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 'public'.
Found 59 results
-
Is APPU GHAR (International Amusement Ltd) a public authority under RTI Act?
harinder dhingra posted a topic in Discussions on RTI
Dear Esteemed Members of this August Forum, The undersigned filed a application under RTI Act 2005 on 20th July 2014 seeking information from International Amusement Limited (Promoter of Appu Ghar) Gurgaon who have been substantially financed by HUDA (arm of state government) by way of getting land worth minimum Rs 826 Crores(as per Circle rate) at the cost of peanuts (Rs.94.5 Crore for thirty three years extendable by another 33 years). The Appu Ghar rejected undersigned RTI application and then Complaint was filed before Hon'ble SIC. The Hon'ble CIC of SIC heard the case in Dec 2014/Jan 2015 and referred the matter to larger bench. Yesterday, the undersigned made his oral submission which are reproduced below and three learned, famous advocates made their submissions on behalf of Respondents. They termed undersigned Complaint frivolous and made lengthy submission how they are not public authority because they are not substantially funded. My submission made orally are reproduced below: M/s International Amusement Ltd. wrote a letter dated26th June 2009, to CM Haryana suggesting setting up of an Urban EntertainmentCentre at Gurgaon, primarily an Amusement Park with total land requirement of70 acres. The Company also sent details like concept booklet, along with area,revenue and cost statement that subsequently turned out to be a blueprint forinviting EOI/BIDS. As per Gurgaon – Manesar Development Plan, 2021,notified in June 2006, Sector 29 /Gurgaon was designated as commercial sectorand the land use of Sector 29 had been frozen. The letter dated 26th June 2009written by International Amusement Limited to CM Haryana had its impact . Anofficial noting by State Town Planner (N) advocating the need of an AmusementPark, was put up on 1st July 2009. Thereafter, the proposal was endorsed on 1stJuly 2009 itself. Meetings were held in quick succession– on 7th July, 10thJuly and then recommendations finalized for inviting Request for Proposal (RFP)on 17th July 2009. An internal Committee was constituted for determiningthe procedure and recommending bid price and utilization of the area as under:- Bid Price of the land was calculated as under on thebasis of the report of LAO ,Gurgaon Sectors Area Land Cost (Per Acre) Administrative Charges External Cost(Per Acre) Total Cost (in Acres) Per Acre development charges in Lakh PerAcre 29 25 39.80Lakh 3.98 Lakh 249.92 Lakh 293.7 Lakh 7342.5 53-A 17 32.94 Lakh 3.29 Lakh 62.48 Lakh 98.71 Lakh 1678.07 52-A 16 32.94 Lakh 3.29 lakh 38.23 Lakh 62.48 Lakh 1579.36 Gross Total 10599.93 Ten percent of the area of Sector 29 allowed for retail/shopping facilities related to Amusement Park activities with FAR of 1.5.Total Available area for retail/shopping facilities comes to 3.75 acres. The Land Acquisition Officer’s (LAO) report was madethe basis for evaluating cost of land even though Collector Rates for the year2009-10 were available. The Collector Rates were Rs. 26.22 crore’s per acre forSector 29. The land cost for 25 acres in this sector thereby comes to Rs. 605/-crores. In Sector 52-A, Collector Rates were Rs. 13 crores per acre thus costof 17 acres would come to Rs. 221 crores. Therefore, valuation of the totalland of 42 acres at Collector Rates comes to the tune of Rs.826 crores which isalmost 8 times the valuation of Rs 106 crores recommended by the said Committee. Recommendations of the Committee were accepted by ChiefMinister, which were conveyed by Chief Administrator (CA), Haryana UrbanDevelopment Authority (HUDA) to Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon on 6th Aug 2009,also thereby asking the Administrator to float Tenders. Tenders were floated on 11th Aug 2009 for 58 acres landthrough some leading newspapers and at the same time the said Committee startedworking on Request for Proposal (RFP) document. Meanwhile, it was discoveredthat 16 acres out of 33 acres in sector 52-A was under litigation, hence remaining17 acres was made part of the Amusement Park, by converting the land use fromopen space to Amusement Park. A pre-bid conference was held on 28th Aug 2009 whichwas attended by seven firms/companies. However, by the extended closing datei.e. 20th Oct 2009, only one bid – of M/S International Amusement Ltd wasreceived. After examining lone Technical bid, Committee recommended furtherextension by 45 days. However, this extension was restricted to the sevenfirms/companies who had participated in the pre-bid conference on 28th Aug2009. Last date was kept as 19th March 2010. On its request, M/S InternationalAmusement Ltd was allowed to revise its Technical & Financial Bids. By 19thMarch 2010 as extended date, one more Bid – of UNITECH Ltd was received, whichwas rejected due to non-fulfillment of technical criteria – (a) not possessingminimum 10 years experience in amusement park activity and (b) less thanbenchmarked Rs. 50 crores aggregate turnover during the last five years. Finally, again only single bid remained for competitivebidding – of M/S International Amusement Ltd, which was accepted and the EOIand Concession were awarded to them in May 2010. Entire exercise was thusmanipulated, twisted and tailor-made only to accommodate M/S InternationalAmusement Ltd. During the whole exercise no feasibility study wascarried out to ascertain the need for an Amusement Park, like where to belocated, components of the amusement park as such, land requirement, projectcost, whether to be set up in public, private or PPP regime, whether activitiescould be split into two or more parts on more than one location. The entireexercise is driven by pre-determination by Govt. to hand over the land to M/SInternational Amusement Ltd. Open space provided for and frozen as such inDevelopment Plan has been converted into Amusement Park, which has commercialcomponent as well, without following the procedure of amendment in theDevelopment Plan regulating sector 52-A. Same way, frozen commercial land usein sector 29 has been tampered with to convert into Amusement Park land use. Land earmarked for Bus stand over the 25 acres land insector 29 has been converted into Amusement Park land use, thereby ignoringlarger public interest. Land valued at least Rs. 826 crores approximately hasbeen handed over to the private party for pittance namely Rs 94.5 Crore, for along period of 33 years, including provisions favoring the Concessionaire toexit after five years besides off- loading stakes up to fifty percent.Therefore, there is a huge loss to the public exchequer. Representations by Citizens Council and ResidentWelfare Federation, pointing out the irregularities and illegalities beingcommitted by the Government causing huge losses to public exchequer for landvaluing Rs 3000 crores at market rate and even starred question raised inAssembly Session on the same, did not deter Government from committing this fraud. It is not a Concession under PPP mode granted by theGovernment to the Concessionaire rather it is a case of Government land handedover to private party for a long period on Lease, under the garb ofPPP/Concession. Such huge chunks of prime land have been delivered on the basisof single bid. In that case also UNITECH’s ineligible Bid was used as sham.Same modus-operandi was repeated in this case also to hand over Government landacquired for public purpose at public expense to private companies at apittance, causing huge financial losses to public exchequer. M/s International Amusement Ltd is a public authoritybecause land valuing at Rs 826 Crore has been given at Rs 94.5 Crores for 33years. Had the HUDA sold this land at circle rate (which ismuch lower than market value of Rs 3000 Crore) at Rs 826 Crore, it would haveearned interest @ 10% per year (Bank rate) Rs.826 Crore =Rs 8.26 Crore X 33years= Rs 272.58 which is 300% of license fee paid by the InternationalAmusement Ltd thus there is substantial funding to the tune of Rs 178 Crore. Thisqualifies to be a public authority under RTI Act 2005 as more than 200%subsidy/concession/grant has been provided and it meets the criteria of 95% mentionedin Thallapalam case by Hon’ble SC to make a “body” a public authority under RTIAct 2005. If the HUDA had not granted the land than this projectwould not “exist” and as such it qualifies to be public authority under RTI Act2005 (As per Hon’ble SC judgment in Thallapalam case) Public Purpose:This land was acquired for making a commercial space with open space provided for and frozen as such inDevelopment Plan has been converted into Amusement Park, which has commercialcomponent as well, without following the procedure of amendment in theDevelopment Plan regulating sector 52-A. Same way, frozen commercial land usein sector 29 has been tampered with to convert into Amusement Park land use. Land earmarked for Bus stand over the 25 acres land insector 29 has been converted into Amusement Park land use which was acquiredfor public function. This amusement park/facility is a public function and any“body” which is performing “public function” is an “other authority” asenvisaged under article 12 of the Constitution of India. Kindly refer toHon’ble SC judgment in Thalapalam case at para 13) in which it was held thatany instrumentality which is covered under Article 12 of the Constitution ofIndia is a public authority under RTI Act 2005. The land was handed over/given possession on 3rdMarch 2011 against payments in following manner: DATE AMOUNTRECEIVED FROM APPU GHAR, IAL 30.07.2010 236250000/- Approximately 30.08.2012 40000000/- Approximately 19.11.2012 101700000/- Approximately 21.12.2012 70875000/- Approximately 04.01.2013 70875000/- Approximately 28.06.2013 30000000/- Approximately 11.07.2013 47130525/- Approximately 01.08.2013 156332859/- Approximately 19.08.2013 21458930/-Approximately 21.12.2014 100000000/- Approximately GROSS TOTAL 870000000/- INR Approximately Kindly refer to Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs Delhi GolfClub wherin the Central Government leased out a huge chunk of land measuring179 acres in the heart of Delhi city to the club at hugely concessional rate.The Central Information Commission in its decision held the lease out of primelocation land as indirect financing to the club and declared the club a publicauthority in term of Section 2 (h) (d) (i) of the Act. I further submitted that on 08.10.2012, the Central Information Commission on complaint no. 001345of 2014 titled Sukhdev Singh V/s. Chandigarh Golf Club, Chandigarh has notedthat there is a vast difference between the monthly rent being paid by theChandigarh Golf Club and the commercial rent that the premises could fetch inthe open market, hence being indirectly financed and controlled by theChandigarh Administrator, the Chandigarh Golf Club is the public authorityunder Section 2 (h) (ii) of the Act. Similarly, the complainant• citeddecisions dated 16.09.2013 and 01.07.2013 of Karnataka Information Commissionwherein it has been decided that Mysore Race Club Ltd., Mysore and BangaloreTurf Club, to whom the Government has allotted land on concessional rates arepublic authorities. I also draw Hon’ble Division Bench of State InformationCommission, Haryana in case number 115 of 2014 titled Harinder dhingra Vs GreatIndia Nautanki Company (KoD) declaring Great India Nautanki Company (KoD) as apublic authority under RTI Act 2005 in which the facts and matrix of the caseis similar to the instant case and as such the International Amusement ltd isalso a public authority under RTI Act 2005. Accordingly, the complainant prayed the Commission thatthe Kindgom of Dreams be declared "Public Authority" as stipulatedunder Section 2 (h)(d) (i) (ii) of the RTI Act, 2005." UNQUOTE The Hon'ble Commission has reserved its order. I am looking for valuable comments/suggestions/shortcomings on the above submissions made by undersigned as I am told that M/S Appu Ghar is moving a application for "re-hearing" of the case. Harinder Dhingra -
rti court decision: MH: Public-pvt partnership info must be put online’
akhilesh yadav posted a topic in RTI in Media
MUMBAI: Maharashtra's chief information commissioner Ratnakar Gaikwad has slammed the state government for withholding information on Public Private Partnerships (PPP). This, despite a central government circular directing the state government's chief secretary to publish certain information about PPPs directly on its website. Gaikwad has also ordered the additional chief secretary of the public works department and managing director, MSRDC, to ensure all information on PPP projects in the state, particularly regarding toll contracts, is put out on their websites by August 24. Read more at: Public-pvt partnership info must be put online? - The Times of India -
Decision of CIC full bench related to public interest
MANOJ B. PATEL posted a topic in RTI Appeals decisions
Appellant had sought information on two points: (a) The assets and liabilities declared by Mr. U.K.Sinha, Chairman, SEBI. (b) The total present emoluments of Mr.Sinha. The CPIO denied for point (a) stating it a personal information and provided in fiduciary capacity hence exempted. For point (b) CPIO informed that this information is available in public domain. The appellant submitted that Mr.Sinha gave up a job of over Rs.3 crores per annum to become chairman of SEBI as emoluments of Rs. 36 lakhs per annum. It was done to dilute the cases of some of major offenders on the capital market. Hence information should be disclosed in public interest. Commission directed the respondent CPIO to provide the required information. CIC_SM_A_2012_001062_M_143259.pdf -
Officers details to be disclosed if he has no objection
MANOJ B. PATEL posted a topic in RTI in Media
appellant had sought information from PMO office about controversy reported in news papers such as 'Sonia sought help for beleaguered officer, DoPT did not oppose(Hindu 2.8.13), centre rescuses whistle blower again(Hindu 5.2.13) etc. He also sought information about IFS officer shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi. The CPIO denied the information claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(j). During hearing the Commission dialled Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi to know his views, Sanjiv Chaturvedi told the Commission that information was not his personal information and he does not have any objection. The CPIO also spoke to him that information is not only personal information but also given in fiduciary relation. Commission observed that contention of the CPIO is baseless and directed him to provide required information. CIC_SA_A_2015_000525_M_158685.pdf -
Dear Sir, As per provisions under RTI, many public sector entities have nominated PIO/APIOs etc at various levels to address RTI related issues. My doubt is whether such nominated officers alone need to handle RTI related issues of their respective organization or any office of the organization can accept the application form and forward it to PIO/APIO etc. Please guide me With regards G.K. Anand
-
Security firm in residential quarter, public interest.
MANOJ B. PATEL posted a topic in RTI Appeals decisions
Appellant had sought copy of rent agreement, NOC etc. submitted by Major Tara Chand showing that he is retired. PIO denied under section 8(1)(e) as fiduciary relationship. Commission said: There is possibility of security firm running from residential quarter, it is in public interest. Directed the PIO to provide copy of rent agreement of the office of security agency. CIC_SA_A_2015_000331_M_157385.pdf -
[RTI Case Law] Cantankerous*appellant*must*be*asked*to*pay costs to the public servants
rtiindia posted a topic in RTI Appeals decisions
This article has been posted at our #LawSegment . To read the full article follow this link: Cantankerous*appellant*must*be*asked*to*pay costs to the public servants and to subscribe to our daily mailer follow this link Join our free Right to Information Newsletter - RTI INDIA. Central Information Commission came down heavily on RTI applicant for filing several*frivolous and repeated applications with sole aim of harassing his wife without caring*whether any public loss is being caused in the process. “he*has misused RTI to run a parallel…Read more › The law segment is available here RTI INDIA - Invoking Your Rights Read the complete article here... -
opinion: Non disclosure of punitive action by a public body
calljasprit posted a topic in Discussions on RTI
Respected forum, I filed an rti seeking punitive actions done by a public body on an unauthorised construction. I was refused u/s 8(1)j. I filed an appeal and it was answered without giving me any opportunity of hearing. The order said that I could inspect the file and the copy may be provided if it is permissible under rti act. I went for file inspection but they were showing some other file and said this is only file they had I asked them for inspection book but they denied any such book. What to do. Meanwhile I had asked for copies of all unauthorised construction in the area which too was denied under 8(1)j. Again I filed fa and stated that this information is being made online by some govt agencies. How can it be under 8(1)j. The this they replied that already we have asked you to inspect the file and the appeal was disposed off. What to do. -
Hello, I applied for notary public last december yet did not receive any reply. what do I do now?
-
Hello, in an MC case opposite party has claimed that "we complained in the caw cell and they called the person and family members several times but they did not attend the meetings. so the caw cell gave us a note to approach the court." However the truth being there were never any calls received. can we rti to get the calls made by caw cell to our specific numbers? are caw cell calls come under rti? if there is format would help. TIA
-
Ownership informatin of motor vehicles is public informatio
MANOJ B. PATEL posted a topic in RTI Appeals decisions
In a decision the CIC held: Ownership information of motor vehicles is public information and not private no third party information. Commission directed the CPIO to provide names of owners and names and address of dealers who sold the car. CIC_SA_A_2014_001857_M_155209.pdf -
how to write to pio to public or publish information on website of public authority
vs99181 posted a question in Ask for RTI Support
Hello, i had write to pio to public or publish information on public authority website . pio replied this is not a question . what should i have to do -
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has rejected a proposal to set up statutory public grievance commissions at the Centre and states to hear appeals from people whose complaints to the government had remained unheard, or unresolved. Instead, the prime minister’s office (PMO) wants the responsibility to be passed on to information commissions set up under the RTI act or a new ombudsman created by an executive order rather than a law. RTI activists oppose the move to burden the information commissions with hearing public grievances too. Read at: CIC officers to play dual role?
-
discussions: CIC advise public authority to save public money
MANOJ B. PATEL posted a topic in Discussions on RTI
In a decision CIC directed the respondent/CPIO to refund the costs collected from the complainant, as the information is delayed beyond the prescribed period. The Commission also advised the Public Authority to save the public money by supplying the information within the prescribed period. ** CIC_SA_C_2014_000313_T_155123.pdf -
rti happenings: TN: Hotel encroached on 10 acres of public land in Mahabs: VCK plea
akhilesh yadav posted a topic in RTI in Media
CHENNAI: The Madras high court on Wednesday ordered notices to authorities concerned on a petition filed by VCK alleging encroachment of public land by a hotel in Mamallapuram. It said an RTI query about ownership of the properties confirmed the encroachment. In his reply dated April 16, 2015, the tahsildar of Thirukazhukundram taluk said documents proving that the properties belonged to GRT were not available in the office, it said. Read at: Hotel encroached on 10 acres of public land in Mahabs: VCK plea - The Times of India -
[RTI Case Law] Activities of Anti-Corruption NGO are for Public Interest
rtiindia posted a topic in RTI Appeals decisions
This article has been posted at our #LawSegment . To read the full article follow this link: Activities of Anti-Corruption NGO are for Public Interest and to subscribe to our daily mailer follow this link Join our free Right to Information Newsletter. While obtaining information regarding details of selected candidates of economically weaker sections (EWS) from Doon Public School the PIO alleged that RTI Applicant has threatened her saying that “My dekhunga, my kuch karunga” and that applicant is not having any public interest behind his RTI applications. The RTI applicant denied all the allegations made by the officer and further stated that he is heading an NGO and all his activities are for public interest. The Commission having heard the submissions and perused the record directed the PIO/Education, West B District to provide point wise revised information to the appellant. The EWS Form is for application…Read more › The law segment is available here RTI INDIA - Invoking Your Rights Read the complete article here... -
Hyderabad: To ensure implementation of Section 4 (1) (a) of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005, the RTI activists should make sure that the Public Records Act 1993 is implemented by the Central government, said Professor Madabhushi Sridhar, Central Information Commissioner (CIC). Delivering a special lecture on the importance of Section 4 (1) (a) and 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005, organised by Telangana RTI Forum here on Monday, Sridhar stated that the RTI activist must seek information on the implementation of Public Records Act. Read at: Implement Public Records Act - The Hans India
-
Hello, Respected sir, As i posted earlier that im trying to prove that in a school there is a corruption done by h.m. n management by showing fraud students. I requested to pio to give xerox copy of 1)ledger book of mead day meal yojna 2)dakhal kharij register 3)monthly bill(shaley poshan aahar che deyak) of mid day meal yojna 4)teachers class inspection log book made by h.m. 5)Students promotion register 6)t.c.book On 29/4/2015 sic asked to explain public intrest in these matters and asked us to give proof of corruption in this school. We explaind that when we get xerox copy we will study it n do Complaint to deo or deputy director. Now how can we submit to sic proof of corruption. .....please suggest me some solution for public intrest.
-
rti happenings: Kerala panchayat wants an RTI activist to be declared a public nuisance
akhilesh yadav posted a topic in RTI in Media
Miffed over her series of queries, a village panchayat in Kerala has appealed to the state information commission to declare an RTI activist a public nuisance. The Pallichkal village panchayt had. earlier, passed a resolution against social activist V V Vijitha, who had rushed 35 RTI pleas to the panchayat office in a year. Read at: Kerala panchayat wants an RTI activist to be declared a public nuisance | The Indian Express -
We have canals for irrigation in north-west region of Rajasthan. Same like Panchayats & sarpunch ,Every 5-6 villages elected a president ,who collects tax from farmers for using water(from Canal) to irrigate their land.This tax goes to the Bank account. (Joint with a elected member )of elected president. 40% of the funds are for maintainance of the canal. My query is that can I get bank statement of this account as its not a personal account.?
-
I want to know whether document submitted by Public Servant during employment and the personal employment file of the official comes under ambit of RTI Act or not ? I will be thankful to our esteemed and learned forum members if they provide me any direction/order passed by Supreme Court in this regard.
-
DoPT seeking public suggestion on supply of information to applicants
akhilesh yadav posted a topic in RTI Act Circulars
Read here: http://ccis.nic.in/WriteReadData/CircularPortal/D2/D02rti/10-1-2013-IR.pdf -
Every PA wants to get out of the clutches of RTI Act. It is viewed by the personnel who are manning it is a cumbersome, inconvenient and unnecessary. As the efforts to get out of Access Law are mounted up, the people should understand the importance of information. In fact,the people did not start using the access right in a very efficient manner, as it should have been. If that begins the association of officers would come out with agitation and processions against the law terming that it was leading to harassment. When they are spending public money why not they are accountable and transparent about it is the moot question. Anybody trying to run away from answering this question should be deemed to be corrupt and interested in autocracy. They do not deserve to be entrusted with fiduciary responsibilities. The strict implementation of law and conscious exercise of the rights by active citizen will further expose the deep rooted interests of the public servants in safeguarding the public information. From this one can imagine how the administration is being run with these people all these years.
-
[RTI Case Law] Standard format of RTI reply by Public Information Officer
rtiindia posted a topic in RTI Appeals decisions
This article has been posted at our #LawSegment . To read the full article follow this link: Standard format of RTI reply by Public Information Officer and to subscribe to our daily mailer follow this link Join our free Right to Information Newsletter. Department of Personnel and Training , Director IR has invited views/suggestions from the citizens on the draft guidelines regarding elements that a RTI reply should essentially contain by 16.04.2015. through email *at usrti-dopt@nic.in. You can visit our forum here and…Read more › The law segment is available here RTI INDIA - Invoking Your Rights Read the complete article here... -
rti happenings: New Delhi; PMO doesn't have file-notings on disabling PMO's public email ID
akhilesh yadav posted a topic in RTI in Media
It refers to a much-delayed RTI response received from Prime Minister's Office (PMO) wherein PMO, even after intervention of first Appellate Authority, has declined having any file-notings/correspondence on disabling PMO's public email ID pmosb@pmo.nic.in. Possibly people might have been sending extra-long e-mails on this email ID, this being the reason for disabling of email ID pmosb@pmo.nic.in Read more at: PMO doesn't have file-notings on disabling PMO's public email ID
