- 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 'sushma singh'.
Found 8 results
rtiindia posted a post in Section 8 (1) (e)[caption id=attachment_338" align="alignright" width="300] Information denied under RTI[/caption] Information denied under RTI- The information to the appellant cannot be denied indefinitely on the ground that the matter is still under enquiry even after so long. A copy of the report has been denied by the respondent on the grounds that enquiry into the matter, particularly how the incident occurred, was still under enquiry by the Enquiry Committee. Shri Mahadev Tukaram Sutar, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed the present appeal dated 21.5.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Mumbai Port Trust (MbPT), Mumbai for not providing complete and satisfactory information in response to his RTI-application dated 19.1.2012. The appellant has through his RTI application dated 19.1.2012 sought information on the following three queries Smt. Parvati Mahadev Sutar wife of the appellant was admitted in the MbPT Hospital on 13.11.2011 and underwent operation on right knee on 16.11.201 and shifted to Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai on 17.12.2011; The required information is about the report of the enquiry committee submitted by Dr. Vinita Matta, who was appointed to enquire into the treatment given to Smt. Parvati Mahadev Sutar in MbPT Hospital from 13.11.2011 to 17.12.2011; and The information in the form of certified copies of the case papers/treatment sheetCase No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002474 relating to treatment given to Smt. Sutar during 13.11.11 to 17.12.2011 in MbPT Hospital.”. The CPIO vide her letter No. H/E/39/9926 dated 18.2.2012 denied information on Point (b) and © of the RTI application u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act and provided information on Point © i.e. summary of the case. Information denied under RTI The only issue in the present appeal is about non-supply of the report of the Enquiry Committee submitted by Dr. Vinita Matta, who was appointed to enquire into the treatment given to Smt. Parvati Mahadev Sutar in MbPT Hospital from 13.11.2011 to 17.12.2011. A copy of the report has been denied by the respondent on the grounds that enquiry into the matter, particularly how the incident occurred, was still under enquiry by the Enquiry Committee. The information to the appellant cannot be denied indefinitely on the ground that the matter is still under enquiry even after so long. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide the findings of the report to the appellant free of cost within two weeks of receipt of this order. Here are the discussion threads from our forum regarding the Enquiry report
rtiindia posted a post in Section 2(h)The Indian Council of Arbitration established in 1965 is the apex arbitral organisation for settling commercial disputes says NO to RTI citing that Department of Commerce (DOC) neither provides any financial assistance to ICA nor has any administrative control over it; ICA is being treated as an independent autonomous body and therefore, it is outside the purview of ‘public authority’ as defined in RTI Act. CIC has also allowed to keep ICA out of RTI citing that Electronics & Computers Software Export Promotion Council, Export Promotion Council for Handicrafts and Apparel Export Promotion Council is subjudice before Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would not be appropriate for the Commission to take a view whether ICA is ‘public authority’ u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act. The CIC advised applicant to approach the Commission in second appeal afresh, only after the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court on Export Promotion Councils is decided. No RTI to Indian Council of Arbitration Thus till the decision of Court comes, the stand remains that "ICA is an independent autonomous body registered under the Societies Registration Act 1960 and it is outside the purview of “public authority” as defined in RTI Act." Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002190 dated: 05.09.2013 Name of Appellant Name of Respondent Date of Hearing, Dated: 07.01.2014 Shri Anuj Kanwal Vs Indian Council of Arbitration
In response to his appeal before the Commission, the UIDAI, Hyderabad called up the Applicant and provided an e-Adhaar copy to his satisfaction. The CIC also let go UIDAI by treating appeal as withdrawn. Earlier, Dr. Ravhuvir Prasad Mathur, has filed the appeal before the Commission against the respondent Unique Identification Authority (UIDAI), Hyderabad for not providing satisfactory information in response to his RTI-application. The appellant vide his letter dated 13.12.2013 informed the Commission that in response to his appeal before the Commission, the CPIO, UIDAI, Hyderabad has called him and provided EIN and an e-Adhaar copy for Garima Mathur to his satisfaction and he may be allowed to withdraw his appeal. In view of above submissions of the appellant the instant appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by CIC. In a discussion thread posted here at our forum : Can an RTI application be withdrawn?, the provision of the RTI Act has been quoted. In one such curious hearing available here: "Can CIC continue with SCN Proccedings if appeal has already been withdrawn before date of hearing of appeal.", CIC refused to allow withdrawal stating that "When an appeal is made to the Commission public resources are being expended and the Commission would still go ahead with the penalty proceedings even if the Appellant wishes to withdraw the appeal." UIDAI settles out of CIC for withdrawal of Appeal Even in this thread you shall read some interesting details on such withdrawal of appeals: Man withdraws plaint, NGO fumes The question arises is the act of withdrawal by complainant a success story for RTI, or does it points to manipulation? Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001752 Dated: 06/01.2014 Name of Appellant : Dr. Raghuvir Prasad Mathur Name of Respondent : Unique Identification Authority of India, Hyderabad Date of Hearing : 06.01.2014
rtiindia posted a post in RTI Act 2005Records are Government property and the retiring police official must handover the relevant records to the concerned staff. In a reply given by CPIO it has stated that the copy of police complaint, enquiry report, statement were with ASI Vinod Kumar then posted at PS Prashant Vihar. He is reported to be retired from Delhi Police. And thus the information cannot be provided. However, complainant went up to CIC for second appeal where it was contended that "police complaint records are Government property. It must be available within the police station. No person/officer can take/dispose of those records when he retires from service as claimed. Records must be handed over to the concerned staff/ SHO at the time of retirement." Document do not retire with retirement of a police officer CIC rightly decided that there is merit in the contention put forth by the appellant that the relevant records must be available at PS Prashant Vihar, which is a Government property and the retiring police official must handover the relevant records to the SHO/concerned staff. Thus CIC felt that document do not retire with retirement of a police officer. The Commission hereby directs the CPIO to locate the concerned file and provide copy of complaint dated 9.9.2005 along with relevant documents to the appellant. In case this complaint is not traceable, the CPIO is directed to provide specific reply stating action, if any, taken by the Police and the reasons thereof. There is a bigger question that haunts us all: Why do Government files go missing? If the Government has prescribed time limits, retention of record schedule then why there is such a high rate of records getting evaporated? The chief information commissioner, Justice D K Sinha, former judge of the Jharkhand high court, had informed that ...Most of the complaints are related to missing land records. It is surprising that 20-25% of the complaints received by the commission are related to land records which are missing. Here are some more missing records threads like these: File on former RAW chief missing from CBI records Heritage Structures go 'missing' from AMC records - RTI India Rare govt records missing at National Archives - RTI India Murder case papers go 'missing' from police records Babus cant hide behind missing files Maharashtra: 'Files go missing whenever there is fear of RTI query' In a significant victory for RTI activists, state information commissioner, Maharashtra sh.Suresh Joshi once ruled that missing files cannot be taken lightly and that they attract the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005. This means that officials will have to recover or restore files that go missing from their custody. Missing files can be regenerated from their mirror images in files in other departments. In case of files go missing as happened here when the record got missing with the retirement of a police officer: An officer shall in the event of any unauthorised removal, destruction, defacement or alteration of any public records under his charge, forthwith take appropriate action for their recovery or restoration The officer shall immediately submit a written report on any info about any unauthorised removal, destruction, defacement or alteration of any public records under his charge and about the action initiated by him. The officer may seek assistance from any government officer or any other person for the purpose of recovery or restoration of the public records and such officer or person shall render all assistance to him. Our RTI Team Member has posted a blog about how to write an RTI to deal with the missing records, you may be interested in using the format here!
rtiindia posted a post in Section 24Allegation of corruption ought to be supported by cogent and sound evidence under RTI. Also allegation of corruption’ does not mean mere conjectures and surmises. For the Information commission to frame a prima facie view about corrupt or malpractices being involved in any given case reasonably or to frame a view on the violation of human rights under Proviso (I) to Section 24 of the RTI Act, it should be supported by cogent and sound evidence. As per the provisions of Section 24 (4) of the RTI Act 2005 "Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organisation being organisations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, such information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request." Cogent and sound evidence under RTI With the above provision of the Act following is to be remembered while make an Allegation of corruption: Cogent and sound evidence reasons need to be provided before the commission For any information relating to exempt organisation(s) under the RTI Act, a prior approval of the State Information Commission is required. Therefore, instead of approaching the PIO, an applicant should approach Information commission first. This will help in speedy resolution of an RTI query. The Present case Shri Amit Bhargava, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed the present appeal dated 17.10.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Ministry of Home Affairs and Bureau of Immigration/Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi for not providing complete and satisfactory information in response to his RTI application dated 14.4.2012. Decision of the commission: As far as information in respect of Point No. 4 to 7 of the RTI application is concerned, the same is related to the Bureau of Immigration/IB, the respondent is an exempted organization listed under Schedule II of the RTI Act and therefore, is not amenable to any provision contained in the RTI Act by virtue of Section 24 of the RTI Act. Furthermore, the information sought by the appellant does not pertain to any violation of human rights and allegation of corruption, and therefore, does not fall under Proviso (I) to Section 24 of the RTI Act. It has to be appreciated that ‘allegation of corruption’ does not mean mere conjectures and surmises. Allegations ought to be supported by cogent and sound evidence which can lead the Commission to frame a prima facie view about corrupt or malpractices being involved in any given case. Such element is clearly missing in the instant appeal as no evidence or material has been placed by the appellant before the Commission so as to establish prima facie case of corruption. Even anything to reasonably support the violation of human right is also absent in the appeal preferred by the appellant before the Commission. Hence the reply of FAA/Bureau of Immigration/IB is upheld. Here are the numerous discussions thread on Exempted organisations at our forum- Click Here! Also you may be interested in reading discussions threads here about Section 24- Click here! If you are interested in the discussions threads about Human Rights Violations click here!
The RTI Applicant is advised not to ask unrelated matters in RTI. The CIC while deciding the appeal, ruled that "The appellant is advised to ask for limited information and specific information instead of clubbing various unrelated matters in his RTI applications". CIC further states number of queries should also be limited. The Public Information Officer cannot be expected to reply to these large number of queries within the time schedule as prescribed under the RTI Act. The delay in reply cannot be totally held against the respondent in view of large number of queries imposed by the appellant through RTI application. Don't club unrelated matters in RTI In the present case, the Applicant filed 45 queries on various unrelated matters in RTI. Shri Manoj Arya, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 24.11.2011 before the Commission against the respondent Directorate General of Shipping (DGS), Mumbai for not providing satisfactory information in response to his RTI application dated 4.7.2011. However, there are conflicting views earlier on the issue of unrelated matters in RTI. As regards to the decision of a Coordinate Bench of Commission (No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01256.) in Wasi-ul-Haq Vs UPSC, the view was that as the appellant had raised multiple issues in this RTI application and, therefore, these were not required to be responded to by him and had advised the appellant to file fresh RTI applications in regard to these queries. Sh. IC ML Sharma of the CIC, on the contrary has disagreed with an earlier coordinate bench decision of the commission, which had ruled that queries related to multiple subjects cannot be raised in one single RTI application. He said in the decision attached here that "I must say that this decision is not in line with the express statutory provisions as also the rules framed by the Central Government in this regard. Hence, I am unable to place any reliance on the aforesaid decision of this Commission. " Here are the numerous discussions on this subject of Unrelated matters in RTI and Multiple Queries in one RTI
For information on Companies don't use RTI instead use Section 610 of the Companies (Central Government's) General Rules & Forms, 1956. The said rules being statutory in nature and specific in their application, do not get overridden by the rules framed under the RTI Act with regard to prescription of fee for supply of information, which is general in nature, and apply to all kinds of applications made under the RTI Act to seek information. It would also be complete waste of public funds to require the creation and maintenance of two parallel machineries by the ROC one under Section 610 of the Companies Act, and the other under the RTI Act to provide the same information to an applicant. It would lead to unnecessary and avoidable duplication of work and consequent expenditure. The above was already ruled by Hon'ble High Court in the matter of ROC Vs Dharmendra Kumar Garg (W.P.© 11271/2009) dated 1.6.2012. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 3.12.2011 seeking information on (12) points relating to Ambuja Cement Ltd. Like no. of employees working in accounts department during the period Jan 1990 to Dec 1990, full particulars of employee of accounts department who have been voluntarily retired/resigned/terminated, details of direct or indirect assistance received from Central/State Govt., documents with respect to registration of Company etc. . The CPIO vide letter dated 12.12.2011 provided a point wise reply to the appellant. Not satisfied with the reply the appellant filed first appeal dated 16.12.2011 which was rejected by the order dated 30.12.2011. For information on Companies don't use RTI The respondent submits that as per the provisions of section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956, the records of the companies maintained by this office is available for physical inspection to any member of public on all the working days of this office in between 10:30 AM to 3:30 PM and also the online inspection of records of the companies is also available on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs www.mca.gov.in. Citing the above High Court order, CIC ruled that "In view of the submissions of the respondent the available information can be inspected as per section 610 of the Companies Act, the Commission finds no reason to interfere with the order of the CPIO and the appeal is accordingly disposed off." Please read the numerous discussions on "Company Information" at our forum and get more information.
[caption id=attachment_391" align="alignright" width="300] The dilemma of the CPIO[/caption] Imagine the dilemma of the CPIO! In one of very peculiar case, Director who was once a CPIO became an RTI applicant and demanded records of the document which he himself as Director did not hand over to next incumbent. The CPIO therefore replied the RTI query that "the records were not handed over by the then Director, who is the applicant in the present case, therefore, the information cannot be provided." The appellant was earlier Director in the Animal Husbandry Department. He was responsible for recruitment of a number of attendants in 2009-2010. He has since retired from service. The Department is contemplating registration of a criminal case against him for irregularities committed by him in the recruitment. Besides, he also submits that it is suspected that the appellant took away certain documents relating to the recruitment in question and, therefore, on the basis of incomplete records, it is not possible for PIO to provide information, as requested in the RTI application dated 12.4.2012. The Commission appreciate the dilemma of the CPIO. Even so, the CPIO is directed to give inspection of the available records to the appellant on a mutually convenient date and time. It is, however, clarified that he will not be provided copies of any documents at this juncture.” The dilemma of the CPIO During the hearing the FAA filed his written submissions before the Commission as follows: The appellant retired as Director of DAH&AW. During his period he made a recruitment of Attendant post in the year 2010. He has superannuated on 31.12.2010. He did not hand over the records related to the recruitment of Attendant post. Under the RTI he has submitted four applications of the same issue; The information sought by the appellant relates to certain materials of the recruitment to the post of Attendant in DAH&AW; The materials in question are under dispute, the reason being such materials were found untraceable in this Department for sometime and later the same was received by the Department by post from an anonymous sender. Hence, the genuineness of the received materials is being suspected. The information has been brought to the notice of the authorities concerned and a file was mooted to obtain a written approval to lodge a complaint with the Police so as to ascertain the genuineness of the received material since the same has to be produced before the Hon’ble Court for the litigations filed by some of the applicants of the recruitment. At present, the matter is under investigation with the Police Department based on the request given by this Department; Since the genuineness of the material is suspected and multiple litigations pending with the Court, the exposure of the same would likely affect the investigation process and may also affect the commitments made by the Department in the Court; The matter has been explained to the Commission during the hearing held on 20.11.2012 at New Delhi in respect of RTI application of the same appellant and once again explained to the Commission during the hearing held on 27.2.2013 at Puducherry in the presence of the appellant. You may read the following earlier case law here: Can a Government Employee Ask Question under RTI Act 2005?