- 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 'receipt'.
Found 8 results
Response as "Application rejected as the necessary Rs10 court fees receipt is missing" with the application
silverbullet posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportHello experts, I am from Tamilnadu, I have given for transfer of patta several months back, every time some one call from office and ask to come in person and then say it is pending in 'X' office or "Y's" office So i filed an RTI applicationto get to know details, .. I pasted 5 nos of 2 Rs Court stamp in the application next to the sender's address along with all the proof of applications for transfer of patta. They responded after 30 days saying the village and survey number is not clearly stated so we cannot reply to your questions Even though its clearly evident in initial application, I responded to their reply stating the survey number and village in words (This time since its a reply, there were no stamps affixed by me) After 30 days of my reply, i have received a response saying that your application is rejected since you did not attach the receipt of RS 10 court fees ! ! Do i have to attach court fees stamp every time ? If the stamp was missing, the PIO should have stated that in his first reply right ? instead he said survey number and village is not clear ! How do i proceed ? Kindly advice
Hello, I have passed my driving license test on June 2014 at Panvel RTO office, Navi Mumbai and till today i have not received my driving license. When I enquired about the same on October 2014, I was informed that there is some problem regarding address proof. In vie wof this, I have given an affidavit along with my electricity bill. Inspite of this, I have not received my driving license. Kindly provide me the details of the Public Information Officer of RTO, Panvel where I can seek assistance. I have already spent Rs. 5000 to the driving school (Maruti Autovista, Kharghar) for learning driving and obtaining license. They are not helping me to get my license, inspite of giving the full amount. Regards, Anju M.
Hello, For how long should I wait as an SPIO for the fees depostion by the applicant?Had intimated the applicant 3 months back to deposit the fee for the no. of pages of information requested. Can I officially reject his application now?
G. Suresh Thomas posted a question in Ask for Non RTI SupportHi, I gave in the PATTA application with the required documents personally in a file to the Revenue Department officer of Kodaikanal, Dindigal District, Tamilnadu on the 29th of February 2012 by around 12:30 PM. He took it, signed it in green ink and then said 'OK'. I waited few seconds more and asked him if he would given me an acknowledgement or a receipt that he had received my application. He said that that was not the procedure and that they would send a notice to my address. It was actually strange. I had to just come back like that, but from then I have been thinking about asking somebody who knows the way it works. Is that normal. Is that the way it works? They just get your file and then tell you that they will send you a notice? What if the particular officer denies that he has never received my papers and application ever? Or if somebody else comes to that seat, if the file has not been processed yet? Please give your expertise answer and tell me what I should do to follow it up. There is no token number given, nothing with me. What should I do from here?
rajan.srivastava posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportDesignated Post offices are supposed to accept RTI applications on behalf of all the central government offices. I faced following issues when I approached to a couple of such post offices: 1. Post office did not issue any proper receipt. When I forced for receipt, they asked me to produce a photocopy of the RTI application and then they put their stamp on the copy. This kind of receipt have no serial number etc. Consequently, the accountability of the post office (for assured forwarding the application to the right PIO) is compromised. My question is: is there any procedure/regulation that tells how the receipt/acknowledgment shall be handed out by the post offices? 2. The RTI regulations for central government matters say that if someone does not know the department under whose jurisdiction the RTI-application should fall, the applicant can submit his application with any PIO/APIO (including post offices), and it'll be duty of that PIO/APIO to forward the application to the right PIO. Is this understanding of the regulation correct? The post office guys didn't accept my application when I said I am unsure of the targeted department! Thanks, Rajan
I have forwarded an appeal under RTI act to CIC more than one month back. I am yet to receive any acknowledgement or registration number for that application. What should I do now to ensure that my appeal is registered with CIC? Do I have to approach anyone officially to know about the status of my application?
Shrawan posted a topic in RTI Appeals decisionsCENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00342 dated 5/5/’06 Right to Information Act 2005 – Section 19 Appellant: Shri Jai Kumar Jain Respondent: Delhi Development Authority Facts: Applicant Shri Jai Kumar Jain, Joint Secretary, DDA Market Association, Rohini, Delhi made an application on 16.2.06 to PIO Shri Pankaj Kumar, Jt. Director (Lands), DDA seeking the following information: Photocopy of page Nos. 10 to 29 and from page No. 56 to date of File No. F-93(234)2000/CE Is there any difference between Built up property and property constructed on plot purchased from DDA. If so what and why. How many shops are lying vacant in each of scheduled caste and unreserved category in CSC No. 2, Sector 2, Rohini. Why allotment of vacant shops for scheduled castes is not being made or tender issued. For how many years tender for shops meant for scheduled caste in CSC No 2 Sector No. 2 has not been issued. In how much time the dispute in property Dep’t. of DDA is settled by the DDA. If not settled, then what action is taken by DDA. DDA is supposed to issue reply in respect of property cases within 15 days. But some officers of various Depts. do not reply in time. In such cases whether any action is to be taken by Senior Officers or not. On not receiving any response, applicant made an appeal on 16.3.06 to the Appellate Authority and on still not receiving a response he has appealed before this Commission. The matter was heard on 15.9.06. The following are present:- 1. Shri Jai Kumar Jain 2. Shri Yash Pal Garg, Dir (CL) 3. Shri Bharat Mehta, Dy. Dir. (CE) 4 Shri Pankaj Kumar, Dy. Dir. (CL) 2 DECISION NOTICE It stands established that the information sought vide application of 16.2.06 has been agreed to be provided by the Commercial Lands Department of DDA only on Sept. 7, 2006. The issues, therefore, are two:- Fixing of a specific time schedule for allowing appellant Shri Jai Kumar Jain to inspect the files and take photocopies of the required notings, and whether penalty will lie u/s 20(1) of failure to supply the information for the above period. In regard to (1) above, Shri Yash Pal Garg, Director, Commercial Lands and PIO has agreed to dispatch photo copies of the concerned file notings by speed post to appellant Shri Jai Kumar Jain at his postal address: Shop No. 3, CSC No. 2, Sector-2, Rohini, New Delhi on 18.9.2006. Photocopy of the dispatch receipt will be submitted to this Commission on that date for inclusion in the record. Regarding (2) above, it seems that Shri Bharat Mehta, Dy Director (C.E.) had in fact responded to the application indicating that the required information could not be supplied under clause 8(1)(j) and 2.2 of the RTI Act. Both grounds are fallacious and would not have stood the first appeal. As discussed above, appellant Shri Jai Kumar Jain states that he had in fact filed the first appeal on 16.3.06, a copy of which was also submitted vide his second appeal. However, the date entered in the copy of our files is 16.2.06, which is obviously not possible since the original application was made on that date. It is this copy of our record, which was sent in the appeal notice to the PIO, who, therefore, has been unable to respond as to what became of the appeal. Now that PIO Shri Yash Pal Garg has agreed to provide the information sought by appellant Shri Jai Kumar Jain and appellant has in fact already filed first appeal to which there has been no response for reasons not known, no purpose will be served by directing Shri Jai Kumar Jain to again file first appeal. PIO Shri Yash Pal Garg is instead directed to enquire into what became of the first appeal, and if received, what action was taken thereon, within 15 working days of the 3 issue of this order, and if received, fixing responsibility for the appeal not having been entertained. From the above case, it is clear that there has been confusion both in receipt and dispatch of correspondence concerning RTI on the part of the Commercial Land Branch of DDA. It is admitted that in the early stages there was some confusion in the handling of applications received under the new Act. The situation has improved over the past months but Commercial Land Branch is cautioned to ensure that in future no such confusion, as demonstrated in this case, reoccurs. Because of this, it is not possible for us to identify the person specifically responsible for the delay in providing information on the application by Shri Jai Kumar Jain with the Department having been convinced that they have supplied the information asked for vide their lett er dated 13.3.06 while appellant convinced that his application or his appeal has been ignored. The matter is disposed of accordingly. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. (Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 22.9.2006 Download the Decision from Download Segment