- 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 'tnsic'.
Found 9 results
karira posted a topic in Discussions on RTIThe Registrar of TNSIC has issued a letter to The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices which states (interalia): "not to accept State Government RTI applications from applicant across the counter of Post Offices" The picture of the circular issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices to all Post Offices in Tamil Nadu is attached. Presumably, the Registrar of TNSIC meant that Post Offices should not accept RTI applications for public authorities under the TN Government - since it is not allowed and post offices are not designated SAPIOs. The whole episode has been tunred on its head........and now each post office dispalys this letter on the counter window ! RESULT: No post office is accepting even Registered Post / Speed Post letters even if they are addressed to "SPIO under RTI Act 2005" of any public authority - simply because the person at the counter has chosen to interpret this letter in a particular way. My queries: 1. Does the Registrar of TNSIC has any such powers to issue such a letter to Postal Department ? 2. Why is the Postal Deaprtment (under Central Govt.) accepting some instructions from the TN State Information Commission ? Just shows how plain stupid can some people can be !
silverbullet posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportHello People, I have applied for patta transfer of my land several months back and since they made me run to and fro from one office to another, I filed an RTI query to the PIO in the thashildar office, and he rejected my appilcation without proper grounds So i quoted my initial application and the rejection letter from PIO and appealed to TNSIC Its been more than 2 months, I have not got an acknowledgement from the office nor any other response till now ! How can i proceed from here ?
karira posted a topic in Discussions on RTIMadras High Court S.Seeniraj vs The Assistant Registrar on 10 February, 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 10.02.2015 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM WP.No.17862/2013 S.Seeniraj .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Assistant Registrar, State Information Commission No.2, Theagaraja Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-18. 2.The District Chief Educational Officer O/o.The District Chief Educational Officer Virudhunagar District. 3.Mr.P.Kalaichelvan Public Information Officer cum Headmaster, Nadaar Magamai Higher Secondary School, Ellayirampannai Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District 626201. .. Respondents Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Order No.52758/C/2012 dated 26.03.2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to provide the information sought by the petitioner in his petition dated 12.07.2012 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Purushothaman For R1 : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan For R2 : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, GA For R3 : Mr.S.Kamadevan ORDER Heard Mr.M.Purushothaman, learned counsel for the petitioner ; Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent ; Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent and Mr.S.Kamadevan, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/School and perused the material available on record including the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent. 2.The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 26.03.2013 and to direct the 3rd respondent to provide information as sought for by the petitioner dated 12.07.2012. 3.The petitioner's son was a student of the 3rd respondent/School and the petitioner has sought for furnishing copies of the answer scripts of his son. The Headmaster of the 3rd respondent/School sent a reply to the petitioner on 19.07.2012 stating that he cannot furnish the information as sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed a first appeal before the First Appellate Authority under the Act. The First Appellate Authority, also rejected the petitioner's prayer and the petitioner preferred a second appeal before the 1st respondent/Tamilnadu State Information Commission under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appeal was entertained by the Commission and notice was issued to the 3rd respondent/School dated 22.02.2013. At this stage of the matter, it is worthwhile to quote the relevant portion of the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 22.02.2013, wherein the Commission was prima facie satisfied that the 3rd respondent/School is bound to furnish the information since the 3rd respondent/School is a Government Aided School. The relevant portion is extracted here under:-.......Fwpg;gpl;l gs;sp muR epjp cjtp bgWk; gs;sp vd;Wk;. mg;gs;sp ,r;rl;lj;jpd; fPH; tUtjhf ,t;thizak; gjpt[ bra;fpwJ.... 4.Though such observation was made by the Commission in its order, ultimately, by the said order dated 26.03.2013, the Commission dismissed the petitioner's appeal. It is shocking to note that the Commission has not assigned any reason in the final order which was passed. In fact, in the said order, they have stated that the 3rd respondent/School is amenable to the provisions of the Act. But the Commission would state that on account of fiduciary relationship in terms of section 9[e], the information cannot be furnished. It is seen that the order has been passed without due enquiry. That apart, when the Commission was satisfied that the 3rd respondent/School was amenable to the provisions, then the 3rd respondent is bound to furnish information sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner would state that his son was put to irreparable mental agony on account of the attitude of the 3rd respondent/School and he has lost his valuable time of one year in his career. 5.In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent/School, a different stand has been taken stating that the answer scripts which were kept in the Manager's room, were removed in the last week of July 2012 and the Management did not expect the present situation and the continuation of the legal process and therefore, it is not possible to acceded to the petitioner's request as the said answer scripts are not with the 3rd respondent/School. Such a stand appears to have not been admitted before the Commission. 6.In any event, the petitioner's son having been a student of the 3rd respondent/School, the 3rd respondent/School being an Aided School, is amenable to the provisions of the Act. The information sought for has to be furnished. In fact, this issue has not been properly dealt with by the Commission. Further, the petitioner made a representation to the Commission and the Commission declined to look into the matter and dismissed the same by the impugned order dated 26.03.2013. The manner in which the petitioner's appeal has been dealt with is not in consonance with law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 7.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 26.03.2013 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. The 1st respondent shall issue notice to the petitioner as well as to the 3rd respondent/School and after hearing the parties, pass a detailed order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.10.02.2015 NOTE:Issue order copy on 12.02.2015.AP To 1.The Assistant Registrar, State Information Commission No.2, Theagaraja Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-18. 2.The District Chief Educational Officer O/o.The District Chief Educational Officer Virudhunagar District. 3.Mr.P.Kalaichelvan Public Information Officer cum Headmaster, Nadaar Magamai Higher Secondary School, Ellayirampannai Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District 626201.T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J., AP WP.No.17862/2013 10.02.2015
Dear RTI Activists, For many years now I have known that most of the ICs of TNSIC never issue decisions as per the RTI Act. They always go easy on the PIO who did not even care to reply even after first appeal and up until the commission issues a notice. Though I have successfully penalized many of them but in more than 50% of the cases the ICs don't apply penalties even after multiple reminders... The option of going to the High Court, as you all know, is expensive given that these matters are simple. Few years ago I tried to get a blanket direction from high court that the ICs must apply the act strictly and that all decisions must be a well reasoned one etc... It did not go as per my plan as the HC simply directed them dispose of the matters as per law... that is the problem with High Court in that they are not empathetic to the real issue. While the matter stood thus, I recently got a decision from CIC of TNSIC that made me very upset. The RTI was about status of one of my representation to the DGP(Chennai) office. The DGP office never replied to my representation even after multiple reminders. So, I filed an RTI asking for status and some other info and referred to my representations with date of my representations. The PIO and first Appellate never responded up until two days before 2nd appeal hearing date! I got the summon but I couldn't go as it is cost prohibitive to travel from Hyderabad to Chennai but wrote a letter promptly which is referred in the decision of the CIC of TNSIC. The CIC of TNSIC dismissed my 2nd Appeal cum Complaint stating 3 things, namely: (1) Appellant didn't have much interest in the case and thus is absented from the hearing! (2) Appellant's has not given sufficient information to the PIO [Note: even though the PIO has correctly responded just few days before the inquiry:-) ] (3) The PIO has taken pain to provide the information! [Note: he replied after 10 months!!] I am appalled. How did this guy become a CIC? He was a Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu before. Does that qualify him to be "person of eminence in public life" to hold this position? The guy has not even made an effort to understand and appreciate the RTI act even after holding the position for 3 years! As you can see, the decision is horrible. He didn't even note the fact that PIO/Appellate never responded in time and never asked for clarification ever. Further he did not decide my complaint u/s.18 either. I wanted to do something and looking for like minded people to work together. Here is what I planned to do. (1) File an RTI and find all relevant information appointing this CIC (Sripathi ). Done & waiting for info. (2) Collect bad decisions by Sripathi & have a report done by a lawyer/retd. judge for the quality of his decisions. (3) File a petition with the TN Govt asking them to withdraw his appointment. (4) If no action by TN Govt, then file a Writ with High Court along with all of the above documents. What am I looking for from this group? (1) I need help with #2 above. Would love to work with like minded people. (2) Are there other things we can do to direct the ICs so that the decisions are as per the letter and spirit of the RTI Act? More ideas are welcome. (3) It will be good if few people can share the cost if and when we go to the High Court. Please respond with your thoughts. Thanks Raj+91 90xxxxxxxxx [mobile numbers not permitted on this portal]
bala.pv posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportDear Friends I sent a 2nd appeal to Tamil Nadu SIC on 29th Aug 2013. Even after nearly 5 months i did not receive any reply from them so far I have personally went to TN SIC office but no proper response. How to deal with this & how to proceed further? Thank you
karira posted a topic in RTI in MediaAttached is an order of the TNSIC dated 26 Dec 2013 wherein it has ruled that Salary, perks and other details of a Judge are deniable under Sec 8(1)(j). Posters NOTE: Maybe the SIC forgot to read Sec 4(1)(b)(x): (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; Page 1 TNSIC Judges salaries perks.pdf Page 2 TNSIC Judges salaries perks.pdf
karira posted a topic in Discussions on RTISomeone sent me this old (dated 02 June 2012) order of the TNSIC. The Chief IC and two other ICs of the TNSIC have passed an order in which they have directed the Registrar of the SIC : 1. Not to entertain any appeal/petition/letter from the appellant, henceforth 2. Prohibit the appellants entry into the SIC premises 3. Direct officers and staff of the SIC not to even entertain his telephone calls 4. The Registrar to initiate contempt proceedings if the appellant persists The order is attached to this post. TNSIC Prohibition order on appellant.pdf
As reported by Jayaraj Sivan in timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 05 August 2010: Sripathi to be TN info chief? - Chennai - City - The Times of India Sripathi to be TN info chief? CHENNAI: Tamil Nadu chief secretary KS Sripathi is likely to be appointed the state chief information commissioner when S Ramakrishnan retires this month-end, highly placed sources said. S Malathi, vigilance commissioner and commissioner, administrative reforms, could be the new chief secretary. Sripathi attained superannuation on April 30, but was given an extension by the state government with a view to organising the World Classical Tamil Conference.
Atul Patankar posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported by Jeeva at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 18 September 2009 CHENNAI: V Santhanam, a social worker from Chromepet, is upset with the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission (TNSIC). And with good reason -the Commission, which passes orders everyday directing various public authorities to reply to queries raised under the Right To Information (RTI) Act, has failed to respond to Santhanam's RTI application even though seven months have passed since he filed it. Santhanam had asked TNSIC to give him the number of appeals received and disposed of in the last three years, the number of public information officers penalised by it for refusing to provide information within the stipulated time of 30 days, their names and details and whether they paid the fine amount. As there was no reply for his application dated February 13, 2009, Santhanam chose to file a fresh application last month. This too evinced no reply. Santhanam is not the only applicant unhappy with TNSIC's silence. Source: RTI applicants sore over info commission?s silence - Chennai - City - NEWS - The Times of India