India still faces digitisation blues, during the time when you have Aadhar cards, NPR and PAN cards. If you are interested in filing RTI for ration card, visit our website which explains how to become RTI Activist and also take help from our Forum active members. The commission rightly recorded that the appellant who is a common man, cannot be expected to deposit this much money for general information and on the contrary, the respondent authority is expected to disclose monthly stocks released to the FPSs and the distribution of that stock along with the list of names of eligible ration card holders. Stock and Sale Records of Ration in Delhi not online The Department of Food & Supply officer was also directed to check the ration shops about the display of this information at the shops every month. The CIC decision can be read and downloaded from here! You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
  20. Right to Information Appellate alleged that in a Medico-Legal case, the Doctor in the hospital had overwritten 'simple hurt' as 'Grievous hurt'. Because of this change, the appellate son was booked under 308 of IPC, a non­-bailable offence. As it is a case of physical assault, nature of injury matters a lot, in deciding nature of crime & sentence. Appellant has questioned the credibility of the MLC because of this overwriting in it. On the basis of that overwriting in the MLC, investigation officer charged his son for causing grievous hurt. Making a plea that if doctors have different opinion, they should mention the same by issuing a new MLC instead of rewriting over MLC, the Appellate filed the RTI to know is there any guidelines for doctors in preparing and correcting the Medico Legal Reports. Despite several reminders, there was no reply to his RTI application. To know more about the RTI Act kindly visit our Right to Information Wiki. And to get help from our members, go to our forum to post your issue. You can also access RTI resources by downloading our Mobile App for Android and Apple iOS. The commission decided in the appellate favour by directing public authority to provide certified copy of guidelines being followed by Doctors regarding MLC, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order, failure will result in initiation of penalty proceeding against them. Further, commission also directed public authority to inquire into this “overwriting” to fix responsibility and submit a report. Using RTI to know the truth behind overwriting The CIC decision can be read here! You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
  21. Under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, the Public Authority can deny information in a particular form but it cannot refuse totally. Section 7 (9) does not even confer any discretion on a public authority to withhold information, let alone any exemption from disclosure. It only gives discretion to the public authority to provide the information in a form other than the form in which the information is sought for, if the form in which it is sought for would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Hon’ble Kerala High Court in TREESA IRISH vs. THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER [WP©.No. 6532 of 2006], with regard to Sec 7 (9) of RTI Act, had observed as follows:­ "In fact there is no provision in the Act to deny information on the ground that the supply of the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority......” Disproportionately divert the resources Taking recourse of the High Court judgement, the Commission, therefore, issued Show Cause Notice to the CPIO for wrongly denying the information by citing Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The commission observed that: The Commisison observes that the CPIO cannot take protection of section 7(9) without any basis thereof. Under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, the Public Authority can deny information in a particular form but it cannot refuse totally. The said sub­section does not provide additional ground for denial of information. If section 7(9) applies to the tontext, the respondent authority has to give information in the same form as available. The decisions can be read from here! You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
  22. [caption id=attachment_3172" align="alignright" width="300] Private Hospitals to give records of Patient[/caption] Central Information Commission had recommended to force Private Hospitals to give records of Patient on day-to-day basis because this daily disclosure will prevent undesirable practices of altering records after damage caused to patient. Forcing the private hospitals to provide daily­wise medical records will also act as a check on some hospitals from resorting to extortionist, inhuman and ruthless business of prescribing unnecessary diagnostic tests, unnecessary surgical operations, caesarean deliveries, unwarranted angioplasties, inserting stents, without need, or of substandard nature, or putting low quality stent while collecting price of high quality stent, and several such malpractices amounting to medical terrorism, etc. You can read RTI Act here! In a major achievement to this decision, Fortis Hospital was forced to provide certified copies of medical records, names and designation of Doctors who treated the patient and the copy of Medical registration of three Doctors who treated the patient. Fortis Hospital provided the information through the Directorate of Health Services, Delhi. Private Hospitals to give records of Patient Earlier, the Commission had directed the authority to compel Fortis hospital with its regulatory power provided under the law to comply with the provisions of the Nursing Homes Registration Act or Clinical Establishment (Registration & Regulation) Act, MCI Act and RTI Act or any other rule or provision under any law, and provide the entire information to the appellant within one 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. CIC has noted that "They (Private Hospital) should not be allowed to such malpractices with all impunity and get away without any legal consequences as if there is an absolute immunity. The Government, Medical Council of India and the health regulatory has to see that licence to practice medicine will not become licence to kill and extort and come to the rescue of helpless patients." The full decision can be read from here. You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
  23. Central Information Commission (CIC) in its recent order ruled that offer of inspection cannot be claimed as denial of information and it indicates the willingness of the Public Information officer (PIO) to disclose information. Commission noted that "It would be easier for the Respondent to supply those documents identified by the Appellant after inspection thereby curbing unnecessary wastage of paper." However, the Commission advises the PIO to supply those documents that can be supplied instantly and to offer inspection if it is scattered over several files. The RTI Act 2005 prescribes that applicant can inspect the document, there is no provision to state that PIO has discretion to direct applicant to do the inspection. The Provision of RTI Act states that; A citizen has a right to inspect the records of a public authority. For inspection of records, the public authority shall charge no fee for the first hour. But a fee of rupees five (Rs.5/-) for each subsequent hour (or fraction thereof) shall be charged. Offer of inspection The full decision of the CIC can be read and downloaded from here! You can also read decisions relating to Inspection of record under RTI Act here: Can PIO direct inspection of records under RTI without knowing where the information is? Guide to RTI (Issued by DoPT in 2013) You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
  24. The fate of B.S.E.S as public authority is still not settled and the matter has been stayed by the Delhi High Court in Stay order 23.1.2007 in W.P. (Civil) No. 544/2007 (BSES Rajdhani Power Limited vs. CIC). The commission decided that this matter be listed for hearing once the Delhi High Court pronounces its decision. Following the privatisation of Delhi’s power sector and unbundling of the Delhi Vidyut Board in July 2002, the business of power distribution was transferred to BSES Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL) and BSES Rajdhani Power Limited (BRPL). These two of the three successor entities distribute electricity to 33.96 lakh customers in two thirds of Delhi. The Company acquired assets, liabilities, proceedings and personnel of the Delhi Vidyut Board as per the terms and conditions contained in the Transfer Scheme. The details of the BSES can be read here. BSES under RTI The decision can be read here! You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
  25. The RTI applicant sought the information from a Cooperative Society which are not a Public Authority, under Delhi Cooperative Society Act,. Central Information Commission advised to the registrar, not to register any petition if the Appellant seek information from a Cooperative Society directly without following steps as per the RTI act. If you have want to file RTI online, visit this guide to learn about filing RTI Online. Although the Commission noted that the information sought by the appellant can be enforced under Sec 2 (f), which states as follows: "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e­mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force. Seek information from a Cooperative Society directly But commission recorded that "The appellant had not followed the procedure laid down in the RTI Act, and he sought the information from a Society which is not a Public Authority, under DCS Act." Citation from: Viresh & V.K.Goel Vs Dr.R.M.L.H & NH Employees CGHS Ltd CIC/DS/A/2013/001197­SA, CIC/DS/A/2013/001198­SA, CIC/DS/A/2013/001199­SA, CIC/DS/A/2013/001200­SA, & CIC/DS/A/2013/001201­SA dated 24.07.2014 You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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