Quantcast
Channel: Central Information Commission
Viewing all 20258 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

Nutan Thakur vs Ministry Of Minority Affairs on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that she is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to her. She also submitted that even though she was provided an opportunity to inspect the records, she did not inspect the same as it was not convenient for her to travel from Lucknow to New Delhi. She also stated that she will be satisfied with whatever information can be provided as per her RTI application as she understands that the sought for information covers 09 years, which she agreed was too voluminous to provide.

↧
Search

Nutan Thakur vs Ministry Of Minority Affairs on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that she is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to her. She also submitted that even though she was provided an opportunity to inspect the records, she did not inspect the same as it was not convenient for her to travel from Lucknow to New Delhi. She also stated that she will be satisfied with whatever information can be provided as per her RTI application as she understands that the sought for information covers 09 years, which she agreed was too voluminous to provide.

↧
↧

Nutan Thakur vs National Commission For Women ... on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

Appellant: Present over VC 1 Respondent: Dr Ravindra Kumar, Research Officer & CPIO, National Commission for Women & Santanu Brajabasi, Under Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development Information Sought:

The appellant has sought a copy of the documents of the Ministry of Women and Child Development associated with the files relating to the appointment of various Chairpersons Members of the National Commission for Women, since 01/01/2010.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that she is not satisfied with the response of the CPIO.

↧

Satya Nand Tripathi vs Indian Telephone Industries Ltd on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri B.K Verma, Assistant Manager and PIO, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought following information in respect of Sh. Ram Shabd Rai, Asst. Manager, HR Department, Employee Code M- 51624:

1. Details of PF amount transferred by the previous employer of Mr. Rai and to ITI Ltd., Mankapur, PF Section.

2. Details of the PF Contribution deducted and deposited by the previous employer of Sh. Rai. Whether the said amount was deposited in the ITI Ltd., Mankapur, PF section or not.

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that the information sought should be disclosed in larger public interest. He also pointed out that the provisions of Sec. 11(1) should have been resorted to at the relevant time, which was not done by the CPIO.

↧

Satya Nand Tripathi vs Indian Telephone Industries Ltd on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri B.K Verma, Assistant Manager and PIO, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought following information in respect of Sh. Yogendra Singh Chauhan Manager (HR), Employee Code M- 491:

1. Details of work allocated to him.

2. Details of his designation, whether he is HR Head or Manager HR or both. Provide copy of the order related to the same.

3. Details about his eligibility for becoming HR Head or Manager HR.

4. And other related information.

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he is satisfied with the reply of the CPIO in respect of points no. 4,6,9,10,11 and 12 of the RTI application. He further pressed for a proper reply in respect of points no. 1,2,3,5,7 and 8 of the RTI application. Furthermore, he submitted that the information given on the above points are false and misleading. Observations:

↧
↧

Nutan Thakur vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Rakesh Kumar, Under Secretary & CPIO and Dinesh Kumar, ASO, both present in person.

Information Sought:

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has constituted a Committee for framing of National Competition Policy and related matters under the Chairmanship of Dhanendra Kumar, former Chairman of Competition 1 Commission of India. The appellant has sought the following information in this regard-

1. When was this Committee formed.

2. Who are the members of the said committee.

3. What is the total staff attached to the committee.

4. What are the other paraphernalia and infra-structural support provided to the committee.

↧

Satya Nand Tripathi vs Indian Telephone Industries Ltd on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Shri B.K Verma, Assistant Manager and PIO, present over VC Information Sought:

The appellant wants the inspection of departmental records regarding the details of contributions deposited by the employer in PF Account of Sh. Rai since his joining at ITI Ltd. Manakpur.

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

1

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he wants to inspect the letter of the parent department of the third party, on the basis of which the CPIO had denied him the sought for information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CPIO submitted that there is no such letter available on record. However, the third party Shri Ram Shabd Rai had objected to the disclosure of his information.

↧

Sanjeev Ghei vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the certified true copy of complete file along with all order sheets of all the correspondence made with/by CBI through which order dated 31.12.2014 granting sanction for prosecution of the applicant was granted by Competent Sanctioning Authority, complete file alongwith the order sheets of all correspondence made with/ by CBI which necessitated passing of Corrigendum dated 09.02.2015 to the above mentioned sanctioned order 31.12.2014 and other issues thereto.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 01.01.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)

(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 as the inquiry in the case was underway and premature disclosure of the information prior to the final decision being made in disciplinary proceedings had the potential to disrupt the proceedings. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide it order dated 26.02.2018 while referring to the decision of the Commission in CIC/AT/A/2008/00437 dated 31.10.2008 referred by the Commission in CIC/RM/A/2013/001257 dated 07.05.2014 concurred with the response of the CPIO.

↧
Search

A M Attar vs State Bank Of India on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

1. A Show Cause Notice was issued to Shri Lalit Mohan, the then CPIO, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office Region-I, Dr. A.B. Raod, Worli, Mumbai, in compliance of the Commission's order no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/175984 dated 27.05.2019 for not furnishing the information to the appellant. The CPIO was directed to submit an explanation as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.

Page 1 of 5

]Hearing on 23.05.2019:

2. The appellant and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Vijay Dixit, Asstt. Manager, State Bank of India, Bandra attended the hearing through video conference.

Interim Decision (27.05.2019):

3. The Commission passed the following directions on 27.05.2019:

↧
↧

Rajesh Kapoor vs State Bank Of India on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 26.02.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 27.10.2017 and first appeal dated 14.12.2017:

(i) Certified copy of internal manual or guidelines regarding the procedure for handling of complaints.

(ii) Certified copy of the scheme of delegation of powers for closure of complaints.

Page 1 of 6

(iii) Certified copy of the role and responsibility of the Customer Care Dept. of SBI (b whatever name called) in relation to complaints received through various channels.

↧

Shailendra Singh Tarkar vs Central Bank on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

1. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the Shri Pawan Kumar Sinha, the then Branch Manager, Maheshkhunt Branch, Purnea Region, Bihar in compliance of the Commission's order no. CIC/CBIND/A/2017/136575 dated 23.07.2018 for not furnishing any reply/information to the complainant. The CPIO was directed to submit an explanation as to why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him.

Page 1 of 5

Hearing on 19.07.2018:

2. The appellant, Shri Shailendra Singh Tarkar and the respondent, Shri Vikas Khare, Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Purnea, Bihar, attended the hearing through video-conference. Interim Decision (23.07.2018):

↧

Naresh Kumar vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding the complete details in reference to Policy Numbers as mentioned in the RTI application, the dates from which the policies were continuing; the details of the Agent; number of installments deposited in the said Policies along with the dates, month and year in which installments have been paid, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 04.10.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAAs Order, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Naresh Kumar through VC;

↧

Rupkonwar Brahma vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 12 points in respect of successful candidates who were promoted from Scale IV to Scale V under promotional exercises 2015-16 to 2017-18 in the Respondent Public Authority, the certified copy of result showing (a) Name, (b) Roll No. allotted for pre-promotional examination, (c) Salary Roll No. & (d) Marks secured in the pre- promotion examination held on 31.05.2015 for promotion from Scale IV to Scale V under promotional exercise 2015-16 in respect of the officers of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited in the cadre of scale of IV and issues related thereto.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 16.11.2017, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant wherein for points 01 to 04 and 05 to 12, while providing the details of the Appellant in a desired format, denied disclosure of information with respect to other candidates under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 26.12.2017, upheld the CPIO's response.

↧
↧

Rajesh Kapoor vs State Bank Of India on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

1. As the information sought by the appellant/complainant in both the files CIC/SBIND/A/2018/611673 and CIC/SBIND/C/2018/611999) is identical, it is felt desirable to pass a common order in both the cases. 1.1. The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 08.02.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 05.11.2017 and first appeal dated 13.12.2017:

(i) Please provide a Certified Copy of the complaint no. 3389122488.

Page 1 of 5

(ii) Copy of the inquiry/investigation/feedback report for the phone change number request not going through as expected.

↧

Avinash Rampal vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation ... on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought clarifications on 08 points regarding whether as per DGR Notifications from 01 April 2009 to 26 October 2010 Lalru Bottling Plant was considered as a Non Metro City and payment to the Security Personnel employed by the Security Agency was made on the basis of non metro city and issues related thereto.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 30.11.2017, provided a response to the Appellant and for some points, information sought was denied under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 18.01.2018, stated that PIO, Lalru, had already replied on 30.11.2017 and 15.01.2018.

↧
Search

Suruchi Jain vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the certified copy of application form for applying PAN Card No. (as mentioned), copy of PAN Card and the date of issuance of PAN in the name of Saruchi Gupta; the certified copy of ITR for the A.Y. 2011-12 to 2017-18 along with the computation charts in the name of Saruchi Gupta; the date of filing and the date of issuance of ITR for the aforementioned period as also the certified copy of ITR for the AY 2015-16 to 2017-18 along with computation charts filed by Mr. Sonu Jain, S/o Jawahar Lal Jain, and other issues related thereto.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 16.11.2017, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1)

↧

Syed Shabbir Hussain vs University Of Allahabad on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

1. Provide the parawise details of the action taken on the appellant's complaint dated 08/03/2018 forwarded by UGC vide F No. 32-8(11)/2018 (Public Grievance/NRCB) dated 13/04/2018 to Allahabad University.

2. Provide the details of action taken on UGC's letter dated 13/04/2018.

3. Provide the details of action taken on UGC's letter dated 23/04/2018

4. And other related information.

1

Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The appellant submitted that he did not receive any reply from the concerned CPIO.

The PIO, Shri Sushil Singh, PA to Registrar is not present despite duly served notice by the Nodal CPIO on 02.09.2019.

↧
↧

Amit Chauhan vs Central Board Of Secondary ... on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

Appellant: Present through VC.

1

Respondent: Mr. Rajendra Kumar, Asst. Secretary, CBSE present through VC. CPIO, Murari Kunj Saraswati Vidya Mandir Secondary School (MKSVMSS), not present.

Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

a) That applicant was selected in MKSVMSS through competitive process of Akhil Bhartiya Vidya Bharti Shiksha Sansthan Selection Committee in 2016. The appellant did not get his appointment letter. Appellant has sought all the enclosures to the appointment letter.

b) As per the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the respondent has not been provided with the permanent appointment letter.

↧

P Lakshmana Rao vs Life Insurance Corporation Of ... on 23 October, 2019

October 22, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the details of agency commission for the past 3 years, drawn by Mr. Kalingaiah, S/o Kalaiah (late), Agent Code No. 05670602 who was residing at No: 7, 1st Cross, 1st Main, 1st Floor, Sarada Nagar, Vasanthapura Road, Subramantapura Post, Bengaluru-560061, he desired the following information to produce it before the Hon'ble City Civil Court, Bengaluru to attach his commission in Execution Petition, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 10.01.2018, provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 12.02.2018, denied disclosure of information under Section 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

↧

Inder Singh vs Delhi Police on 24 October, 2019

October 23, 2019, 11:30 am
$
0
0

(ii) all information/documents pertaining to the afore stated demolition be provided, and (iii) Copy of the DD Entry of the staff of DDA/MCD, or of any other department who visited the police station on the day of the demolition.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that information was not provided to him on the plea that the same is exempted under Section 8(1)(g) and (j) of RTI Act. He contended that the information is available with the respondent, and the same is not being provided deliberately. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for, provide compensation to the appellant, and also initiate penal action against the CPIO.

↧
Viewing all 20258 articles
Browse latest View live
Search