- 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 'volumious information'.
Found 10 results
The Orders of the PSIC are as below : I have heard the parties and gone through the queries. Most of the queries raised by the information-seeker are specific regarding number of cases/appeals pending, heard or disposed of. This kind of data should be available with any public authority and cannot be denied. So far as the right to inspect the record is concerned, this is prerogative of the information-seeker and the respondent cannot insist that the information-seeker may inspect the record. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to give point-wise information on all the eight issues raised by the information-seeker except pertaining to Sr. No.5, where certified copies of all the notices of hearings issued to the applicants in all the cases have been demanded. This information certainly is voluminous. After the respondent has supplied information on other eight points, the appellant may either specify the particular cases in which he wants to see, whether notices were served or alternatively inspect the record. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION.doc
parveensudarshan posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportWhat i have learnt over the years from a number of information seekers that the unwilling PIOs have a weapon in their hands in the form of "voluminous information." I have felt that wherever they donot want to divulge information, they deny it on flimsy grounds. And one of this is --"information asked for is voluminous." This has become a chronic problem being faced by information seeker. There is a proiblem with a fellow RTI activist. He gets the following reply from the PIO after the lapse of mandated time period of 30 days (he gets this reply after 50days)..... "The information asked for is voluminous. The applicant is requested to visit our office with prior appointment, go through documents and get photocopies of the available documents as per rules." I think this is a very subjective view taken by a PIO. What he considers voluminous may not be voluminous at all, so what to do? Why to go out-of-city for getting an information requested through RTI when you were ready to pay prescribed photocopy charges. After all, who decides whether it is voluminous or not? RTI Act is silent on this. Could someone please guide? .... i mean what should be highlighted in first appeal?
bahl_ajay posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportMost of the times the attendants at DELHI METRO RAIL CORPORATION parking sites fleece the motorists and charge the higher rate of parking fees even if there is a negligible delay of say 5-10 minutes, to extract this additional amount at times they get into arguments or even foul language with the parking users. At times paper coupons(slips) are issued by the parking attendant in place of using the computerized hand held machines to issue parking slips. Apparently this additional amount collected above the value of coupon issued is pocketed by these parking attendants. I had requested that the following information from DMRC, New Delhi under the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005: i. Please provide details of the process of awarding parking contracts at DMRC stations ie. Tender and bidding process etc. ii. Whether these contracts are assigned on one time payment basis to the highest bidder at the time of award of the contract or on the basis of revenue sharing as an ongoing process. Please provide details thereof. iii. Please give specific details of amount/revenue received, for which the contract has been awarded in respect of the 95 DMRC stations as per the list enclosed. Giving the periodicity ie. Annual/Quarterly/Monthly/Revenue Sharing. iv. If the contracts have been awarded on revenue sharing basis what measures are adopted by DMRC to keep a check on the amount of revenue collected by the parking contractors at the respective metro stations. Please provide details thereof. v. Whether any uniform or identity cards have been issued to the attendants manning the DMRC parking sites and whether it is mandatory for them to wear them. vi. Whether it is mandatory for the parking contractor at DMRC parking sites to use computerized hand held machines to issue parking slips. Please provide specific details. vii. Whether it is mandatory for the parking contractor to issue a receipt to the motorist for parking fees collected at the time of exit from the DMRC parking. viii. Please provide details of measures are adopted by the DMRC to ensure that the parking contractors do not park vehicles more than the allowed number at spaces earmarked to them. ix. Please provide details of surprise checks, if any conducted during the last five years at the DMRC parking lots across the city to ensure whether their directions are being implemented by the parking contractors or not. x. Whether the contract details along with the MoU between DMRC and the parking contractors have been provided on the Web site of Delhi Metro under the provisions of Section 4 of Right to Information Act 2005. Please give details thereof. And if not details of persons responsible for willfully not allowing this information in public domain. xi. Please give details of free medical aid, drinking water and toilet facilities being provided at these 95 metro stations. Strange are the ways that these Public Information Officers adopt to hide the wrong doings of their departments. The reply that I got from DMRC in response to my above queries goes as under : Kindly refer to your application seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005 received by PIO 2 cell on 29/08/2011. The information sought by you is voluminous in nature. Therefore, DGM/Civil & Structure who is the deemed PIO as defined under Sections 5(4) & 5(5) of the RTI Act, has informed that you may inspect the available records on 10.10.2011 between 15.00 hrs and 17.00 hrs in Metro Bhawan, New Delhi. May I request the members on this forum to help me in how to proceed further : i. I am not able to make it out that how can simply the information requested for (without copies of documents requested for) be voluminous in nature. ii. Is it mandatory for me to appear before the deemed PIO for a physical look at the information. Simply looking at the information may not help as answer to many questions need to be given by DMRC only. iii. Can I appeal to the Appellant Authority against this requesting for the information to be provided in written form.
I had applied for some information from Punjabi University Patiala regarding appointments of lecturers in its one Engineering college. As i havt come to know that there is many irregultions in it. All lecturers selected by backdor without any advt. Some of them have not basic qualifications as per UGC norms. University also violts the reservation policy as all lecturers working are from general category. There is also corruption in house rent given to them. But in response of my rti application the PIO had denayed my application u/s 7(9) of rti act as it diverts its resources. Please guide me if in the above case the pio can denay my application or he have to given me information. Also give me some SIC or CIC orders in this matter.
sidmis posted a topic in RTI in MediaInformation on officers facing corruption inquiries 'voluminous': Army as reported in Economic Times, 1 Dec, 2010 NEW DELHI: The information about senior army officers facing allegations of corruption is "voluminous" and its disclosure would not serve any "public interest", the force has said. The image of nearly 1.2 million strong Indian Army has taken a beating following allegations of financial irregularities against some senior officers in Adarsh Scam, Sukna Land row among others. Exercising his Right to Information, an applicant had sought to know from the army the details of serving officers from the rank of Brigadier and above who are facing allegations of corruption and inquiries that are either going on or completed. "Information sought... is not going to serve any public interest, for which Public Information Officer is not obliged to provide. Moreover, information sought is considered as voluminous in nature and compiling of the same will disproportionately divert the time/resources of this office and is exempted (from disclosure)," the army said in the reply. According to the RTI Act, information about corruption should be provided to an information seeker even if it relates to intelligence and security organisations which are otherwise exempted from making any disclosure under the transparency law. However, former and serving officers have a mixed opinion on the disclosure of such information about serving officers as some feel it may disturb the "chain of command" while others feel that barring names and unit details, other information can be given which will help in boosting the image of the force. "Revealing names of officers facing probe in corruption cases may not be ethically correct because an accused is deemed to be innocent till proved guilty. But as far as providing statistical information about the numbers of such officers is concerned, it can be given. I don't think there should be much problem with that," Major General (Retd) G D Bakshi told PTI. A serving officer, requesting anonymity, said issue of corruption in higher ranks of army was quite serious and disclosing information about officers facing such allegations will help the army itself as it would show that such "rotten eggs" were just an aberration. "Corruption in army is the result of peace time culture that is creeping into the force as it has not seen any substantial action since Operation Vijay over 10 years ago. The problem also lies with some of the former Generals who have reached the top without facing any substantial action in their career. They had a peace time mindset which distorts our value system and is corrosive," Bakshi claimed. "Luckily, the present Army Chief is a person who has been in the thick of action since he was a Captain. I think he will be able to tackle the systemic degeneration that is plaguing the army," he said. Source : Information on officers facing corruption inquiries 'voluminous': Army - The Economic Times
Atul Patankar posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported at timesofindia.indiatimes.com on 02 February, 2010 NEW DELHI: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has advised people to exercise "some restraint in the number of queries" filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act while criticising an applicant for lacking a "sense of responsibility". The CIC's advice came on an application filed by one Kanhiya Lal who had sought information regarding admissions into a Delhi government school. He had appealed to the CIC after he was unsatisfied with the reply of the city government's education department. In his order, information commissioner Shailesh Gandhi noted: "The appellant has used the RTI without a sense of responsibility and has asked 100 queries stretching it to 16 pages. The citizen has been given a right but he must use this with some sense of responsibility and sending 100 queries over 16 pages or more does not display any sense of responsibility." "A citizen must understand that it is in his interest that the government functions efficiently and it is not correct to try and overburden or pulverize the government's functions. In spite of this, the PIO (Principal Information Officer) has tried to give the information," he added. "The appellant was asked to identify what information had not been provided to him. He is not able to give any instance of information which he has sought which has not been provided," Gandhi observed. "A citizen must realise that he is asking for the government to allocate some resource to provide the information to him. Hence he must use this with respect or the fact that the government is responsible to all citizens and not just to him. Some restraint in the number of queries must be exercised by the citizens," he said. The information commissioner has even advised government officials to "offer an inspection of the relevant files" to the appellant when such long RTI queries are made "instead of trying to spend a lot of time and diverting the resources significantly". However, under the RTI Act 2005, there are no provisions on the number of queries that can be asked. Delhi-based RTI activist Bibhav Kumar said: "By this decision, it seems the information commission is acting as a consultant to government officials whereas it should try to get the applicant the required information. "Such orders will encourage government departments and give them an excuse that giving information would require diverting of resources that would ultimately deny information to the applicant," Kumar, who works for the NGO Kabir, told IANS Gandhi himself was an RTI activist before he was appointed an information commissioner at the CIC. "I agree a citizen should not ask a lot of questions in one query. However, there is no provision in the RTI Act on the number of queries that a person can ask in one application. Such kind of orders by the information commission are against the spirit of the RTI Act," he added. "The government departments do not give information easily. And cases of an applicant asking for voluminous information are very few. We also need to understand what conditions force people to ask so many questions," Kumar said. "More than four years have passed since the RTI Act was passed, but a lot of government departments till date are not maintaining their information in accordance with the RTI Act," he added. Source: Use RTI with a sense of responsibility, says Central Information Commission - India - The Times of India
Atul Patankar posted a topic in RTI in MediaAs reported by Joseph Alexander at pharmabiz.com on 22 December 2008 The Central Information Commission has directed the National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education & Research (NIPER), Mohali, to allow an RTI activist to inspect the relevant documents after the institute failed to provide required information on many things including the working of the SMPIC centre. The rare order of the Commission comes as another embarrassment to the premier pharma institution against which a number of allegations had been raised earlier by many including political leaders like Abani Roy. There was also criticism by many especially the small scale industry about the running of the much-wanted SMPIC which became a reality after the continued efforts by many like governing board member Lalit Kumar Jain, who is also the senior vice chairman of the SME Pharma Industries Confederation. It was alleged that the centre failed to deliver upto the expectations of the small scale sector to help them. In his decision, professor M M Ansari, Central Information Commissioner has ordered, 'both the parties are expected to mutually decide a convenient date and time for inspection of records within 15 working days from the date of issue of this decision’ dated December 16. “It was agreed that the institute would allow inspection of the relevant documents so as to enable the appellant to identify and specify the information, which should be furnished to him, as per the provisions of the Act,” the order said. The queries raised by RTI activist Anil Maheshwari included the number of meetings of Board of Governors (BOG) and various sub committees, held during the last five years vis –a- vis the minimum number of meetings as per acts and statues of NIPER, the issue of having minutes of BOG and all the sub-committees kept in the hard bound minutes books as per the act. He had also sought all relevant documents including applications submitted by candidates, order passed by the competent authority on those applications, the copies of appointment letters and minutes of the proceedings of the selection committee with regards to various appointments made by the NIPER during the tenure of the present and past directors of the body. In the second application in May 09 he had asked for the proposed programme and funds allocated for running SMPIC centre at NIPER during 09 – 10 to the satisfaction of SME Pharma Sector along with the solutions to problems being faced by SME Pharma sectors for regulatory methods under schedule M and Good Laboratories Practices would be address to. While replying to the questions, the NIPER had given some answers but could not part with many information as they were either 'voluminous’ or can be exempted from disclosure under the relevant sections. According to the answer, the BOG met nine times since 2005, but failed to specify how many meetings should be held during the period as per the laws. Source: NIPER directed to allow petitioner to inspect documents under RTI Act - Research
whackpack posted a question in Ask for RTI SupportCPIO of a office in maharashtra (i m based in gujarat) has denied info stating it voluminous and spread across 49 offices. in FA order, FAA has ruled that info is voluminous, and hence i can conduct inspection of records and identify the documents required. the charges for inspection and info should be intimated to me at the time of inspection. please note that i have been informed the info is spread over 49 offices only to misguide me, which is actually located in only 10 of the 49 offices. also, in my FA, i have demonstrated with figures why the information cannot be considered to be voluminous. also, i have demonstrated with proof that the CPIO has misguided me in replying to one of the queries saying no relevant guidelines available, while the tender notice issued by the PIO specifically refers to the guidelines demanded under RTI. no cognizance given to any of the aspects by the FAA. also, the FAA very well knew it will be extremely difficult for me to conduct inspection at 49 offices in maharashtra, thus they found a legal way of providing me info. my questions: 1 : is the FAA right in it's decisions 2 : do i need to conduct the inspection personally, if not, how do i do it 3 : do i need to pay the charges for the info, inspite of the fact that it is not provided to me within the specified time limit. also, i do not wish to conduct inspection, they are forcing me to do it. 4 : what is my best course of action
Through an RTI application, I had requested the state transport authority to provide me with copies of all challans issued to a particular vehicle which was involved in a criminal case. The CPIO did not respond for the first two months. Close to the expiry of my time for first appeal, I filed my first appeal befor teh FAA.The FAA sought comments from the CPIO and the CPIO thus requested me to come over to his place. There he told me as to how he had not received my application and further told me that the information requested can not be furnished. He said the information asked for is voluminous. Further he said that teh police does not keep records of challans and even if they are kept, then they are localized to specific police stations. Thus for him to be able to provide me the requested information, he would have to forward my application to offices in all districts who would further forward the application to each thana in district. Further the employees would then have to go through the records for the past 6 years etc etc and so on. What I ned to ask is, is the above version true? Is it really the way challan copies are maintained? Would this divert the govt resources? Is not the challan copy centralized to some point for example the registering authority for the vehicle or the DLA?
snkmoorthy posted a question in Ask for RTI Supporti am the PIO of the institution in which i am working. i have received a request for information under the rti act. the information requested is voluminous and it would take me months to collect all that information. i have my regular duties to perform. pio work is only an additional responsibility. besides, the information sought is under the control of my superior. i am at my wit's end. please advise