INCOME TAX MATTERS ( A monthly journal on - Income tax and wealth tax- since 1999) - ( subscription for the year 2008 (TWO VOLUMES) is only Rs. 1100/-) - For subcription and to Know more click here
Northern India Institute of Fashion Technology (NIIFT), Mohali is a ‘Public Authority’ within the meaning of Section 2(h), RTI Act, 2005.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB.
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Sh. H.C. Arora,
H. NO. 2299, Sector 44-C,
Chandigarh
. …..Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o The Registrar,
Northern India Institute of Fashion Technology,
B-68, Industrial Area,
Phase – VII, Mohali (Punjab).
……. Respondent
CC No. 524 of 2008
ORDER
----
1. The question that arises for determination in the instant case is -
“Whether the Northern India Institute of Fashion Technology (NIIFT), Mohali is a ‘Public Authority’ within the meaning of Section 2(h), RTI Act, 2005.”
2. Final arguments in the matter were heard on 14.08.2008 and the judgment was reserved.
3. The Complainant, vide his application dated 22.02.2008, sought information from the Respondent about the IAS officers associated with its management and the various facilities extended to them by way of allocation of vehicles, mobile phones etc. The Respondent through his letter dated 04.03.2008, intimated the Complainant herein that the NIIFT is not a ‘Public Authority’ as per the definition contained in Section 2(h) RTI Act, 2005. It was further averred that ‘the Institute is self financed and sustainable’ and that ‘the state government is not having functional control over the affairs of the society (Institute)’. Controverting this plea of the Respondent, the Complainant alleges that even the letter head on which the Respondent has sent his reply indicates that it is an undertaking of the Punjab Government.
4. I have gone through the record carefully. I find that NIIFT, Mohali is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as per the certificate of registration dated 22.02.1995.The facts relevant for the decision of the issue in question, as culled out from the record, are as under: -
i) 6.27 acres of land have been allotted by the Government of Punjab to the NIIFT, Mohali in the year 1995. It has been submitted during the course of arguments by the Respondent that the allotment of land is free of cost.
ii) As per the statement of income and expenditure placed on record by the Respondent himself, The Government of Punjab has released a grant of Rs. 5 crores in the year 2005-06 for the construction of the building of the NIIFT, Mohali. Apart from this, the Government of Punjab has also released other monetary grants to the Respondent Institute i.e. Rs. 5 Lacs (1994-95), Rs. 214 Lacs (1995-96), Rs. 20 Lacs (1996-97), Rs. 27 Lacs (1997-98), Rs. 100 Lacs (1998-99), Rs. 15 Lacs (1999-00), Rs. 25 Lacs (2000-01) and Rs. 25 Lacs (2002-03).
5. As per Section 2(h), a body/non-government organization would be a ‘Public Authority’ for the purposes of the RTI Act, 2005 if it is either controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government. In the instant case, I am not going into the question whether the NIIFT, Mohali is to any extent controlled by the Government of Punjab. I shall confine myself to the question whether the Institute is substantially financed by the Government of Punjab so as to bring it within the meaning of a ‘Public Authority’ under Section 2 (h) RTI Act, 2005. If in the facts and circumstances of the case it can be said that the finances being made available to a body/organization by the Government are substantial and not merely token/meagre, the body/organization in question would acquire the status of a public authority bringing it within the fold of the RTI Act, 2005 and obliging it to abide by the statutory duties caste upon it. The facts culled out in para No. 4 hereinabove leave no manner of doubt that the Respondent Public Authority has been granted substantial financial assistance by the Government of Punjab. 6.27 acres of land have been made available to the Respondent free of cost and Rs. 5 crores have been paid by the Government of Punjab to the Respondent for construction of a building on the land allotted to it. This means that the Government of Punjab has met almost the entire expenditure on the setting up of the
requisite infrastructure for the Respondent Public Authority. Apart from providing the infrastructure, the Government of Punjab has also from time to time paid substantial amounts of money to the Respondent Institute for running its affairs. In this factual backdrop, I am of the considered view that the Respondent Institute is a Public Authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) RTI Act, 2005. I hold accordingly.
6. Since the arguments were heard only on the question whether the Respondent is a Public Authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, the case is adjourned to 23.09.2008 at 2.00 PM for arguments on the merits of the demand with reference to the exemptions available under Sections 8 & 9, RTI Act, 2005.
7. Copies be sent to both the parties.
(P.K. Grover)
Lt. Gen. (Retd.)
Chandigarh, State Information Commissioner
Dated: 02.09.2008.
-------------------------------------------------
iNFORMATION SUPPLIED AFTER 14 MONTHS AND THAT TOO AFTER VISITING THE COMMISSION MANY TIMES. COMPENSATION OF RS. 3000/ - AWARDED.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION PUNJAB
S.C.O. No. 84-85, SECTOR: 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
(www.infocommpunjab.com)
Shri K.K.Tandon,
# 54-B, Moti Nagar, Ludhiana. Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Managing Director PSIEC,
Udyog Bhawan, Sector: 17, Chandigarh. Respondent
CC No.1168 & 1055 /2007
RESERVED ON 12.8.2008
TO BE PRON0UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.09.2008.
ORDER
1. The arguments in these two cases were heard on 12.8.2008 and the judgement was reserved.
2. At the outset, I wish to point out that on an application dated 6.6.2007, sent by the Complainant to the State Information Commission, two separate complaints have been registered, one on the basis of original letter dated 6.6.2007(CC -1055/2007) and the second on the basis of carbon copy of the same application (CC-1168/2007). There have been a number of other instances of this nature earlier also. This calls for immediate remedial steps. Deputy Registrar, PSIC, may look into this matter urgently.
3. On the merits of the instant matter, I find that on 5.5.2007 an
application was made under RTI Act, 2005 by the Complainant, Shri K.K.Tandon before the Respondent-PIO seeking certain information pertaining to the
allotment and cancellation of industrial plots by the PSIEC. The grievance of the Complainant is that the information sought by him has not been supplied. The Complainant has, therefore, sought a direction to the Respondent to supply the requisite information and also for imposition of penalty upon the defaulting PIO. In addition to this, the Complainant has also demanded expenses of litigation as well as TA/DA amounting to Rs. 25,000/-(Rs. Twenty five thousand only). In so far as, information supplied by the Respondent to the Complainant vide letter dated 22.6.2007 is concerned, the Complainant has expressed his dis-satisfaction by stating that the Respondent has twisted the issues in a manner suiting his convenience. He has stated that the Respondent , in fact, does not have the intention to supply the requisite information. I have gone through the information supplied to the Complainant vide letter dated 22.6.2007. Regarding points No. 1, 2 and 3, the Respondent has stated that it has not maintained its record in the manner, as has been sought by the Complainant, while seeking information. Regarding point No. 4, it has been stated by the Respondent that copies of the relevant policies have been supplied and regarding points No. 5, 6 and 7 it has been stated that the information sought cannot be retrieved for the reasons mentioned therein. It has also been stated that since the receipt of
applications/earnest money is a continuous process and no time limit has been fixed for obtaining refund, therefore, the question regarding the unclaimed amount of earnest money cannot be answered.
4. I do not agree with the contention of the Respondent that the information regarding Sr. No. 1, 2 and 3 cannot be prepared from the available record because the cancellation/allotment of industrial plots is a continuous process and the plots becoming available upon cancellation are allotted to the entrepreneurs in accordance with the laid down policy as applicable from time to time. As the plots are allotted in accordance with the policy applicable from time to time the information can be retrieved from the available record . It is directed that the Department should prepare the information about cancellation and allotment of industrial plots in the industrial focal point at Ludhiana. It is also directed that the an inquiry be got conducted to ascertain as to why the record of the allotment/cancellation of plots is not being maintained by the PSIEC and necessary disciplinary action be taken against the defaulting officers/officials.
5. The information regarding Sr. No. 5, 6 and 7 may also be prepared from the available record with the PSIEC of the industrial focal points at Ludhiana. It is directed that the PSIEC will supply the detail of unclaimed amount of earnest money lying with the Corporation in respect of Focal Point at Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana. An inquiry be also got conducted to look into this aspect and necessary disciplinary action be taken against the defaulting officers/officials.
6. The information regarding Sr. No. 8 in respect of income earned on account of interest on the unclaimed amount by the PSIEC upto 2006 be supplied. In this connection Shri S.C. Garg, Chief General Manager, Finance and Shri Darbara Singh, Accounts Officer of PSIEC have submitted in the separate affidavits dated 26.11.2007 that the component of unclaimed amount of earnest money cannot be determined since it being a continuous process and no time limit has been fixed for obtaining refund of the deposited earnest money, thus the component of income earned on account of interest on the unclaimed amount of earnest money cannot be ascertained. Hence, information sought for by the applicant in manner as depicted in Para No. (viii) in the application is not being maintained by the Corporation. In my order dated 29.11.2007 the Department was directed to prepare a list of applicants of Phase: 4, 4-A, 5 and 6 of Industrial Focal Point Ludhiana whose earnest money has not been refunded for the period 1985 to 2000, as has been demanded by the Complainant in his application.
7. Again, Shri S.K. Gupta, Estate Officer and Shri S.P. Singh, General Manager Estates, PSIEC, Chandigarh submitted separate affidavits dated 22.11.2007 that the information/record sought for by the applicant in the manner as depicted in Para No. (i) to (iii) and (v) to (vii) in the application is not being maintained by the Corporation. The Accounts Branch has only supplied list of applicants of the demand survey of 79 applicants who has deposited Rs. 1000/-
(One thousand only) and Rs. 2000/-(Two thousand only) as per size of the plot. The Complainant has stated that the information supplied , has not been asked for by him. . He has asked for the earnest money of different size of the plots along with applications deposited by the applicants in response to the advertisements published in the newspapers.
8. During the proceedings on 12.8.2008, the Complainant has submitted affidavit dated 16.7.2008 alongwith a written statement dated 17.7.2008 in which the Complainant has pleaded that Hon’ble Commission may refer the case to the Judicial Courts, Chandigarh with recommendation for taking action against the aforementioned officers of the Respondent under Section 166, 167, 199 and 200 of IPC and impose maximum penalty, recommend disciplinary action under the Service Rules to the Department concerned and further determining the damages for detriment suffered to the Complainant. The Respondent has made a submission on 12.8.2008 in which the PIO has stated that as per the directions of the Hon’ble Commission, affidavits of Shri S.P. Singh, Senior General Manager Estates and Shri S.K. Gupta, Estate Officer, dated 29.11.2007 and Shri Jagjiwan Singh, Accounts Officer, dated 9.5.2008 and the information sought by the Complainant was supplied vide letter No. 16304 dated 26.2.2008 and again as per directions of the Commission some more information was supplied on 28.3.2008 and some more information was supplied to the Complainant after the inspection made by the Complainant on 12.6.2008 and 24.6.2008. Authenticated copies of the affidavits submitted by the Respondent as well as the information available on record of the Corporation has been supplied.
9. This matter was earlier heard on 11.9.2007, 11.10.2007, 25.10.2007, 29.11.2007, 28.2.2008, 1.4.2008, 22.4.2008, 13.5.2008, 12.6.2008, 17.7.2008 and lastly on 12.8.2008. In my order dated 17.7.2008 it has been recorded that, on that date, information running into 31(Thirty one) pages was handed over to the Complainant and the Complainant, after going through the same, stated that he was satisfied therewith. The Counsel for the Complainant, however, submitted that the Complainant be awarded compensation as he has been attending the proceedings before the Commission for the last one year.
10. In this case, I find that most of the information as demanded has been supplied to the Complainant but only on 17.7.2008, whereas the request for information had been made by him on 5.5.2007. In other words, the information was supplied after about 14 months of the information request. And during this period, the Complainant had to pursue the matter before the Commission. He attended the proceedings before the Commission on about a dozen occasions. He has had to come to Chandigarh from Ludhiana on every date of hearing. I am, therefore, of the view that the Complainant is entitled to some compensation for the loss and detriment suffered by him, as a consequence of delay in supply of the information. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that ends of justice would be met by awarding a compensation of Rs. 3,000/-(Rs. Three thousand only) to the Complainant. I order accordingly. Amount of compensation is directed to be paid by the Respondent Public Authority i.e. PSIEC to the Complainant within a period of one week of the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. In view of the facts narrated in foregoing paragraphs, it is observed that most of the information has been supplied to the Complainant but still some information, though lengthy, is left to be supplied. It is directed that the remaining information be supplied within a period of six months under intimation to the Commission.
12. Principal Secretary Industries will get an inquiry conducted by a senior officer of the Department to look into the aspects narrated in Paras 4 and 5 above and disciplinary action will be taken against the defaulting officers/officials. A copy of the inquiry report will be supplied to the Complainant as well as to the Commission.
13. The case is disposed of with the directions that in case the remaining information is not supplied to the Complainant within six months, he is free to approach the Commission again and the case will be re-opened.
14. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties, Principal Secretary Industries, Udyog Bhawan, Sector:17, Chandigarh and Deputy Registrar, Punjab State Information Commission, Punjab.
Sd/-
Place: Chandigarh. Surinder Singh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
INFORMATION NOT SUPPLIED EVEN AFTER 10 HEARINGS IN THE COMMISSION ON THE PLEA THAT INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE FROM THE FILES. Directed that in case the requisite information is not on record or cannot be obtained from the files said to be in the Court, then PIO will give an affidavit to this effect before the next date of hearing.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Surinder Mohan Adya,
House No. 2459, Sector 32-A,
Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana. ……Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. …..Respondent
CC No. 1685 of 2007
ORDER
Present : None for the Complainant.
Mr. Harish Bhagat, APIO, for the Respondent.
-----
The Complainant in a FAX message dated 04.09.2008, bearing SICP diary No. 11908, dated 04.09.2008, has sought adjournment of the case and has also said that he had not received any information.
2. On 08.08.2008, APIO had assured to personally look into the matter, inspect the court files, procure relevant papers and give certified photocopies of the same to the Complainant. Both the Complainant and the Respondent had also mutually agreed to meet on 25.08.2008 at 11.00 a.m. in his office as APIO. This meeting could not take place.
3. The APIO submits that the project report signed by the ATP (Zone A) is ready.
4. I direct that a copy of ATP (Zone A) 03 pages report be sent through registered post to the Complainant not later than 12.09.2008 with a compliance report to the Commission.
5. Today is the 10th hearing in this case. The first hearing was on 26.11.2007. This only shows the casual and callous attitude of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana while dealing with RTI applications.
6. I direct that in case the requisite information is not on record or cannot be obtained from the files said to be in the Court, then PIO will give an affidavit to this effect before the next date of hearing.
A copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner, Mr. G.S. Ghuman, who should ensure that RTI applications are properly dealt with.
The case is adjourned to 03.10.2008 for further proceedings.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
(P. P. S. Gill)
Chandigarh, State Information Commissioner.
Dated, September 05, 2008.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For its failure to supply the requisite information, it is directed that Improvement Trust should pay a compensation of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees Thousand Only) to the Complainant, Mr. Birbal Aggarwal, for causing him mental/physical harassment. The payment of compensation under Section 19 (8) (b) will be from the funds of the public authority i.e. Improvement Trust. This compensation also be paid by 12.09.2008, when information is to be given to him.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB.
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH. Ph. No. 0172- 4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Balbir Aggarwal,
House No. 1525/1,
Gali No. 33, Preet Nagar,
New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana. …..Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Improvement Trust,
Ludhiana. ……. Respondent
CC No. 1042 of 2008
ORDER
Present: Complainant, Mr. Balbir Aggarwal, in person.
Representative, Mr. Jagbir Singh, APIO, for the Respondent.
-----
Today is the 3rd hearing in this case.
2. The Respondent has still not met with the request for information submitted on 30.10.2007.
3. The information demanded is regarding the status of two complaints dated 09.07.2007 and 29.08.2007, the Complainant had addressed to the Administrator and Executive Officer of the Improvement Trust, respectively.
4. The Respondent APIO says he is not aware of these 02 complaints. A copy each of these complaints from the record file is handed over to him in my presence for necessary action. He assures that status/action taken on these two complaints will be positively given to the Complainant by 12.09.2008 through registered post.
5. This is a serious lapse on the part of the Respondent public authority. The Complainant is a senior citizen and a public spirited person. I am dismayed at the lackadaisical attitude of the PIO, Mr. Harinder Singh, who was present at the first hearing on 18.07.2008 and was directed to give the requisite information within 15 days with a compliance report to the Commission.
6. A copy of that order was also sent to the Administrator, Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, Mr. Birpal Singh with a direction to look personally into the functioning of the PIO/ the RTI cell in the Improvement Trust and to ensure speedy disposal of the applications received under the RTI Act.
For its failure to supply the requisite information, it is directed that Improvement Trust should pay a compensation of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees Thousand Only) to the Complainant, Mr. Birbal Aggarwal, for causing him mental/physical harassment. The payment of compensation under Section 19 (8) (b) will be from the funds of the public authority i.e. Improvement Trust. This compensation also be paid by 12.09.2008, when information is to be given to him.
The case is adjourned to 03.10.2008.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
(P. P. S. Gill)
Chandigarh, State Information Commissioner
Dated, September 05, 2008
The information demanded pertains to the ownership and allotment etc. regarding a house belonging to one Mr. Vijay Kumar, who indisputably is a 3rd party. As per Section 8 (i)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, personal information related to 3rd party can be disclosed only if such information is related to any public activity or interest. In the instant case, the Complainant has not been able to establish the necessary linkage of the information sought with any public interest or activity.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH, Ph. No. 0172-4630054
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Sushil Bhatia,
HE 347, Phase-7,
SAS Nagar ( Mohali). …..Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Greater Mohali Area Development Authority,
SAS Nagar ( Mohali ). ……. Respondent
CC No. 1346 of 2008
ORDER
Present : Mr. Sushil Bhatia, Complainant, in person.
Representative, Mrs. Balwinder Kaur, Senior Asstt., for the Respondent.
----
Arguments in this case were heard on 29.08.2008 and judgment was reserved.
2. The Complainant vide his RTI request for information has demanded photocopy of the complete file of house number 347/Phase VII, Mohali, from the Respondent public authority, GMADA.
3. A perusal of the record in the file reveals there is a family dispute between the Complainant, Sushil Bhatia and his brother Subhash Bhatia, who has allegedly sold the said house (occupied by Mr. Sushil Bhatia) to one Vijay Kumar.
4. A police report by DSP, Mohali, on record attests the fact that while Sushil Bhatia is occupying the house for the past 14 years, it stands sold to Vijay Kumar, who has not been given possession of the same.
5. While the Complainant has demanded photocopy of sale deeds etc. regarding the house, the Respondent vide letter dated 18.08.2008 has informed him that since information demanded is of the 3rd party, the same cannot be given following objections by Vijay Kumar.
6. I have gone through the application for the information and the content of the complaint preferred by the Complainant, I find that the information demanded pertains to the ownership and allotment etc. regarding a house belonging to one Mr.
Vijay Kumar, who indisputably is a 3rd party. As per Section 8 (i)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, personal information related to 3rd party can be disclosed only if such information is related to any public activity or interest. In the instant case, the Complainant has not been able to establish the necessary linkage of the information sought with any public interest or activity.
In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed.
Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
(P. P. S. Gill)
Chandigarh, State Information Commissioner
Dated, September 05, 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The dispute regarding supply of information by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana shall be decided by the Central Information Commission.
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNJAB.
SCO No. 84-85, Sector 17-C, CHANDIGARH.
Visit us @ www.infocommpunjab.com
Sh. Surinder Pal Advocate,
House No. 539/112/3, Street No. 1E,
New Vishnu Puri, New Shiv Puri Road,
Ludhiana 141007 (Pb.)
…..Complainant
Vs
Public Information Officer,
O/o Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana,
Law Bhawan, Dakshin Marg, Sector 37-A,
Chandigarh.
……. Respondent
CC No. 158 of 2007
ORDER
----
Vide order dated 22.01.2007, passed by the Bench, comprising the CIC and Sh. Surinder Singh, SIC, the case was adjourned sine die to await the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in CWP No. 19682 of 2006.
2. The Hon’ble High Court, on 22.01.2008 has disposed of the writ petition with the direction that the matter shall be decided by the Central Information Commission. As per the decision by the High Court, the State Information Commission Punjab does not have jurisdiction to decide the instant complaint.
3. In view of the decision dated 22.01.2008 of the Hon’ble High Court, in CWP 19682 of 2006, no further proceedings in this matter are required to be taken. The complaint is, therefore, disposed of and closed.
4. Copies of this order be sent to the parties
(P.K. Verma)
Chandigarh, State Information Commissioner
Dated, 08.09.2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TO
the state information commission punjab
you are imposing penalty in very rare cases. under law penalty is provided for late giving of information as well. generally officers donot provide information at initial stage. they provide information only when the applicant files the complaint/appeal to the commission as this has become a handy way to delay the supply of information. in this way they avoid giving information to many persons who does/can not reach the commission. with this practice they unnessarily burden the commission as well. in all such cases exemplary costs can be awarded to information seekers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Punjab State Information Commission
The state’s former chief secretary Rajan Kashyap, who was the commission’s first CIC, retired on July 29.
State information commissioner P.K. Verma had been made the officiating CIC
The commission has two division benches and a full bench. Each division bench met twice a week and included the CIC and a state commissioner.
The full bench, which included the CIC and two other commissioners.
Comission came into being in October 2005 and has eight state information commissioners and the CIC.
Four commissioners and the chief were sworn in in 2005 for a period of five years or till they reached the age of 65 whichever was earlier.
Kashyap headed the commission for about three years. Four other persons were sworn in as commissioners during the fag end of Capt Amarinder Singh’s regime.
According to sources, the former Chief Minister “went overboard” in appointing information commissioners.
Maximum allowed strength is of 11 information commissioners .
State’s information commission is “overstaffed” compared to the information commissions in other states.
Big states like Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh have not more than five
information commissioners.
The central information commission also has a fewer number of members than Punjab.
Since its inception in October 2005, almost 6,415 cases have reached the commission, out of which more than 5,300 have been disposed of.
The commissioners hold court twice a week in special courtrooms in the commission’s office in Sector 17. (23-9-08)
Filing of RTI applications online now possible
Filing queries under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has become a matter of minutes with the Central Information Commission (CIC) launching an online system for submission of appeals.
"The new system was started last week. Now all Internet and tech savvy RTI users can file their complaints and appeals online," a CIC official said Tuesday.
The RTI Act was passed by parliament in 2005 for promoting transparency and accountability in the functioning of government departments. Every department has a public information officer (PIO) to whom RTI applications can be submitted. However, if the user does not get the information or receives incomplete information, he can file first an appeal with the appellate authority within the same department. In case the applicant still remains unsatisfied, he can file a second appeal to their respective information commission.
Now, the applicants will just have to log on to the website of CIC (www.cic.gov.in) and click on the 'RTI complaints and appeal' link, which will provide them with an application form. "Filling of the form is very easy. The user has to just fill mandatory fields like name, address, citizenship status, ministry, department or public authority that the appeal is against and whether the complainant is below the poverty line," the CIC official said. The applicant may also fill other details like whether he has applied to any PIO for information related to their complaint and whether the issue at hand is a matter of life or liberty. "The applicants can even upload documents related to their complaint. The applicants will also be able to check the status of their complaints online," the official added.
The official said that people living outside the national capital and abroad would be benefited the most since the online system would help them save both time and resources, ending their dependence on the postal department. – www.economictimes.indiatimes.com
Not disclosing file notings violation of RTI: CIC
New Delhi, June 30
The Centre’s decision of not disclosing file notings under the Right to Information Act has drawn flak from the Central Information Commission which held that this amounted to violation of the transparency law.
Turning down a plea of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) that file notings were exempted under the RTI Act, the panel said it meant “substituting the law”.
“The circular of DoPT is curious in that it seeks to substitute the law passed by the Parliament with its own interpolation inserted in its website,” Chief Info Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said.
The circular was brought to the notice of the transparency panel during a hearing on a complaint of a retired IAS officer Des Raj Dhingra, alleging that the DoPT had refused to provide him information relating to file noting on his RTI plea.
“What DoPT would appear to wish to do by means of this presumptuous circular is to substitute an opinion of an under secretary for the (earlier) decision of the Commission,” Habibullah said.
The panel also pointed out that the government’s decision of not disclosing file notings under the RTI Act has been taken not on the basis of any expert advice but on the recommendation of an under secretary. — PTI (Source The Tribune 1-7-08)
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Form ‘A’
[See rule 3(1)]
To
(The Public Information Officer)
(1) Full name of Applicant :
(2) Address :
(3) Particulars of information required—
(i) Subject matter of information*
(ii) The period to which the information
relates**
(iii) Description of the information
required***
(iv) Whether information is required by
post or in person (“the actual postal
charges shall be included in addtional
fees)
(v) In case by post ( Ordinary,
Registered or Speed post)
Place : ...........................
Date : ............................
Signature of applicant
* Broad category of the subject to be indicated (such as grant/ Government land/ Service matters/ Licencse etc).
** Relevant period for which information is required to be indicated.
*** Specific details of the information are required to be indicated.
Acknowledgement
Received your application dated__________________________, —vide Diary No.______________________dated_______________________.
Signatures of Public Information Officer/
Assistant Public Information Officer
Name of the Department/Office
Details Fees which has been deposited (Challan is Enclosed herewith)
Copyright © 2007 MAHAVIR LAW PUBLISHERS| All Rights Reserved