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 'rajiv mathur'.



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 20 results

  1. [caption id=attachment_2086" align="aligncenter" width="400] ICSE vs CBSE[/caption] The fate of Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations which conducts the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE for Class X & XII) under the RTI Act 2005 is still not decided. However, you cannot get the information from ICSE board under RTI as of now like; certified copies of evaluated answer sheets. Earlier the Delhi high court in Council For The Indian School ... vs Ajay Jhuria & Anr on 24 July, 2012, observed that "according to the learned counsel for the petitioner since the Council is neither owned nor it is substantially financed and, because of the clear statement made in the said communication dated 24.03.2006, nor is it controlled by Central Government, the question of the Council being regarded as public authority does not arise at all." High court further states that "we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as also by the Central Information Commission. We leave the question of, whether the Council is a public authority or not within the meaning of The Right to Information Act, 2005, open and to be decided in an appropriate case." The case came up to CIC hearing on 06.12.2013, wherein Vide RTI dt 4.7.13, appellant had sought certified copies of evaluated answer sheets of Chemistry paper I and Paper II in respect of Shri S.Gleams Raman, their son. CIC observed that "A perusal of records shows that Shri OP Kejriwal, Information Commissioner, in appeal no. CIC/OK/A/2006/00303 dt 24.10.08 had held the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination as a public authority. This order of the Commission had been upheld by the Single Bench of the Delhi High Court vide their order dt 30.5.11 (W.P.©8537/2008 and CM 16410/2008). Subsequently on an appeal filed by the ISCE(LPA 617/2011) a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi vide their judgement delivered on 24.7.12, had observed as follows: “5. In view of this offer given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we feel that we need not go into the question whether the Council is a public authority or not, however, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as also by the Central Information Commission. We leave the question of, whether the Council is a public authority or not within the meaning of the Right to Information Act, 2005, open and to be decided in an appropriate case.” In the light of the above decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the appeal was disposed of by Sh. Rajiv Mathur, Central Information Commissioner. The decision can be downloaded from here: http://rti.cc/34 File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000967 Appellant: Shri S.G. Raman, Ranchi Public Authority: Council For The Indian School Certificate Examination, New Delhi Date of Hearing: 06.12.2013 Date of decision: 06.12.2013 (Rajiv Mathur), Central Information Commissioner ICSE vs CBSE - only one is under RTI! However, if you read the 'About the Council' Page, following is stated "The Council has been so constituted as to secure suitable representation of: Government of India, State Governments/Union Territories in which there are Schools affiliated to the Council, the Inter-State Board for Anglo-Indian Education, the Association of Indian Universities, the Association of Heads of Anglo-Indian Schools, the Indian Public Schools’ Conference, the Association of Schools for the ISC Examination and members co-opted by the Executive Committee of the Council... As a leader in the provision of world-wide educational endeavours, the Council's vast experience and wisdom is called upon in many forums such as the Council of Boards of School Education in India (COBSE), State Education Departments, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the Ministry for Human Resource Development and the Planning Commission, affirming the intrinsic integrity and credibility of the Council and the system it espouses." It's an irony that one one hand CBSE is under RTI ICSE is not. what's your views? Related articles across the web What is ICSE board ICSE specimen paper
  2. rtiindia

    RTI for CBSE Affiliated School

    [caption id=attachment_2082" align="aligncenter" width="460] RTI for CBSE Affiliated School[/caption] If the School is under the CBSE Affiliation rules, and if any information by use of RTI for CBSE Affiliated School is sought about that school, then it is the information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and has to be furnished. In a decision delivered on 03.12.2013, CIC has referred the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP© No.7265/2007 dt 25 Sept 2009. The decision states that: “8. Information as defined in Section 2(f) means details or material available with the public authority. The later portion of Section 2(f) expands the definition to include details or material which can be accessed under any other law from others. The two definitions have to be read harmoniously. The term held by or under the control of any public authority in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act has to be read in a manner that it effectuates and is in harmony with the definition of the term information as defined in Section 2(f). The said expression used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act should not be read in a manner that it negates or nullifies definition of the term information in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is well settled that an interpretation which renders another provision or part thereof redundant or superfluous should be avoided. Information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes in its ambit, the information relating to any private body which can be accessed by public authority under any law for the time being in force. Therefore, if a public authority has a right and is entitled to access information from a private body, under any other law, it is information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The term held by the or under the control of the public authority used in Section 2(j) of the RTI Act will include information which the public authority is entitled to access under any other law from a private body. A private body need not be a public authority and the said term private body has been used to distinguish and in contradistinction to the term public authority as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Thus, information which a public authority is entitled to access, under any law, from private body, is information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and has to be furnished.” RTI for CBSE Affiliated School Vide RTI dt 17.7.13, appellant had sought information on 20 points relating to Sarti Beri Rajaram Public School. Appellant insisted that he should be provided information on all 20 points and if the same is not available with the CBSE, they should obtain the information from the school concerned and pass it on to him. The Commission directed the PIO to go through the Hon'ble High Court order observation and if the information sought by the appellant is accessible to them, under CBSE Affiliation rules, the same may be collected from the school and furnished to the appellant. If not, a suitable response be provided to the appellant within one month from date of receipt of the order. For further information, you may read the The CBSE Affiliation website is located here: http://rti.cc/2- CBSE Affiliated rules here: http://rti.cc/2x The numerous discussions on our forum regarding School and RTI here: http://rti.cc/2y Here is the earlier article of us regarding RTI for Private School: http://rti.cc/2z DECISION: The Decision can be downloaded and read from here: http://rti.cc/30 File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000969 Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, Shamli Public Authority: CBSE, RO, Allahabad Date of Hearing: 03.12.2013 Date of decision: 03.12.2013 (Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner
  3. In this classic case a common but long standing problem was solved by a Right to Information. A simple RTI solved the big problem of water supply of the Sainik Enclave, Mohan Garden at New Delhi. Because of the low level of pipes which are bringing water to the colony, some houses which are at a height, were not getting the water. Therefore RTI applicant made an RTI application to Delhi Jal Board by asking whether during carpeting/repairing of roads, height of roads should be increased or kept at the same old level/height,etc. The Official of DJB did not reply to the RTI query. The RTI Applicant complaint to the CIC for non reply of information. DJB official during hearing at CIC agreed to do the needful and requested the appellant to collect some more signatures of the residents of the area, so that they will take action as desired by the appellant. Getting Water in the upper stories The Commission having satisfied that information has been furnished to the appellant, closed the appeal.
  4. Central Information Commission has directed UPSC to allow inspection of evaluated answer sheet of Civil Service Exams. CIC has also allowed obtaining the certified photocopies of evaluated answer sheet of Civil Service Exams to the candidates. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadyay v/s CBSE is very clear and a candidate has a right to inspect/obtain a photocopy of his evaluated answer sheet. However, UPSC contended that it is the stand of the public authority i.e. UPSC that the information is denied u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, notwithstanding the orders of the Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay. It was submitted by UPSC that the orders of the Supreme Court are applicable to CBSE and not to the UPSC. However, CIC in it's decision observed that the stand taken by the UPSC is in clear violation of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Commission did not concur the decision of the CPIO/Appellate Authority of UPSC to not provide the information to the candidate and in terms of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, instead the Commission directed CPIO, UPSC to provide certified photocopies of answer sheets of Civil Services 2012 Mains Examination, sought by the applicant in his RTI, within two weeks from date of receipt of the order. Evaluated answer sheet of Civil Service Exams During the hearing Public Authority from UPSC was represented by Dr Kulbir Singh, Jt Director/CPIO and Shri Imran Farid, Under Secretary(CSM), UPSC. Earlier Shri Gorav, of Distt. Fatehgarh, Haryana Vide his RTI dt 21.5.13, had sought information on 7 points relating to Civil Services Mains Exam 2011 and 2012 as also seeking photocopies of his answer sheets for the two exams. CPIO vide letter dt 25.6.13, provided a point wise response and informed the appellant that evaluated answer sheets for 2011 has outlived their retention period and the answer sheet for 2012 was denied u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. An appeal was filed on 9.7.13 questioning the denial of photocopy. AA vide order dt 12.8.13, upheld the decision of the CPIO. Submissions made by the public authority were heard. CPIO submitted that in respect of query no. ©(ii) where the appellant has sought photocopies of answer sheet in respect of 2012 Main Examination, it is the stand of the public authority that the information is denied u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, notwithstanding the orders of the Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay. It is his submission that the orders of the Supreme Court are applicable to CBSE and not to the UPSC. In the absence of the appellant, his views could not be ascertained. DECISION (Quoted verbatim from the decision) The Commission does not concur with the decision of the CPIO/AA. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadyay v/s CBSE is very clear and a candidate has a right to inspect/obtain a photocopy of his evaluated answer sheet. The stand taken by the UPSC is in clear violation of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In terms of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Commission directs CPIO to provide certified photocopies of answer sheets of Civil Services 2012 Mains Examination, sought by the appellant in para 2©(ii) of his RTI, within two weeks from date of receipt of the order. As the matter has been unduly delayed, the photocopies shall be provided free of cost. If you have queries on the above, you may post it at our forums here. Do you have anything to add to this decision? Please post it in the comments below.
  5. While Public Information Officer denied the information on a question asked regarding steps taken for implementation of the DOPT guidelines regarding proactive disclosure of tours of officials of the rank of Joint Secretaries and above to implement and copies of all tour orders issued and details of TA/DA paid for each of Joint Secretaries of Central Vigilance Commission by quoting Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, however, on the other hand First Appellate Authority (FAA) has brought in a totally new provision by denying information u/s 8(1)(g) by quoting a CIC decision. FAA denied the information without giving a hearing to the RTI Applicant. What are your views? Use the comments in the article to post. You can discuss it at our forum too. The Appellant had argued in front of the CIC that the FAA by doing this, has brought in a totally new provision for denial of information which is not tenable as he was not allowed an opportunity to question this and he was not given a hearing. He further submitted that the CPIO vide letter dt 2.8.13 has already provided information relating to foreign and domestic travel of officers of the rank of JS and above. When such information has already been provided, he would be satisfied if similar information is provided in respect of the remaining staff also. Can First Appellate Authority bring in fresh provisions of RTI Act to deny information? The Commission remanded the case to the FAA with directions that he should provide a hearing to the appellant in terms of the Commission’s earlier orders and to provide information in respect of queries. CIC further recorded that "We also take an adverse view of the fact that the designated CPIO/FAA of the CVC failed to attend the hearing. A copy of this order be marked to Shri Pradeep Kumar, CVC, who may like to issue appropriate orders to his officials dealing with RTI matters to ensure that officials of the CVC, of an appropriate level, attend the hearings of the Commission." While going through the CIC decision quoted by FAA case no. CIC/AT/A/2009/000100 in the case of Shri Nihar Ranjan Banerjee, CVO and Shri Bidya Nand Mishra, DGM(Vig), Coal India Ltd Vs Shri MN Ghosh, it is found that CIC while reviewing it's own order has denied the information about the tour details, vehicle logbooks, purpose of visits, overtime payments of vigilance officer on following grounds: No public interest is served by their disclosure. On the contrary, there is a distinct possibility that disclosure of this information will compromise the functioning of the Vigilance Officers ⎯ the review-petitioners ⎯ and not only expose them to physical risks and intimidations, but impair their ability to carry-out their sensitive assignments. Information should be declined within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act During the hearing, it was submitted by the review-petitioners that the type of information which appellant had requested has always been held ⎯ insofar as it related to the officers of the Vigilance Department ⎯ as confidential within the meaning of Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act was designed for such contingencies and is entirely consistent with the provisions of RTI Act (Section 11(1)). Now, while the RTI Act, no-doubt, takes precedence over the Indian Evidence Act in a matter of inconsistency between their provisions, when the provisions of two Acts are consistent, the RTI Act and the Indian Evidence Act provisions should be harmoniously construed. I find that there is ample consistency between Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 11(1) of the RTI Act read with Section 2(n) of the same Act. In the circumstances and the atmosphere in which they work and the specificity of their sensitive assignment, the requested information had the potentiality of endangering the officers’ life and their physical safety, apart from leading to identification of the source of information or assistance given in confidence for discharge of their law-enforcement functions as Vigilance Officers. (in terms of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act) The citation is available here: Shri R.K. Jain Vs Central Vigilance Commission, File No: CIC/SM/A/2013/001325/RM dated 30.07.2014 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!
  6. The Commission finds no merit in the complaint filed by Shri Sudhir Goyal on CPIO contention that there are over 75 ministries/departments and as per the decision of a three-member Bench of the Commission in the case of Shri Ketan Kantilal Modi Vs CBEC, dt 22.9.2009, CPIO is not under obligation to transfer RTIs to multiple organisations. (If you want to file RTI Online visit our guide here) Vide RTI, addressed to the PMO, Complainant had sought information on 7 points relating to details of various programmes started by the Central government on completion of four years of UPA government , decisions taken by the government in relation to the programmes, amount spent on these programmes, budget allocated for the same and related issues. The CPIO told to the applicant that the information pertains to various Ministries and the Complainant was advised to file separate RTI applications to each ministry with regard to the remaining information. Transfer RTIs to multiple organizations The Complainant has filed a complaint u/s 18 on the grounds of not transferring the RTI application u/s 6(3) DECISION The Commission finds no merit in the complaint filed by Shri Sudhir Goyal and the same is disposed of. Citation Details: File No.CIC/SM/C/2013/000573/RM dated 17.07.2014. 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!
  7. Public Information Officer of Sri GURU TEGH BAHADUR KHALSA COLLEGE acted both as PIO and First Appellate Authority. Applicant had sought information as to action taken on his letter relating to irregularities in selection of students for admission under the Sports quota and not satisfied with the response of Public Information Officer, Sri GURU TEGH BAHADUR KHALSA COLLEGE, the applicant filed the first appeal. However, instead of a reply by First Appellate Authority, PIO again replied to the applicant. A response to the appeal should have been responded to by the AA and not the PIO himself as per the RTI Act. Named after the 9th Sikh Guru Sri GURU TEGH BAHADUR KHALSA COLLEGE is a constituent of University of Delhi. It is a co-educational institution established in the year 1951 by Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee to instill ideals of self-sacrifice and service among the youth. It draws inspiration from the life of the Guru who laid down his life in Delhi to uphold freedom of belief and conscience and whose sacrifice and martyrdom for secular ideas are unique in the annals of our country. As per the website of the school, RTI applications can be made on plain piece of paper duly signed by the applicant. The application would only be considered complete and eligible for answer when submitted with Rs10. The application must be submitted to the Administrative Officer during office hours. The Appellate officer is the principal of the college. SGTB Khalsa College Public Information Officer This matter came up to CIC for hearing. CIC recorded that "The Commission has considered the submissions made and finds that as per the provisions of the RTI Act, a response to the appeal should have been responded to by the AA and not the PIO himself. It is also found that the appellant has addressed his appeal dt 26.10.13 to the PIO, rather than to the FAA. The Commission directs the Principal, SGTB Khalsa College, to provide a written response to the appellant". File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/001171 Appellant: Shri Nardev Singh Tyagi, New Delhi Public Authority: Sri Guru Tegh Bahadur Khalsa College, DU, Delhi Date of Hearing: 27.01.2014 (Image screenshot taken from main school website for illustration purpose only)
  8. When asked about the University rules relating to obtaining permission to proceed abroad on a private visit, first Public Information Officer writes stating ‘usual terms and conditions’ , and 1st Appellate Authority conveniently bypassed the main issue on which information was sought and disposed of the appeal. The information sought in the RTI was very simple and it was expected that a Dy Registrar of the AMU would have obtained the information and provided the same to the appellant. This was not done. Aligarh Muslim University evading RTI CIC went to an extent to direct Vice Chancellor to make officers handling RTI should be made aware of the responsibility. The CIC recorded that "A copy of this order be marked to Lt Gen (retd) Zameer Uddin Shah, Vice Chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University with directions to ensure that officials of the AMU entrusted with the responsibility of implementing the RTI Act, are made aware of their responsibility and act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. In the instant case, the Dy Registrar (Admn-T) has failed to provide a speaking order and has conveniently skirted query no.1 of the RTI." The AMU website regarding RTI can be visited here. Vide RTI dt 11.7.13 appellant had sought information on the following: University rules relating to private visits abroad and copy of the resolution of the Executive and Academic Council for the same. Sanctioning authority for casual leave of teachers. CPIO/SO(T) vide letter dt 16.7.13 provided a response to query no.2 and transferred query no.1 to CPIO, Council Section. CPIO/SO Council, vide letter dt 29.7.13, expressed inability to trace the Resolution. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard by CIC. Appellant submitted that the AA/Dy Registrar(Admn-T) had vide his letter dt 22.5.13, addressed to the appellant, had made a reference to ‘usual terms and conditions’ in response to a letter from her. Vide her RTI addressed to the CPIO/SO(T), the appellant had sought University rules relating to obtaining permission to proceed abroad on a private visit. SO(T) for some inexplicable reasons, transferred this query to CPIO(Councils) and the AA Shri SM Suroor Athar in his order dt 26.8.13, conveniently bypassed the main issue on which information had been sought and disposed of the appeal. CPIOs present were unable to provide any reasonable explanation for not providing the information. File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/001127 Dr. Rachna Kaushal, Aligarh Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 22.01.2014 Rajiv Mathur, Central Information Commissioner
  9. In yet another case of blatant disregard to RTI Act, Allahabad University Registrar has yet again made deliberate attempt to deny information to RTI Applicant. The Commission also observed during various hearings that the Registrar of the University who is designated as an Appellate Authority, does not respond to any of the appeals put up before him. In the light of his continued intransigence, the VC may like to initiate appropriate action against the Registrar. The CIC has recoded in the decision that "A copy of this order be marked to the Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University, Prof A.K.Singh with directions to ensure that the officials tasked with the responsibility of providing information under the RTI Act discharge their duties in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It seems that a deliberate attempt has been made in the instant case to deny information to the appellant, Shri Avinash Dube. The Commission also observed during various hearings that the Registrar of the University who is designated as an AA, does not respond to any of the appeals put up before him. In the light of his continued intransigence, the VC may like to initiate appropriate action against the Registrar. The Commission would like to have a report from the Vice Chancellor on the measures taken in regard to setting right the deficiencies observed in implementation of various provisions of the RTI Act, within thirty days from date of receipt of this order." Registrar Allahabad University Earlier Vide RTI dt 21.7.12, RTI Applicant had sought information on 3 points relating to purchase of utensils and chairs for 2010-11 for the hostels of Allahabad University. An appeal was filed on 14.2.13 as no information was provided. Appellant submitted that despite a lapse of over one and a half years, information sought has been deliberately denied to him. Moreover, the FAA Prof VP Singh has failed to hear his first appeal. CIC disposed of the appeal recording that "The Commission finds that various officials of the University are deliberately acting in a manner which is against the spirit of the RTI Act. " You should read the RTI Act Section 20 (2) in this reference which states "...recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him." Learn how to become RTI Activist here and do something about it. File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/001244 Shri Avinash Dube, Allahabad Vs Allahabad University, Allahabad 20.01.2014
  10. How important is 2 Rupees in RTI? If you go by the latest decision of CIC, the CPIO thinks it is. The information was denied for depositing extra two rupees for obtaining the information from Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata. The complaint was lodged at CIC against the CPIO. CIC however, referred the matter to First Appellate Authority (FAA) who disposed of the appeal upholding that RTI applicant should deposit exact 8 rupees instead of Rupees 10. 2 Rupees in RTI Earlier applicant submitted that he has not been provided information sought vide his RTI dt 21.3.09 even though he had submitted the photocopying charges.CPIO/DCIT HQ(Admn) Kolkata, vide letter dt 9.4.09 asked appellant to deposit Rs 8 as photocopying charges. The appellant remitted Rs 10 which was not accepted by CPIO and advised the appellant to remit Rs 8 only vide letter dt 23.4.09. A complaint was lodged with the CIC on 20.4.11. CIC vide order dt 12.4.13 remanded the matter to the FAA. AA vide order dt 13.8.13, disposed of the appeal upholding the decision of the CPIO. The whole RTI initiated by Shri Sukumar Mondal in the year 2009 was decided in the year 2013, where the CIC finally observed that the stand of the CPIO and the FAA in turning down the request for supply of information on the grounds that the appellant instead of submitting Rs 8 had submitted Rs 10, is not tenable. The submission of two extra rupees cannot be a ground for denying information to the appellant. And then, CIC directed CPIO to provide information in the next 10 days on 16.12.2013. Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000842 Appellant: Shri Sukumar Mondal, Midnapore Public Authority: DCIT (Hqrs)(Admn.) and Addl. CIT (Hqrs.) (Admn.), Kolkata Date of Hearing: 16.12.2013 Date of decision: 16.12.2013 Link to Decision: http://rti.cc/40 What are your views? Does this deserve a silent acceptance from us?
  11. [caption id=attachment_240" align="alignright" width="203] Private Body under RTI[/caption] Here are few questions raised at our forum regarding Private Body under RTI. You can visit the Tag Private Body here at our forum. Can I seek Information about private residential property? Is DAV Public school under RTI Act 2005 ? Do RTI act applies for private bodies? whether rti act applies on private colleges affiliated by govt. university? RTI for information about a private company Private School under purview of RTI Is right to information act only applicable to government offices or public Authorities? RTI about private nursing home Private Hospital & RTI Private Companies & RTI Can I Use of RTI Act in Private Institutions? The answer to all the above whether information can be obtained from Private Body under RTI lies in the High Court Decision. According to which "all information including information furnished and relating to private bodies available with public authority is covered by Section 2(f) of the RTI Act." Further, information which a public authority can access under any other law from a private body is also ―information‖ under section 2(f). The public authority should be entitled to ask for the said information under law from the private body. Details available with a public authority about a private body are ―information‖ and details which can be accessed by the public authority from a private body are also ―information‖ but the law should permit and entitle the public authority to ask for the said details from a private body." Private Bodies under RTI? Therefore, in all decisions of CIC, this High Court Decision is being quoted. In the recent care by CIC where the appellant had sought information on 8 points relating to Saint Anne School, Jodhpur, the CIC has resorted to the above High Court Decision. A private body need not be a public authority and the said term private body has been used to distinguish and in contradistinction to the term public authority as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Thus, information which a public authority is entitled to access, under any law, from private body, is information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and has to be furnished. This was stated by CIC in the case where appellant had sought certified copies of salary sheets of teaching and non-teaching staff and was decided that if the information sought by the appellant is accessible to them, under CBSE Affiliation rules, the same may be collected from the school and furnished to the appellant. Now the next steps: How to get information of private entity under RTI? Information under RTI ACT from Private entity: Some important Decisions Read all discussions from our forum regarding Private body under RTI
  12. An RTI applicant which sought information RTI on Rotomac Pvt Ltd, the amount of income tax paid by them since establishment and related issues was shot down by CIC on the premises that disclosure by a person in his Income Tax Returns are ‘personal information’ which stands exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, application went through 4 PIO's before the final PIO decided to shot down the applicant which sought RTI on Rotomac. CPIO, o/o CIT(CCA) Kanpur vide letter dt 6.5.13, transferred the RTI to Commissioner, IT-2 , Kanpur, who vide letter dt 9.5.13, transferred it to CPIO, o/o Addl CIT, Range 6, Kanpur. Vide letter dt 14.5.13, the RTI was transferred to ACIT- VI, Kanpur for providing a response to the appellant directly. CPIO/ACIT-VI vide letter dt 4.6.13, informed appellant that in terms of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, the information sought is not in wider public interest and hence the same was denied. The Commission concurs with the decision of the public authority in denying the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande has held that details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax Returns are ‘personal information’ which stands exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless it involves larger public interest and the CPIO or the AA is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.” The information seeker had not applied the Public Interest clause in his application where in when personal information in respect of a person is sought, the authority concerned shall weigh the competing claims i.e., the claim for the protection of personal information of the concerned person on the one hand, and the claim of public interest on the other, and if “public interest” justifies disclosure, i.e., the public interest outweighs the need for protection of personal information, the concerned authority shall disclose the information. The court has earlier said that a querist may seek from the income tax authorities- the details of the income tax returns filed by private individual/juristic entity – if the querist can justify the disclosure of such personal information on the anvil of public interest. RTI on Rotomac ROTOMAC GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED, formerly Rotomac Pens Private Limited belonging to VIKRAM KOTHARI ENTERPRISES, was incorporated in the year 1992. The project was conceived with an objective to provide good quality and economically priced ball pens. Soon, the Company set up world-class integrated production facilities to manufacture and supply writing instruments which made this relatively new entrant into a well known brand in a very short span of time. With a strong customer base, today Rotomac is one of the leading manufacturer and exporter of a diversified range of ball pens. (Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/001054, 03.01.2014 Shri Amit Bajpai, Kanpur ACIT-VI and Addl. CIT, Range-6, Kanpur If you want to read more about obtaining information from Private organisations, you must read these following threads: How to get information of private entity under RTI? Information under RTI ACT from Private entity: Some important Decisions Read all discussions from our forum regarding Private body under RTI Related articles across the web Can I obtain information from Private Body under RTI? 25 Best Articles on RTI RTI INDIA Mobile App as an innovative tool for crusaders RTI Directory- Deposit your RTI with us
  13. The commission has not allowed joint inspection of properties under MCD by using RTI Act provisions where the contention of inspection was to expose unauthorised construction in the larger public interest and that it's an exercise to disclose conspiracy between the Officers of MCD and constructers. Inspection of the ‘information’ would certainly not include private ‘house property’ as it would lead to interpretation of section 2 (f) and 2 (j) in too liberal a fashion. It is only the report/document/sample generated after inspection and which is within the domain of the public authority that can be accessed under the provisions of the RTI Act. ‘Any material in any form’ may not be equated with the term ‘material in ANY FORM’ as such comparison is odious and evidently overreaches the legislative intent. Secondly, Inspection of the properties would certainly attract Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act as it would invade the privacy of the owner/occupant(s) of the said property which is a Fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India unauthorised construction in MCD The RTI Applicant has insisted that the Commission under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act may direct the MCD to allow joint inspection with the MCD Officials of properties which have illegally constructed their houses. Pursuant to the Commission’s Orders dated 27 August 2013, and 30 October 2013, a full bench of the Commission had been constituted in this cases. Matter was heard on 21 November 2013. The commission noted that there are two issues involved in the present case: Whether the Central Information Commission (hereinafter “Commission”) has the ‘power to direct’ the Public Authority i.e. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter “MCD”) to allow inspection of the Private/Third Party properties to the Appellant-in person along with technical staff/Engineers of the MCD under the RTI Act, 2005 or the DMC Act. The second issue before the Commission is (in case the Commission has the power to direct the said ‘inspection of the properties’) whether such inspection would invade the privacy of the individual owner and/or occupant of the said property and would hence attract Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Commission Decision: The powers of the Commission under Section 18 of the RTI Act specifically allow the CIC to inquire into any complaint filed by the RTI Applicant. The said section further allows the CIC to initiate an enquiry into the matter, if required which includes summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons, receiving evidence on affidavit, inspection of documents, etc. However, CIC does not have any power under Section 18 of the Act to allow Joint inspection of third party property to a RTI Applicant. Section 18 further does not grant power to the CIC to disclose any information to the RTI Applicant. Inspection’ does not have any relationship to any Public Activity or interest specially in the presence of alternate mechanism to carry out such inspection by the MCD officials as per the Provisions of the DMC Act. On the contrary, allowing such inspection of the personal property to ‘third party’ under the RTI Act may inculcate the ‘misuse’ of this privileged transparency right which will not be in the larger public interest. Appeal No: CIC/DS/A/2012/002173, CIC/DS/A/2012/002176 and CIC/DS/A/2012/002184 Appellant : Shri A.D. Sharma Public Authority : Municipal Corporation Delhi Date of Hearing : 21.11.2013 Date of Decision : 17.12.2013 Smt. Deepak Sandhu Chief Information Commissioner Shri Basant Seth & Shri Rajiv Mathur Information Commissioners Decision of the CIC: http://rti.cc/property
  14. Central University of Jharkhand provided nil response to the RTI Application after a lapse of almost four months. CIC recorded that "It clearly indicates that the Central University of Jharkhand is making a mockery of the provisions of the RTI Act and there seems to be no application of mind either on part of the CPIO or the FAA." A show cause notice was issued to the Dr KP Mahanta, CPIO as to why action u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act be not initiated against him for the unwarranted delay in providing the information. CIC also recorded that "If there are other persons responsible for delay in providing information to the appellant, the CPIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause notice and direct them to provide a response to the Commission. A copy of this order was also marked to Prof Darlando T.Khathing, Vice Chancellor, Central University, Jharkhand, with directions to ensure that the provisions of the RTI Act are adhered to, both in letter and spirit. The officials dealing with the Right to Information should ensure that information is provided within the stipulated timeframe. The Central University of Jharkhand came into being under the Central Universities Act, 2009 that envisages establishing and incorporating universities for teaching and research in the various states on 1st of March, 2009. The University offers 5-year Integrated Courses that are carefully designed to meet the multidisciplinary needs including Choice-based Credit system (CBCS) across 10 Semesters. Admission will be based on the score obtained by a candidate in the Central University Common Entrance Test (CUCET- 2013). The details of the RTI can be seen in this webpage of the University. Central University of Jharkhand Vide RTI dt 8.5.13, appellant had sought information on 2 points seeking rules relating to treatment. Advocate for the public authority submitted that in response to appeal dt 10.6.13, FAA vide letter dt 17.7.13 directed the CPIO to provide a response to the appellant provided the information sought was not exempted. CPIO vide order dt 4.10.13, informed the appellant that there is no such order. Appellant submitted that his RTI was filed on 8.5.13 and the CPIO has provided a response finally on 4.10.13 and that too after a lapse of almost four months. (Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000730, Decision: http://rti.cc/3z Appellant: Kumar Pankaj Anand, Morabadi, Ranchi Public Authority: Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi Date of Hearing: 21.11.2013 Date of decision: 16.12.2013 Here are the various discussions relating to Universities and RTI
  15. rtiindia

    UGC insincerity towards RTI

    University Grants Commission (UGC) that perform the role of coordination, determination and maintenance of standards in institutions of higher education does not follow the provisions of the RTI Act sincerely. After observing this on many occasions CIC has to mark an order to Chairman UGC, Prof Ved Prakash, with directions to ensure that a proper mechanism is evolved in UGC for implementation of the RTI Act and the individuals appearing before the Commission are able to present a complete picture rather than confining themselves to their respective sections. CIC also directed the Chairman u/s 19(8) of the RTI Act to ensure that proper training is provided to the staff allocated the work of RTI so that the provisions of the Act are implemented both in letter and spirit. The UGC, was formally established only in November 1956 as a statutory body of the Government of India through an Act of Parliament for the coordination, determination and maintenance of standards of university education in India. In order to ensure effective region-wise coverage throughout the country, the UGC has decentralised its operations by setting up six regional centres at Pune, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Bhopal, Guwahati and Bangalore. The head office of the UGC is located at Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg in New Delhi, with two additional bureaus operating from 35, Feroze Shah Road and the South Campus of University of Delhi as well. All Bureau Heads have been designated as the Appellate Authority and their subordinate officers as Public Information Officers in the office of the University Grants Commission. UGC insincerity towards RTI CASE: Vide RTI dt 15.4.13, appellant had sought information on 8 points relating to M.Kumarasamy College of Engineering. PIO (Autonomous Colleges) has demanded a payment of Rs 82 as photocopying charges after a lapse of over two months since filing of the RTI, which is against the provisions of the RTI Act. DECISION: PIO was directed to provide information to the appellant free of cost within ten days from date of receipt of the order. CIC noted that "In the past, we have brought it to the notice of Chairman, UGC, the fact that provisions of the RTI Act are not being sincerely implemented by the UGC. In the instant case, the RTI has been tossed back and forth between UGC, New Delhi and UGC RO Hyderabad, with neither of the offices making any effort in providing a response. As a result, though the RTI was filed on 15.4.13, PIO (Autonomous Colleges) has failed to provide information on the grounds that appellant should have deposited Rs 82 and no information seems to have been provided in respect of queries 1-5" CIC further noted that "A copy of this order be marked to Chairman UGC, Prof Ved Prakash, with directions to ensure that a proper mechanism is evolved in UGC for implementation of the RTI Act and the individuals appearing before the Commission are able to present a complete picture rather than confining themselves to their respective sections. We also direct the Chairman u/s 19(8) of the RTI Act to ensure that proper training is provided to the staff allocated the work of RTI so that the provisions of the Act are implemented both in letter and spirit." Case details: File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000777 Appellant: Shri Rajasekaran M, Namakkal Public Authority: UGC, New Delhi Date of Hearing: 12.12.2013 Date of decision: 12.12.2013 (Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner Decision: http://rti.cc/3r Here are the numerous discussions over our forum regarding UGC http://rti.cc/3s from framing RTI to UGC to understanding the Application, Appeal procedures.
  16. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME) is a private institution and the only role which the MHRD has is in providing recognition to some of their courses. Written submissions have been made by Shri Sanjay Jain on behalf of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers wherein it has been clarified that they are not a public authority as defined u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act and hence are not obliged to provide any response. The Commission accepted the submissions made by the IME that they are not a public authority u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act and hence not obliged to respond to the RTI. Institution of Mechanical Engineers are not a public authority Appellant: Shri Nand Kishore Jha, Gwalior Public Authority: MHRD, Deptt. of Higher Education, New Delhi & Secretary IME, Mumbai Date of Hearing: 28.10.2013 Date of decision: - dated 28.10.2013. Decision: http://rti.cc/2s (Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commission
  17. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) destroyed the entire material relating to the examination, including OMR sheet for the examination conducted by them for post of Principal in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Noida (NVS) even before the retention period. The RTI applicant could not get the information about the copy of question paper, scoring key and OMR sheet in connection with written test because records destroyed before the retention period by IBPS. Moreover, NVS CPIO transferred the application to IBPS whose status itself being Public Authority is sub-judice. Instead of simply demanding the information from IBPS, PIO of NVS transferred it to IBPS. The commission noticed that "The NVS has out sourced the recruitment process to IBPS for which they are being paid by the government agency. As such, destruction of the answer sheets before expiry of six month period is a violation of the contractual agreement for which IBPS should be penalised." Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) has been working more closely with Public Sector Banks to help them move forward in matters of recruitment by handling turn-key projects. The Governing Board consists of nominees from Reserve Bank of India, Ministry of Finance Government of India, National Institute of Bank Management, representatives of Public Sector Banks, Insurance sector and academics. The matters related to policy and affairs of the Institute are vested in the Governing Board. The foundation of the Institute is to promote professionalism in Talent Acquisition through selection of competent and efficient cadres of personnel from the clerical to the executive tier. The Institute is an autonomous body; registered as a Public Trust under the Bombay Public Trust Act of 1950; a Scientific and Industrial Research Organization by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India and a centre for providing PhD in Management affiliated to the SNDT University. FACTS Vide RTI dt 29.1.2013 the appellant had sought copy of question paper, scoring key and OMR sheet of Roll No. 1102130762 in connection with written test for post of Principal in NVS held on 5.8.2012. PIO, NVS vide letter dated 8.2.2013 transferred the RTI to IBPS for providing a response. GM (Administration), Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) vide letter dated 31.5.2013, addressed to PIO, NVS informed that the entire material relating to the subject examination has already been destroyed, including OMR sheet as per their weeding out policy. FAA vide order dated 6.6.2013 observed that the recruitment agency IBPS has provided a response on 31.5.2013 and the same was sent to the appellant and appeal was disposed of. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. PIO submitted that as per their MOU with the IBPS, a copy of which is submitted to the Commission, the agency is mandated to preserve answer sheets for six months after the submission of the result and thereafter to be destroyed. Appellant submitted that the examination result was declared in Oct. 2012 and she had filed her RTI on 29.1.2013. However, she has not been provided the question paper and OMR sheet. DECISION: Records destroyed before the retention period The Commission finds that the result was announced in Oct. 2012 and RTI filed on 29.1.2013. NVS transferred the RTI to IBPS on 8.2.2013. The request for answer sheet was well within the retention period of six months as per the MOU between NVS and IBPS. As per para A(10) of the MOU, the IBPS is required to preserve used answer sheets for six months after submission of results. As the information sought was well within the six month period, the IBPS should not have destroyed the answer sheets and they should have provided a copy of her answer sheet to the NVS, in case the issue of IBPS being a public authority is subjudice. Moreover, we also find fault with the PIO, NVS for having transferred the RTI to IBPS u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act. They should have simply demanded the information from IBPS and provided a response to the appellant. The NVS has out sourced the recruitment process to IBPS for which they are being paid by the government agency. As such, destruction of the answer sheets before expiry of six month period is a violation of the contractual agreement for which IBPS should be penalised. The Commission directs PIO to provide a copy of the information sought, if still available with the IBPS. If it is no longer available, NVS should take appropriate action against IBPS for violation of their contractual agreement. A response be provided to the appellant under intimation to the Commission within 3 weeks from date of receipt of the order. The decision can be downloaded from here: Records destroyed before the retention period Citation: File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000643 Rajiv Mathur, Central Information Commissioner Appellant: Ms. Geeta Rani Panda, Sambalpur Public Authority: Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Noida Date of Hearing: 01.11.2013 Date of decision: 01.11.2013 Here are the numerous RTI Discussion threads over our forum on this issue: http://goo.gl/72a8Yh. You can take help of RTI application for preventing such destruction of records in the thread here: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/93998-prevention-against-malafide-destruction-records.html. Also, the decision of the Armed forces tribunal, Principal Bench, in Para.19 in HARISH CHANDRA JOSHI ...... APPLICANT Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, it is mentioned that "in the matter of “Hav Bhagmal Vs Union of India & Ors.”, has provided compensation to the applicant for the unwarranted / unjustified loss of records by the respondents." The decision is available here! What is your opinion on such act by public authorities on issues where Records destroyed before the retention period?
  18. The complainant has a right to know whether the information provided by him has been found to be false or true. It has been CIC consistent stand that feedback should be provided to the appellant once investigation into a tax evasion complaint has been finalised. Therefore, kindly remember that you have the right to get the broad outcome of the complaint but not the details of the investigations. Blank ban on disclosure of information regarding the action taken on tax evasion complaints may not always be in the best interest of the state revenues. In fact, it may dis-enthuse the information givers as information givers are generally keen to know whether the information provided by them has been of some value to the authorities or not. Feedback on tax evasion complaint would motivate the information givers to provide further informations to the authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance the state revenues. In the present case too, the CIC ruled that "We accordingly direct the CPIO to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant. Details of investigation are, however, not required to be disclosed." Feedback on tax evasion complaint Vide RTI dt 15.5.12, appellant had sought information on 12 points relating to a TEP dt 31.3.11 against Shri Shyam Sundar. It was specified that the information is required for the purpose of appellant’s defence in a criminal trial. 2 CPIO vide letter dt 8.6.12, informed appellant that on the basis of TEP, the case has been taken up for scrutiny for the AY 2006-07 by the IT authorities and till the process is completed, no information can be provided. 3. Appeals was filed on 22.6.12 and 23.6.12. 4. AA vide order dt 17.7.12, directed the CPIO to dispose of the assessment proceedings on priority basis and inform the appellant of the outcome. 5. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Appellant submitted that there has been a heavy tax evasion on part of his father in law and he has provided complete information on this to the IT authorities. He alleged that the ITO had not done the assessment proceedings in a proper manner and that he had made several complaints to the higher authorities. CPIO submitted that the assessment proceedings have since been completed and submitted to higher authorities. Decision: It has been the consistent stand of the Commission that some sort of a feedback should be provided to the appellant once investigation into a tax evasion complaint has been finalised. The complainant has a right to know whether the information provided by him has been found to be false or true. We accordingly direct the CPIO to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant. Details of investigation are, however, not required to be disclosed. In a similar case recently posted here: Information givers on tax evaders are generally keen to know whether the information provided by them has been of some value to the authorities or not. Feed back in this regard would motivate the information givers to provide further informations to the authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance the state revenues. Viewed thus, despite the office of DG IT (Investigations) being an exempted organization, it may not always be the best policy to deny some kind of feed back to the information givers. The CIC ruled that in case of information about tax evaders once the investigation is completed, the CPIO should inform the appellant as to whether the contents of the TEP were found to be true or false. Full details of investigation, however, need not be disclosed. The appellant submitted that he has not been provided any response by the public authority, leading to the impression that the person against whom the TEP was filed, has ‘managed’ the IT authorities. AA submitted that the process of investigation into the TEP filed by the appellant is still ongoing. - See more at: http://www.rtiindia.org/law/tax-evaders-feed-back-action-authorities-motivate-information-givers/252/#sthash.WjEw1Xlu.dpuf A yet another matter related to enquiry reports can be read here! You can read numerous discussions over our forum here regarding tax evasions, how and where to file tax evasion complaints etc here. Here are also the numerous discussions regarding Exempt organisation and how to obtain information from them.
  19. [caption id=attachment_253" align="alignright" width="279] Tax Evaders[/caption] Information givers on tax evaders are generally keen to know whether the information provided by them has been of some value to the authorities or not. Feed back in this regard would motivate the information givers to provide further informations to the authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance the state revenues. Viewed thus, despite the office of DG IT (Investigations) being an exempted organization, it may not always be the best policy to deny some kind of feed back to the information givers. The CIC ruled that in case of information about tax evaders once the investigation is completed, the CPIO should inform the appellant as to whether the contents of the TEP were found to be true or false. Full details of investigation, however, need not be disclosed. The appellant submitted that he has not been provided any response by the public authority, leading to the impression that the person against whom the TEP was filed, has ‘managed’ the IT authorities. AA submitted that the process of investigation into the TEP filed by the appellant is still ongoing. Tax Evaders The Commission is of the view that some sort of a feedback should be provided to the information provider once investigation into a tax evasion complaint has been finalised. This issue had come up in the case of Brij Ballabh Singh Vs DGIT(Inv) Lucknow decided by the Commission on 1.1.2010 in appeal no.CIC/LS/A/2009/01014 wherein the Commission had observed: "3. Besides, it is also to be noted that blank ban on disclosure of information regarding the action taken on tax evasion complaints may not always be in the best interest of the state revenues. In fact, it may dis-enthuse the information givers as information givers are generally keen to know whether the information provided by them has been of some value to the authorities or not. Feed back in this regard would motivate the information givers to provide further informations to the authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance the state revenues. Viewed thus, despite the office of DGIT(Inv) being an exempted organization, it may not always be the best policy to deny some kind of feed back to the information givers.” The ratio of the above case applies to the present appeal also. Once the investigation is completed, the CPIO should inform the appellant as to whether the contents of the TEP were found to be true or false. Full details of investigation, however, need not be disclosed. Therefore, there is no clear cut demarcation that exempted organisation cannot give information under RTI on the cases which are more than Human Rights and Corruption cases. In the present case, information about tax evaders shall help in bringing follow up of the case with the Government in front of the larger public.
  20. In case an applicant requires the information which relates to third party, he must provide the correct address of the third party first- Rules the CIC. In a decision delivered on 30.08.2013, the CIC ruled that "The Commission is of the view that in case the appellant requires the information, he may provide the correct address and last posting of Shri Hari Prasad to the CPIO to enable him to comply with the orders of the FAA." This means that the onus of providing information about the correct address of the third party lies with the applicant. And if the address is not known to the applicant or if the Postal Department returns the notice sent to such third party by CPIO, then as per the section 11 (2) "if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2)", the information is liable not to be provided. Section 11 of the RTI Act states the following: 1. Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. 2. Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure. 3. Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party. Correct Address of the third party "Vide RTI dt 15.2.11, appellant had sought attested copy of Caste certificate of Shri Hari Prasad, retired Addl Commissioner, Income Tax. AA vide order dt 19.5.11, observed that the CPIO vide his letter dt 8.3.11, had denied information u/s 8(1)(j) as the appellant had not shown any larger public interst. Moreover, the CPIO had observed that due to insufficient information, he had not been able to gather the opinion of third party Shri Hari Prasad. In the appeal, filed on 20.4.11, additional information relating to Shri Hari Prasad was provided. AA remanded the case to the CPIO for taking appropriate action after applying the provisions of Section 11 and Section 8 of the RTI Act and to inform the appellant of his decision within thirty days. Submissions made by the public authority were heard. FAA submitted that on the basis of information provided by the appellant, a letter was issued to Shri Hari Prasad in Lucknow to seek his views as required u/s 11. This letter was returned by the postal authorities with the remark that addressee was not residing there. AA further clarified that they are not in possession of the Caste certificate and they are also not aware of the last posting of Shri Hari Prasad before retirement. In the absence of the appellant, his views could not be ascertained. [caption id=attachment_381" align="alignright" width="182] correct address of the third party[/caption] DECISION The Commission is of the view that in case the appellant requires the information, he may provide the correct address and last posting of Shri Hari Prasad to the CPIO to enable him to comply with the orders of the FAA." In case the notice is served, then there is no compulsion for the CPIO to wait for the response from third party, however, in case the notice cannot be served to third party may be because the correct address of the third party was not found or otherwise, the information shall not be disclosed. Here are the numerous discussions and resource articles on Third Party at our forum. Click here to participate!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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