Jump to content

PSIC Imposed Penalty of Rs. 10000 on Sh. Ashneel Singh, PIO – cum – Panchayat Secretary, O/o BDPO, Nurpur Bedi (Punjab)

sabharwal786

By sabharwal786,
in RTI Appeals decisions

 Share Followers 4

Recommended Posts

sabharwal786

sabharwal786 295

Posted
Posted

COMPLAINT CASE NO.307/2017

The Commission finds lack of orientation and appropriate knowledge about the provisions of this Act even after more than ten years of the enactment of this Act. Thus exercising its authority under Section 20(1) of the Act and taking a lenient view, the Commission imposes a penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) in lump sum on Sh. Ashneel Singh, PIO – cum – Panchayat Secretary, O/o BDPO, Nurpur Bedi for the significant delay in responding to the application. The PIO shall ensure that the amount of penalty is deposited in the government treasury in two equal installments commencing from the month of September, 2017 under head given below :

Orders of PSIC.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator
karira

karira 5,896

Posted
  • Super Moderator
Posted

@sabharwal786

 

Welcome back after such a long time !!

Request you to be more active on the portal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

Prasad GLN 1,597

Posted
Posted

Can IC impose lumpsum penalty, when Act stipulates per day penalty ?

I remember to have seen HC judgment that IC has to impose penalty as prescribed in Act only.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sabharwal786

sabharwal786 295

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Can IC impose lumpsum penalty, when Act stipulates per day penalty ?

I remember to have seen HC judgment that IC has to impose penalty as prescribed in Act only.

You are right sir, I have also heard about these orders but who will ? the cat

 

Sent from my CPH1609 using RTI INDIA mobile app

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
sppataskar

sppataskar 28

Posted
Posted

The Delhi High Court in case of Mr. -Dinesh Pande V/s C.I.C., New Delhi, observed that -----HOWEVER, ONCE THE COMMISSION CAME TO THE CONCLUSION  THAT THE PENALTY HAS TO BE IMPOSED, THEN THE SAME MUST BE @ 250/- per day AND NOT ANY OTHER RATE AT THE WHIMS AND FANCIES OF THE COMMISSION.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Prasad GLN

Prasad GLN 1,597

Posted
Posted

Now they are more smart, and stopped imposing penalties.  The latest statistics disclose that many State commissions have not even imposed even in one case in a year, and in other states it is very meager.   The commissions can be self sufficient and can earn if they judicially follow the laid down norms and impose penalties as per laid down law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Followers 4
Go to topic listing

  • Most Solved

    1. 1
      Sunil Ahya
      Sunil Ahya
      3
    2. 2
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      1

  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      Sunil Ahya
      Sunil Ahya
      10
    2. 2
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      RTI RAJENDRAN
      7
    3. 3
      Prasad GLN
      Prasad GLN
      4
    4. 4
      subbu23
      subbu23
      2
    5. 5
      Priya De
      Priya De
      2
    Show More

  • Our picks

    • Instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof

      Priya De posted a topic in RTI in Media,

      Instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof
      Information Commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha held that seeking citizenship proof in case of demand of sensitive information is justified but seeking a signed copy of the application does not seem appropriate as the online portal does not mandate uploading of signatures.
       
      Sinha was hearing the plea of an Odisha-based RTI applicant who had sought from the Army information regarding implementation of rules under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 in all defence establishments.
      The Army did not provide any information to the applicant, the CIC noted. Akhand approached the Commission with a complaint that the central public information officer (CPIO) of the Army has demanded a signed copy of his online RTI application as well as identity proof before providing him the records.
      “In this regard, it may be noted that as far as CPIO’s request for citizenship proof is concerned, the same is not questioned as Commission in its prior decision(s) has held the view that Armed Forces stand on a slightly different footing as there may be instances that involve disclosure of sensitive information, and for such reasons it may be rationale for the CPIO to ask for citizenship proof,” Sinha noted.
      Originally posted here!
       
      • 1

        Reputation Points

      • 0 replies
      Shrawan

      Picked By

      Shrawan,

    • CIC rules positively on stale masked FII data release

      murgie posted a topic in Post your RTI Success here,

      Some of you -- at least CJ Karira, who helped me years ago in one crucial step, getting SEBI to acknowledge its own circular! -- know of a 15-year quest among desi academics to get SEBI to release its stale masked FII data for academic research. At one point years ago a parliamentary query by Shyam Benegal, then Rajya Sabha MP, sought the release of this data for academic research. He then made a subsequent RTI query asking what had done about his complaint about the terrible answer he got to his parliamentary question. We thought we had succeeded when in response to that SEBI did put in public domain that FII data and promised to update. And to  their credit, they did update it from time to time, even if a bit fitfully. But thanks to a question by a curious IIT-Madras undergrad, we realized that what SEBI gave with one hand they took away with another. While the idea was that the FII IDs would be masked to preserve privacy, without telling anyone, SEBI changed the masks each month, drastically reducing the value for academic research (since you can't even tell how many distinct FIIs are there in the data base, and whether anyone traded over time). It also caused mistakes in academic research since no one imagined that SEBI would use changing masks, when no other regulator or exchange on the planet does so.

      To get SEBI to finally agree to not hide by changing masks, but to keep a stable mask, has taken many years. But at least per the ruling received yesterday, it has been achieved, with no violence to anyone. I attach the ruling. I can also post the various submissions made at the Second Appeal hearing if there is any interest (need to scrub email-IDs, per the policy of this site).

      Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdfThis RTI site, in particular Karira-ji, has been very helpful to me in the course of this long episode thru countless RTI queries. And I am grateful for that from the bottom of my heart. I am confident we will see quite a few PhD dissertations using this database within the next few years.

      Addendum_To_CIC_2nd_appeal_28th_February_2020.pdf
      Second_Addendum_w_Appendices_29th_Feb_2020.pdf
      CIC-SEBIH-A-2017-139953-BJ.pdf
      Third_Addendum to Additional Submission for RTI Second Appeal_2nd_March_2020.pdf
      To_CIC_2nd_appeal_27th_February_2020_Redacted.pdf
      Draft_Talking_Points_for_the_Hearing.pdf
      From_SEBI_Written Submiissions - Murugappa Krishnan 139953.pdf
      thanking_CIC_post_decision_Redacted.pdf
      • 4

        Reputation Points

      • 3 replies
      Shrawan

      Picked By

      Shrawan,
    View All
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept