Jump to content
  • 0

FAA forcing me to conduct inspection - info voluminous



CPIO 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

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

0 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

There have been no answers to this question yet

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

  • Similar Content

    • nile0611
      By nile0611
      I want an information in the scanned format on the CD what charges I have to Pay.
      Only Rs. 50/- for the CD
      Rs 50/- for the Cd plus charges for the total pages included in the CD.
      i.e, Rs. 50+ (Rs. 2/- * No. of pages).
    • ganpat1956
      By ganpat1956
      Chandigarh, July 19: AS many as 27 UT Police officials and 16 officials of the UT Administration have been charged in corruption cases. Leaving aside two police officials, Sub Inspector (SI) Jaswant Singh and Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) Sunita Bakshi, who have been dismissed from service following court’s conviction orders, the remaining police officials are still under trial. The data was given by the departments concerned to H C Arora, a lawyer, who had sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
      While a majority of those booked with corruption charges have been placed under suspension, there are those who have not even been suspended and have been given a clean chit in the departmental inquiries.
      Inspector J S Cheema, booked on charges of corruption in the year 2003 for accepting Rs 50,000 as bribe, was not even placed under suspension and was given a clean chit by the department on September 20, 2006. However, the pursuing authority has still kept the case open till finalisation of a criminal case is registered against him.
      Similarly, sub inspectors Gurmukh Singh and Sarwan Singh were charged in corruption cases in 2002 and 2003. The two were also not placed under any suspension and were given a clean chit in the departmental inquiry. While the judgment in the case of Sub Inspector Gurmukh Singh has been received and is under examine by the punishing authority, Sub Inspector Sarwan Singh is still an under trial.
      Some of the other sub inspectors charged with corruption and placed under suspension are Om Parkash, booked on charges of corruption in 2002, Sub Inspector Raj Pal, Om Parkash (retired before time), who was booked in 2005, Jaswant Singh, booked in 2005, Mohinder Singh, booked in 2006 and Pyare Lal, who was booked in 2006.
      On the other hand, 16 officials of the UT Engineering Department, Chandigarh, are also charged with corruption cases. While Jagdish Mitter, Superintending Engineer (SE) and K B Sharma, who were booked on charges of corruption by the CBI, have retired, there are others who are still working. While Harsh Kumar is posted as an executive engineer in Sub Division number 5, Junior Engineer Gurmeet Singh has been repatriated to PSEB on March 21, 1996.
      Based on this information, Advocate Arora has filed a petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The HC has issued notices to the UT Adviser, Inspector General of Police (IGP) and Chief Engineer.
      The petitioner has sought impartial inquiry into the ‘strange’ procedure adopted by the IGP by retaining a considerable number of corrupt police officials in service, not withstanding the fact that their dismissal orders have already been issued.
      But the said orders have been kept in abeyance, awaiting judgment in the criminal trial. The petitioner has also sought similar high-level impartial inquiry into similar strange procedure adopted by the Chief Engineer, Chandigarh, by revoking the suspension orders of 16 officials during the pendency of criminal cases against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner also sought remedial measures for ensuring corruption-free administration in the Union Territory.
      27 UT cops, 16 admn officials accused in corruption charges
  • Create New...

Important Information

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