<![CDATA[RTI INDIA- Right to Information - Appeals & decisions]]> http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/ Forums to discuss about CIC appeals, decisions and circulars issued. en Wed, 19 Jun 2013 06:24:29 GMT vBulletin 1440 http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/images/styles/Creative/misc/rss.png <![CDATA[RTI INDIA- Right to Information - Appeals & decisions]]> http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/ List of people exempted from airport security is disclosable http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/113335-list-people-exempted-airport-security-disclosable.html Sun, 16 Jun 2013 09:01:16 GMT The CIC has ruled that the list of people exempted from airport security cannot be denied under Sec 8(1)(a). The full order is attached to this post. The CIC has ruled that the list of people exempted from airport security cannot be denied under Sec 8(1)(a).

The full order is attached to this post.

Attached Files
]]> karira http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/113335-list-people-exempted-airport-security-disclosable.html Info on ones mobile being tapped can be obtained from BSNL http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/113333-info-ones-mobile-being-tapped-can-obtained-bsnl.html Sun, 16 Jun 2013 08:46:40 GMT It appears from the attached order of the CIC, that BSNL is willing to provide information regarding the tapping 9or not) of a mobile phone, to the owner of that phone, after following third party procedure with the relevant security agency: *The CPIO’s representative stated that they have checked their records and also their* *system and have found that the appellant’s mobile phone (no.9450457331) has not been tapped* *(from 24/08/2011) and the same has been intimated to him vide letter dated 30/04/2013. The* *appellant contended that in the aforesaid letter the respondent have only confirmed having* *checked their records and not their system. The CPIO’s representative reiterated that they have* *checked both their records and the system and will confirm the same in writing to the appellant.* It appears from the attached order of the CIC, that BSNL is willing to provide information regarding the tapping 9or not) of a mobile phone, to the owner of that phone, after following third party procedure with the relevant security agency:

The CPIO’s representative stated that they have checked their records and also their
system and have found that the appellant’s mobile phone (no.9450457331) has not been tapped
(from 24/08/2011) and the same has been intimated to him vide letter dated 30/04/2013. The
appellant contended that in the aforesaid letter the respondent have only confirmed having
checked their records and not their system. The CPIO’s representative reiterated that they have
checked both their records and the system and will confirm the same in writing to the appellant.

Attached Files
]]> karira http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/113333-info-ones-mobile-being-tapped-can-obtained-bsnl.html CIC recommends Disciplinary Action under Sec 20(2) against FAA http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/113332-cic-recommends-disciplinary-action-under-sec-20-2-against-faa.html Sun, 16 Jun 2013 08:12:19 GMT In a rare order, the CIC has recommended disciplinary action under Sec 20(2) against FAA of the NCPCR (National Commission for Protection of Child Rights), for repeatedly ignoring the order of the CIC for 14 months:

3. Appellant preferred appeal dated 24 February 2012 before the first appellate authority. On not receiving any response from the first appellate authority, appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission. Accordingly Commission remanded the matter back to the first appellate authority vide order dated 2 August 2012 with directions to dispose of the first appeal by passing a speaking order within two weeks of receipt of the Commission’s order. Also the first appellate authority was directed to endorse a copy of his order to the Commission clearly indicating the reason for delay if any in disposing of the first appeal.

4. Not receiving a response from the first appellate authority, appellant once again moved the Commission in complaint.

5. Matter was heard today. Appellant was heard via videoconferencing from Rewa. First appellate authority appeared in person. Appellant states that he is the paternal uncle of the child and that along with his first appeal he had enclosed consent letter from the parents of the child stating that they had no objection if the requested information was passed on to the appellant. In spite of that, the first appellate authority had not provided any information whatsoever to him.

6. First appellate authority states that subject matter of the RTI application pertains to the denial of admission in nursery class of Jyoti school, Rewa to MsKatyani. Shri B K Basu, in his explanation states that due to acute shortage of staff he was unable to provide information to the appellant/respond to him. Also that the delay was not intentional and that he was overburdened with administrative, legal and court matters without the support of a regular branch officer as also on account of coping with a large number of RTI applications. Shri Sahu has also provided an unsigned note on the current status of the complaint which is the subject matter of the RTI application to the Commission but states that a copy of the same has not been provided to the appellant.

Decision notice

7. We have heard the submissions made by the first appellate authority. Shortage of staff and preoccupation with other matters are not legitimate or acceptable reasons for not having adhered to the provisions of the RTI Act which enjoins upon the first appellate authority under sections 19 (1) and 19 (6) of the Act to dispose of the matter within a period of 45 days from the date of filing of the appeal. In this case not only did the first appellate authority ignore these provisions by not disposing of the matter within this time frame but also chose to ignore the directions of the Commission in order dated 2 August 2012. Today also Shri Sahu has appeared before the Commission only to state that he has so far not provided any information to the appellant. This repeated violation of the Act for over 14 months is a serious matter and attracts the provisions of section 20 (2) of the Act. The officer has persistently failed to discharge his duties as prescribed under the Act and therefore Commission recommends to the disciplinary authority to take action against Shri Sahu as per the service rules applicable to him. Shri Sahu is warned to be more careful in future while discharging his responsibilities the onus of which have been placed upon him in the transparency Act.

8. First appellate authority will provide full and complete information as sought by the appellant to him within one week of receipt of the order.

9. Through the powers vested in this Commission vide Sec. 19(8)(a), we require the public authority through its Secretary to take appropriate steps to strengthen the infrastructure for implementing the RTI regime. A copy of this order is also marked to the Chairperson of NCPCR.




Attached Files
]]> karira http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/113332-cic-recommends-disciplinary-action-under-sec-20-2-against-faa.html More than one individual can sign RTI application http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/113331-more-than-one-individual-can-sign-rti-application.html Sun, 16 Jun 2013 08:02:09 GMT In a recent order, the CIC has ruled that more than one individual can sign an RTI application: *2. In the RTI application dated 2.1.2013, the appellant had sought information about the payment of minimum wages to the contractual employees at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre and the matters related there-with*. *The CPIO vide letter dated 27.2.2013 had refused to disclose any information to the appellant only on the ground that the RTI application was signed by two individuals, namely, Shri Joginder Singh and Ashok Kumar. The view taken by the CPIO cannot be upheld. It does not matter whether information is sought by one individual or more than one. The response should have been given by the CPIO as per law. Be that as it may, the following information may be supplied to the appellant:-* In a recent order, the CIC has ruled that more than one individual can sign an RTI application:

2. In the RTI application dated 2.1.2013, the appellant had sought information about the payment of minimum wages to the contractual employees at Jai Prakash Narayan Apex Trauma Centre and the matters related there-with. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.2.2013 had refused to disclose any information to the appellant only on the ground that the RTI application was signed by two individuals, namely, Shri Joginder Singh and Ashok Kumar. The view taken by the CPIO cannot be upheld. It does not matter whether information is sought by one individual or more than one. The response should have been given by the CPIO as per law. Be that as it may, the following information may be supplied to the appellant:-

Attached Files
]]> karira http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/113331-more-than-one-individual-can-sign-rti-application.html RTI application on NGO letter head is valid http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/113330-rti-application-ngo-letter-head-valid.html Sun, 16 Jun 2013 07:57:03 GMT The CIC has ruled that an RTI application on a letter head (in this case of an NGO) is a valid RTI application. *3. In four separate RTI applications, two addressed to the CPIO of the* *ITDC and two to the CPIO of the Ashoka Hotel, the Appellant had sought a* *variety of information, mostly about the recruitment of staff and other staff* *related matters. Since one of the applications had been preferred on the* *letterhead of an NGO, the CPIO of the ITDC refused to entertain it on the* *assumption that it was not from an individual citizen but from an office bearer of* *the NGO. Needless to say, another CPIO of the same ITDC had provided some* *information against one of the queries of the same application. In dealing with* *the remaining three RTI applications, one of the ITDC and two of the Ashoka* *Hotel, the CPIO concerned had provided very little information on one ground* *or the other. The Appellant had approached the Appellate Authority in these* *cases but without much relief. * *4. At the outset, we must make it clear that in terms of the provisions of* *subsection 2 of section 6 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a citizen is not* *required to provide any more details than his name and address so that he can* *be contacted. Therefore, if the RTI application contains the name of information* *seeker and his postal address, the CPIO shall not ask any more detail and* *proceed to provide the available information. It is absolutely wrong to treat the* *office bearer of an association or an NGO as if he is not an Indian citizen.* The CIC has ruled that an RTI application on a letter head (in this case of an NGO) is a valid RTI application.

3. In four separate RTI applications, two addressed to the CPIO of the
ITDC and two to the CPIO of the Ashoka Hotel, the Appellant had sought a
variety of information, mostly about the recruitment of staff and other staff
related matters. Since one of the applications had been preferred on the
letterhead of an NGO, the CPIO of the ITDC refused to entertain it on the
assumption that it was not from an individual citizen but from an office bearer of
the NGO. Needless to say, another CPIO of the same ITDC had provided some
information against one of the queries of the same application. In dealing with
the remaining three RTI applications, one of the ITDC and two of the Ashoka
Hotel, the CPIO concerned had provided very little information on one ground
or the other. The Appellant had approached the Appellate Authority in these
cases but without much relief.


4. At the outset, we must make it clear that in terms of the provisions of
subsection 2 of section 6 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a citizen is not
required to provide any more details than his name and address so that he can
be contacted. Therefore, if the RTI application contains the name of information
seeker and his postal address, the CPIO shall not ask any more detail and
proceed to provide the available information. It is absolutely wrong to treat the
office bearer of an association or an NGO as if he is not an Indian citizen.

Attached Files
]]> karira http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/113330-rti-application-ngo-letter-head-valid.html