The RTI applicant who got wrong information, approached consumer court. the Consumer court awards a compensation of Rs. 50000/- the news item is attached here. The compensation under RTI can be claimed, but in most of the cases the SIC/CIC awards a meager compensation, and confine themselves to travel expenses in most of the cases. So for compensation RTI commission or consumer court which one to approach debate lives on....
Read the attachment of the news item
The reading of s. 19(9) includes right to appeal on the decision conveyed to the parties. Such an appeal need to be decided u/s 19(10). So in my opinion the order of SIC/CIC can be reviewed by the commission u/s 19(10).
So in my opinion the appellants before approaching the Highcourt by way of writ, a costly affair can seek review of the SIC/CIC decision. The s.19(9) and s.19(10) is open for discussion, regarding REVIEW of SIC/CIC decision. The members are requested to post their
While searching for hon'ble highcourt decisions regarding the penalties under RTI. I could download a copy of Division bench order from the Hon'ble High court of karnataka from its website. The decision is attached for the personal knowledge of the members. those who are interested in the certified copy, they need to apply to Hon'ble high court of karnataka, as per its rules.
Please find enclosed the proposed amendment to RTI rules and CIC appeal procedure by the DOPT, Govt. of India by notification dated 10th december 2010. This is for the benefit of the members being posted here.
reading the posts and decisions renedered in many cases posted here shows that the SIC have just getting the information to the applicant. The SIC's appears have satified by getting information to the applicants. proving information to the applicants is a job of PIO. The SIC's are virtually providing the information to the whole state, thus the role of SIC has become a PIO for the whole state. Thus SIC have become overloaded with applications (Appeals) for infromation. SIC/CIC's
Dear learned members
I invite to post your comments on S. 7(9) read with S. 2(f) of the RTI act 2005.
The s. 7(9) reads as:"An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question."
S. 2(f) reads as:
" "information" means any material in any form,
There is a confusion in understanding APIO and an Asistant . Here are my comments other members are invited to offer their valuble comments. (1). APIO is the designated officer under u/s 5(2)." which reads as:- 2.Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), every public authority shall designate an officer, within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, at each sub-divisional level or other sub-district level as a Central Assistant Public Information
The karnataka Govt has appointed 5 new state information commissioners incuding the chief state information commissioner as per the RTI act 2005. Here with attached a file which contains the Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority of State Information Commission office.
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has issued notification on rTI 2005 and posted on its website.
The link is here under: http://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/rti.html
members can use the same for the information.
The RTI activist looking to help handicapped persons, in promotion . Read the attached DELHI High Court Decision on such promotion found on net.