RTI India Join Big Helpers! Donate to RTI India!


Welcome to the RTI India: The complete Online Portal for Right to Information in India.

Right to Information has an important economic dimension, as it embraces not only political freedom but also the freedom to lead a life with dignity, unfettered by domination and discrimination.

Our aim is to provide authentic and analytical help regarding Right to Information in India to Officers, Lawyers, Citizens, RTI Activist, Associations, & NGO's. Our strength is in bringing them all at one platform.

Join RTI India!

CIC imposes Rs 25,000 fine on Estate director

This is a discussion on CIC imposes Rs 25,000 fine on Estate director within the RTI News & Discussion forums, part of the RTI News, Circulars and Decisions category; CHANDIGARH: The Central Information Commission ( CIC ) has imposed the maximum penalty of Rs 25,000 on Director of Estates, Chandigarh, for providing "irrelevant" information on an RTI application. "We ...


RTI India Official Toolbar
New Thread
Go Back   RTI India > RTI News, Circulars and Decisions > RTI News & Discussion

104356 Webpages

Register Tags Meet Our Staff Members List Mark Forums Read
Notices

  #1  
Old 04-12-2007, 10:48 PM
ganpat1956's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,330
Rep Power: 38
ganpat1956 has much to be proud ofganpat1956 has much to be proud ofganpat1956 has much to be proud ofganpat1956 has much to be proud ofganpat1956 has much to be proud ofganpat1956 has much to be proud ofganpat1956 has much to be proud ofganpat1956 has much to be proud ofganpat1956 has much to be proud of
CIC imposes Rs 25,000 fine on Estate director

CHANDIGARH: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has imposed the maximum penalty of Rs 25,000 on Director of Estates, Chandigarh, for providing "irrelevant" information on an RTI application.

"We have found the response irrelevant to the complaint as the issues addressed therein are not the issues on which information was sought," Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said.

The Commission penalised Director of Estates, Chandigarh and Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Uma Shankar Sharma with Rs 25,000 fine after noting that he had been unable to establish a reasonable cause for failure to respond to an application of Vinod Sharma, resident of Chandigarh.

Sharma had filed an RTI application with the Estate Office, Chandigarh on October 25 last year seeking certain information pertaining to coaching centres and schools being run in the residential area there.

On getting no response from the Estate Office within a month, the information seeker had sent a reminder to Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh. To his reminder, he had received a letter from the CPIO assuring him of the information within 10 to 15 days.

Sharma had filed his appeal with the CIC on January two this year after he failed again to receive any response.

To a notice of the CIC, the deputy commissioner, Chandigarh informed that the information had already been supplied on March 22. But the Commission found the information to be irrelevant as it did not address to the full queries of Sharma.

CIC imposes Rs 25,000 fine on Estate director-India-NEWS-The Times of India
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-15-2007, 02:03 PM
karira's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Secunderabad
Posts: 4,658
Rep Power: 57
karira is a splendid one to beholdkarira is a splendid one to beholdkarira is a splendid one to beholdkarira is a splendid one to beholdkarira is a splendid one to beholdkarira is a splendid one to beholdkarira is a splendid one to beholdkarira is a splendid one to behold
Re: CIC imposes Rs 25,000 fine on Estate director

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=467 border=0><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD colSpan=3>
Finally some action taken by the UT Govt. after an RTI aplication (see above) brought out irregularities.

Only IAS, PCS officers with adequate seniority to get quasi-judicial powers


</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD colSpan=3 height=10></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD colSpan=3>Express News Service</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD colSpan=3 height=10></TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD colSpan=3>
Chandigarh, June 2: With UT vigilance inquiry finding “administrative shirking of responsibility and lack of leadership” in the Estate Office, the Chandigarh Administration today decided that only officers of adequate seniority (IAS officers with 5 years experience and HCS/PCS officers with 10 years) would get quasi-judicial powers. The administration has admitted that certain flaws were noticed in the working and the organisation of work in the Estate Office but has apparently taken a rather lenient view by putting all the blame for the inefficient working on the lack of experience of its officers. Today’s decision effectively means that quasi-judicial powers earlier with the Assistant Estate Officer (AEO) and the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) would be withdrawn. In their place, the administration has decided that besides the DC RK Rao, Chief Executive Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board, Amar Nath and Additional Deputy Commissioner, UT, IS Sandhu would also be empowered to discharge the quasi- judicial functions of the Estate Officer under the Act.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
The vigilance inquiry was conducted on the issue of the Estate Office not restoring the concerned residential/commercial sites to the allottees in nine cases despite clear orders of the High Court or the Adviser to the Administrator. In some of the cases even the payment of requisite dues had been accepted.

Indicted in the vigilance inquiry was AEO Amit Talwar for providing wrong information under the RTI and delaying the matter concerning restoration of properties. His quasi-judicial powers including the restoration and resumption orders are now withdrawn, with the new policy of the administration today.

“It was felt that delegation of powers of Estate Officer to very junior officers having inadequate administrative experience had led to unsatisfactory disposal of work. So from now onwards lAS Officers of, atleast 5 years’ seniority or HCS/PCS Officers of at least 10 years seniority would be invested with the powers of the Estate Officer,” said the administration.

All functions other than quasi- judicial functions, would be discharged by DC-cum-Estate Officer, R.K. Rao at his level as against the existing dispensation where the decision were taken at the junior level. In addition, it is also decided that keeping in mind the backlog of Court cases in the Estate Office, their disposal will be regularly monitored.

Only IAS, PCS officers with adequate seniority to get quasi-judicial powers

Last edited by karira; 06-15-2007 at 02:04 PM. Reason: Providing link to source
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
right to information, rti news


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump

Similar Threads for: CIC imposes Rs 25,000 fine on Estate director

Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Row over S&T Museum director�s qualification karira RTI News & Discussion 0 10-15-2007 11:45 PM
KIC imposes max penalty ganpat1956 RTI News & Discussion 3 09-11-2007 01:10 PM
Estate dept data is now a click away karira RTI News & Discussion 0 08-14-2007 02:13 PM
CIC imposes fine on doctor for info delay ganpat1956 RTI News & Discussion 1 04-11-2007 03:57 PM
Real Estate Mafia maheshkb Chit Chat 0 04-06-2007 09:02 PM


Copyrights

New to Site?

Need Help?

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 Web Technologies by Dr. Kushal Pathak

All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 06:48 PM.



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49