LAW: SC: To seek FIR from court, submitting affidavit must …

28/03/2015 Comments Off on LAW: SC: To seek FIR from court, submitting affidavit must …

SC: To seek FIR from court, submitting affidavit must
Major relief to citizens, govt to accept self-attested documents
More …

Go to NEWS.

SC: To seek FIR from court, submitting affidavit must   Indianexpress.com
Mar 26, 2015
Ready a personal affidavit first if you want a court to order an investigation into your complaint. The Supreme Court has made it compulsory for a complainant to submit an affidavit, vouching for the veracity of the allegations, when registration of an FIR is sought from a magisterial court. …

You may like to click on any of the following links:-
* Latest DOPT/CVC/RTI/MOF/CGHS/DPE/RBI/IRDA Orders/Notifications/Circulars; News
* Court’s Orders
* Discipline – News
*  Vigilance Clearance
* Right to Information (RTI) – Rules/ Notifications/Circulars/Guidelines (Subject-Wise) & CIC Orders/Decisions
* Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise and Subject-Wise
* CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates 
* Public Sector Enterprises Service Rules and Other Rules/Circulars/Guidelines
* Verification of SC/ST/OBC Caste Status or Claims of SCs, STs and OBCs
* Court Judgments.

PMO plans to merge tribunals for efficiency, Company Law Board and CAT could be merged  Economictimes.indiatimes.com
27 Feb, 2015
NEW DELHI: The Prime Minister’s Office is planning to prune the list of all important national tribunals and merge some of them to create larger entities and ensure efficiency. …

Proxy counsel cannot argue a case: High court   TimesofIndia.indiatimes.com
Feb 16, 2015
Background: There are times when the advocate on record is stuck in some other court and cannot attend to another matter. In such cases, he appoints a “proxy counsel” to take care of the case in his absence. …

HC asks 2 cops to face trial 23 years after torturing woman   TimesofIndia.indiatimes.com
Jan 25, 2015
MUMBAI: Police can’t torture an accused to extract information, the Bombay high court has ruled in a landmark judgment, and ordered two policemen to face trial for brutally assaulting a woman in custody 23 years ago. …

Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. However, in case you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info@dtf.in.

RTI: RTI between spouses … Applicant awarded Rs 52,000 compensation from information commission …

28/03/2015 1

RTI between spouses Can access income details of your spouse under RTI: CIC Applicant awarded Rs 52,000 compensation from information commission “Judicious use of RTI by citizens only make it more effective” Plea in HC on money spent on medical reimbursement of SC judges Delhi HC stays its order to SC registry on data on cases reserved CIC orders NGT man’s removal for blocking info Delhi HC pulls up BAI for not furnishing information Cabinet Papers Cannot be Withheld From Public: CIC More …

Go to NEWS.

SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS/POSTS * Office of the Attorney General of India is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. –  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 10.03.2015 – Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Office of Attorney General and R.K. Jain Vs. Office of Attorney General of India * CIC Decision dated 03.03.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Baladevan Rangaraju Vs. PIO, Delhi Commission for Women, GNCTD, New Delhi (Non-Disclosure Agreement, Section 10) * CIC Decision dated 02.03.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Amal Kumar Bhattacharya, Vadodara Vs. Medical Council of India, New Delhi (Voluminous Records, Section 10) * CIC Decision dated 26.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri Anbuvendhan, Chennai Vs. the CPIO, National Commission for Scheduled Castes, New Delhi [Section 5(4)] * CIC Decision dated 18.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri Shyam Mohan Parashar, Faridabad Vs. Dte. of Training and Technical Education, Delhi – “The Commission directed the respondent authority to furnish information to the appellant as to the reasons for denial of Selection Grade to him as they are bound to give the same under Section 4(1)(c.) …” (Section 4(1)(c) – Disclosure of Reasons) * O.M. dated 17.02.2015 – Guidelines for Public Information Officers/FAAs for supply of information and disposal of first appeal respectively – reiteration of  >>> RTI – Rules/Circulars * Decision dated 05.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Pradeep Sharma Vs. Social Welfare Officer (respondent) – “The Commission reiterates that the Bar Council of Delhi should initiate proceedings against the complainant for alleged misconduct of sending a blank paper as RTI application and causing wastage of public money and time of Public Authority.” (Misuse of RTI/Action against Complainant) * Decision dated 03.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Roshan Lal Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi – “The Commission after hearing the submissions made directs the PIO to obtain the information from the Society and furnish the same to the Complainant within thirty days of receipt of this order.” (Section 18) * CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Roshan Lal Vs. Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare, GNCTD, Delhi – “The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority to inquire into the complaint of the complainant and provide the action taken report on the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.” (Section 18) * CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri SKT Sherman Vs. RCS, GNCTD, New Delhi “The Commission also advises the appellant not to file repeated RTI applications which are aimless and useless. The Commission also advises the respondent authority not to share any personal information of the officers with the people like the appellant without invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act.” (Abuse of RTI) * CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Satya Prakash, Delhi Vs. Lalit Kala Akademi, New Delhi – “The CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant copies of such agreements, if available on the records of the public authority, by severing any information of a personal nature concerning the advocates, such as their personal address, bank account and income tax details etc., under Section 10 of the RTI Act.” [Section 10] * CIC Decision dated 30.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri N.B. Deshmukh, Thane Vs. CPIO Air India Ltd., Mumbai – The Commission cautioned the FAA to strictly follow the RTI regime while disposing of appeals and pass a speaking order, after taking due cognizance of merits of each case. * CIC Decision dated 27.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri Harsh Vardhan Nayyar, New Delhi Vs. NDMC, New Delhi – “… names, addresses and phone nos./email addresses of all plaintiffs cannot be provided to the appellant as the same is third party information u/s 8(1)(j), the disclosure of which serves no larger public interest. … .. the appellant has neither suffered any detriment nor is there any public interest in seeking the information. Therefore, his plea for award of compensation is not accepted.” * Copy of Minutes of the CIC Meeting dated 13.12.2011, reg. norms for according priority to appeals/complaints filed before the Commission (As on CIC website-01.02.15) * CIC Decision dated 21.01.2015 on Appeal from Ms. Harpreet Kaur Vs. Delhi Subordinate Selection Board, Delhi – “… the candidate with regard to his/her own answer sheet can obtain the copy of the same as a matter of right, but with regard to the answer sheet of third party, unless the candidate is able to show that large public interest is involved, the same cannot be furnished unless the candidate from whom it is sought for permits the same.” The Commission, therefore, directed to follow the procedure for supplying third party information U/S 11 of RTI Act, by seeking the opinion of the third party and taking a final decision by the PIO in this respect. [Sections 3, 8(1)(j), 11 and 19(3)]  * CIC Decision dated 14.01.2015 on Complaint from Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. National Green Tribunal, New Delhi – The Commission recommended change of officer to be designated as FAA. * CIC Decision dated 07.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri S.N. Shukla, Lucknow Vs. Department of Justice, Govt. of India, New Delhi – The CIC has directed the Law Ministry to disclose the Cabinet note about the decision to establish a National Judicial Appointments Commission, saying that such documents are not secret and should thus be made public. * CIC Decision dated 17.12.2014 – Mr. Francis Assis Fernandes, Indore Vs. CPIO & Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Ujjain [Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j)] * Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 – The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. – Hon’ble Delhi High Court: “I find no infirmity with the impugned order in so far as it directs that the records may be maintained in a manner so that the information regarding the period for which the judgments are pending after being reserved, is available with the petitioner in future.” [Sections 4(1)(b), 7(9) and 19(8)(a)(iv)] * Decision dated 01.12.2014 – Attar Singh Kaushik Vs. Education Deptt., GNCTD, Delhi – CIC: “The Commission after hearing the submissions made directs the PIO to conduct an inquiry u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act to find out reasons and officer responsible for delay in payment of remuneration to the Appellant for nearly three years, for initiating disciplinary action against such officer. …” * Decision dated 25.11.2014 – Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi – CIC: “The Appellate Authority is cautioned not to dismiss any appeals without reading the contents of the appeals or hearing the parties.” * Decision dated 12.11.2014 – Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi – “Passing orders in first appeal without hearing or sending hearing notice is illegal and will render the order invalid. The Commission sets aside the order of First Appellate Authority for violating RTI Act and breach of natural justice by denying the appellant a chance of presenting his case and by raising entirely a new defence which was never claimed. Commission finds it deserves action though the concerned officer retired from service and recommends Public Authority to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned FAO for acting totally against the RTI Act in this case.” “… the respondents consider possibility of facilitating inspection before invoking Section 7(9) of RTI Act.” * O.M. dated 11.11.2014 – Report of the Committee to evolve model formats for RTI Replies * O.M. dated 10.11.2014 – Guidelines on Internship for Undergraduates or graduates pursuing 5-year integrated course/Bachelor’s degree in Law under the CSS relating to RTI Act * Decision dated 10.10.2014 – Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Jal Board – “The Commission … … recommends the Public Authority to treat the RTI application as a complaint and as a regulatory initiate action against the persons who had installed nonfunctioning meters.” * O.M. dated 22.09.2014 – Guidelines on implementation of suo motu disclosure under Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005 – Compliance of > Madras High Court Judgement dated 17.09.2014 – PIO-Registrar (Admn.), High Court, Madras Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi & another – “… … the first respondent-Commission clearly erred in passing the impugned order in this Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to furnish the details to the second respondent as well as sending a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the second respondent.” * Decision dated 20.08.2014 – Dr. Srinivas Vyas Vs. Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College & Hospital, GNCTD, New Delhi – “The Commission recommends the respondent authority to prepare a consolidated report of the appellant’s RTI applications and upload the same in their website, showing it as a case of misuse of RTI.” * Decision dated 25.06.2014 – Mr. R.C. Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, GNCTD, Delhi – CIC advised the DOPT the framing of the guidelines for prevention of abuse of the RTI Act, 2005 * Decision dated 19.06.2014 – Lt. Gen. S.S. Dahiya (Retd.) Vs. CPIO, Appellate Authority, Air Hqrs., Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi – Air Force Sports Complex is a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005. * Decision dated 21.05.2014 – Mr. Patel Shankarlal Ambalal Vs. CPIO & Supdt. of Post Offices, Godhara – “The mere pendency of investigation is not sufficient justification by itself for withholding the information.” * Decision dated 15.05.2014 – Shri Hardeep Singh Sawhney Vs. Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi – Additional information can not be sought at the appeal stage. * Decision dated 24.04.2014 – Shri Dipak J. Gandhi Vs. Supreme Court –  The public authority is not bound to compile information as per the format of the applicant. * Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 – Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta – The impugned order dated 13th October, 2011 imposing penalty on the PIO was set aside.. * 27.03.2014 – Report of the National Workshop on RTI held on 09.01.2014 * O.M. dated 14.03.2014 – RTI Web Portal for online filing of RTI applications  * O.M. dated 13.02.2014 – Electronic Indian Postal Order – extension of service to Indian Citizens residing in India * Decision dated 07.01.2014 – Ms. Jyoti Seherawat Vs. Home (General) Department, Govt. of Delhi – CIC: Wife has right to know husband’s salary. * Decision dated 07.01.2014 – Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Ministry of Coal – CIC has, inter alia, decided the Department of Posts is to apprise the Commission regarding the present status with regard to the issuance of RTI stamps. * O.M. dated 08.01.2014 – Order dated 20.11.2013 of Calcutta High Court in Writ Petition No.33290 of 2013 in the case of Mr. Avishek Goenka Vs. Union of India regarding personal details of RTI applicant * Decision dated 24.12.2013 – First Appellate Authority (RTI), PAO (Ors), BEG, Roorkee, Uttarakhand – Broad outcome of investigation into tax evasion complaint to be disclosed

Go to NEWS.

RTI between spouses   Thehansindia.com February 10, 2015 Family as a unit cannot survive if the husband and wife differ and dispute. When marriage is on rocks, communication suffers and information is not exchanged. … More: Office of the Attorney General of India is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. –  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 10.03.2015 – Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Office of Attorney General and R.K. Jain Vs. Office of Attorney General of India

You may like to click on any of the following links:- Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI  Orders. Service Law – News CVC Circulars/Orders/Notifications Vigilance Clearance Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise and Subject-Wise CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates Public Sector Enterprises Service Rules and Other Rules/Circulars/Guidelines Verification of SC/ST/OBC Caste Status or Claims of SCs, STs and OBCs

Can access income details of your spouse under RTI: CIC   Timesofindia.indiatimes.com Feb 7, 2015 NEW DELHI: Your property details, investments and assets can be accessed by your spouse under the Right to Information Act (RTI). ….

Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf.in. 

RESERVATION: No reservation in selection of top bankers: SC …; 3% quota must for disabled people in all govt jobs including IAS: SC …

28/03/2015 Comments Off on RESERVATION: No reservation in selection of top bankers: SC …; 3% quota must for disabled people in all govt jobs including IAS: SC …

No reservation in selection of top bankers: SC OBCs to get 27% of govt petrol pumps
HC sets aside Hooda govt’s quota policy in promotion Bombay
More … …

Go to NEWS.

———————————————————————————
RECENT ORDERS/CIRCULARS
> Reservation in Promotion from Scale-I to Scale-II and upward up to Scale-VI in Public Sector Banks – SC Judgement dated 09.01.2015 – Chairman & Managing Director, Central Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association & Ors. >>> Reservation – Court Judgements > SC: “Special leave petition is dismissed.” –  SC Order dated 12.09.2014 – Union of India and Others Vs. National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (Arising out of final judgment and order dated 04.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay) >>> Court Judgments on Service Matters — Bombay HC judgement dated 04.12.2013 – National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. – Hon’ble Bombay High Court has directed to give benefits of reservation to PWDs in the matter of promotion to posts in the IAS by applying the O.M. dated 29 December 2005 and subsequent Office Memorandum consistent with the aforesaid judgment dated 8 October 2013 of the Supreme Court. > O.M. dated 14.08.2014 – Benefit of reservation to Ex-servicemen who apply for various examinations/vacancies before joining civil posts/services >>> Ex-Servicemen – Orders/Circulars > DFS letter 28.07.2014 – Posting of Government employees who have differently abled dependents > O.M. dated 06.06.2014 – Posting of Government employees who have differently abled dependents >>> OBCs and PWDs > O.M. dated 15.07.2014 – Online collection of data on representation of SCs, STs and OBCs and Persons with Disabilities in Central Government Services  > DOPT O.M. No. 36012/23/96-Estt.(Res) dated 22.7.1997 regarding lower qualifying marks, lesser standard of evaluation for SC/ST candidates for reservation in promotion is declared illegal. – SC Judgment dated 15.07.2014 – Rohtas Bhakhar & Others Vs. Union of India and Another >>> Court Judgments on Service Matters >  O.M. dated 30.05.2014 – Revision of format for OBC Caste Certificate >>> Reservation for OBCs and PWDs – Orders/Circulars * Hon’ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, directed the Centre and the State Governments to take steps to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and extend all kinds of reservation in cases of admission in educational institutions and for public appointments.-  SC Judgment dated 15.04.2014 – National Legal Services Authority Vs. Union of Indian and others * O.M. dated 31.03.2014 – Guidelines for providing certain facilities in respect of PWDs who are already employed in Government for efficient performance of their duties  * O.M. dated 20.03.2014 – Computation of reservation– implementation of the judgment in the matter of Union of India Vs. National Federation of Blind & Ors (info to be furnished by 27.3.14) ———————————————————————————

No reservation in selection of top bankers: SC   Timesofindia.indiatimes.com Jan 11, 2015 NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has ruled that there could be no quota for SC and ST employees for top posts in public sector banks but reservation for them was permissible in posts from scale-I till scale-VI. …

You may like to click on any of the following links:-

* Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI Circulars / Orders / Notifications / Guidelines * Reservation for SCs/STs/OBCs/PWDs/Minorities * Reservation-II – News * Caste– News * Vigilance Clearance * Right to Information (RTI) – Rules/ Notifications/Circulars/Guidelines (Subject-Wise) & CIC Decisions * Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise and Subject-Wise * CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates.

OBCs to get 27% of govt petrol pumps    Timesofindia.indiatimes.com Dec 10, 2014 NEW DELHI: The oil ministry has for the first time implemented a 27% quota for OBCs (other backward castes) in allotment of petrol pumps, even as it has decided to auction outlets on ‘premium sites’ and distribute others through lottery with a view to ensuring transparency. …

HC sets aside Hooda govt’s quota policy in promotion   Timesofindia.indiatimes.com Nov 15, 2014 CHANDIGARH: In an order that will impact thousands of scheduled caste (SC) employees of Haryana government, the Punjab and Haryana high court on Friday set aside the state government’s reservation policy pertaining to promotion to Class III and IV posts. …

Bombay HC stays Maharashtra govt’s decision to give 16% reservation to Marathas    Timesofindia.indiatimes.com Nov 14, 2014 MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Friday stayed Maharashtra government’s decision to give 16 per cent reservation to Marathas in public service and educational institutions. …

3% quota must for disabled people in all govt jobs including IAS: SC    Timesofindia.indiatimes.com Sep 12, 2014 NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday held that three per cent reservation for disabled people be given in all categories of government jobs including in appointments and promotions to IAS, while pulling up the Centre for “blocking” the very purpose of this empowering legislation by opposing it. …

SC cancels Puducherry govt’s order denying quota to section of Scheduled Caste people    Timesofindia.indiatimes.com Aug 19, 2014 PUDUCHERRY: The Supreme Court cancelled two orders passed by the Puducherry government that extended reservation in employment, promotion, education and welfare to a section of Scheduled Caste (origins) in the Union territory saying they were not in consonance with the Presidential Order. …

HC to UPSC: Stick to 3% quota for disabled    Timesofindia.indiatimes.com Aug 24, 2014 PUNE: The Bombay high court has directed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and the central government to stick to the 3% reservation for candidates with disabilities. The preliminary civil services examinations will be held across the country on Sunday. …

Supreme Court eases norms for SCs/STs’ promotions    Timesofindia.indiatimes.com Jul 20, 2014 NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has revived relaxed standards for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe government employees in departmental competitive and promotion examinations. …

Note:- If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf.in.

RTI: ‘Deduct info officer’s salary for RTI lapses’; Info panel issues bailable warrant against engineer

28/03/2015 Comments Off on RTI: ‘Deduct info officer’s salary for RTI lapses’; Info panel issues bailable warrant against engineer

‘Deduct info officer’s salary for RTI lapses’
Info panel issues bailable warrant against engineer

Go to NEWS.

SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS/POSTS
* Office of the Attorney General of India is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. –  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 10.03.2015 – Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Office of Attorney General and R.K. Jain Vs. Office of Attorney General of India
* CIC Decision dated 03.03.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Baladevan Rangaraju Vs. PIO, Delhi Commission for Women, GNCTD, New Delhi (Non-Disclosure Agreement, Section 10)
* CIC Decision dated 02.03.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Amal Kumar Bhattacharya, Vadodara Vs. Medical Council of India, New Delhi (Voluminous Records, Section 10)
* CIC Decision dated 26.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri Anbuvendhan, Chennai Vs. the CPIO, National Commission for Scheduled Castes, New Delhi [Section 5(4)]
* CIC Decision dated 18.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri Shyam Mohan Parashar, Faridabad Vs. Dte. of Training and Technical Education, Delhi – “The Commission directed the respondent authority to furnish information to the appellant as to the reasons for denial of Selection Grade to him as they are bound to give the same under Section 4(1)(c.) …” (Section 4(1)(c) – Disclosure of Reasons)
* O.M. dated 17.02.2015 – Guidelines for Public Information Officers/FAAs for supply of information and disposal of first appeal respectively – reiteration of  >>> RTI – Rules/Circulars
* Decision dated 05.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Pradeep Sharma Vs. Social Welfare Officer (respondent) – “The Commission reiterates that the Bar Council of Delhi should initiate proceedings against the complainant for alleged misconduct of sending a blank paper as RTI application and causing wastage of public money and time of Public Authority.” (Misuse of RTI/Action against Complainant)
* Decision dated 03.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Roshan Lal Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi – “The Commission after hearing the submissions made directs the PIO to obtain the information from the Society and furnish the same to the Complainant within thirty days of receipt of this order.” (Section 18)
* CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Roshan Lal Vs. Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare, GNCTD, Delhi – “The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority to inquire into the complaint of the complainant and provide the action taken report on the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.” (Section 18)
* CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri SKT Sherman Vs. RCS, GNCTD, New Delhi “The Commission also advises the appellant not to file repeated RTI applications which are aimless and useless. The Commission also advises the respondent authority not to share any personal information of the officers with the people like the appellant without invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act.” (Abuse of RTI)
* CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Satya Prakash, Delhi Vs. Lalit Kala Akademi, New Delhi – “The CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant copies of such agreements, if available on the records of the public authority, by severing any information of a personal nature concerning the advocates, such as their personal address, bank account and income tax details etc., under Section 10 of the RTI Act.” [Section 10]
* CIC Decision dated 30.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri N.B. Deshmukh, Thane Vs. CPIO Air India Ltd., Mumbai – The Commission cautioned the FAA to strictly follow the RTI regime while disposing of appeals and pass a speaking order, after taking due cognizance of merits of each case.
* CIC Decision dated 27.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri Harsh Vardhan Nayyar, New Delhi Vs. NDMC, New Delhi – “… names, addresses and phone nos./email addresses of all plaintiffs cannot be provided to the appellant as the same is third party information u/s 8(1)(j), the disclosure of which serves no larger public interest. … .. the appellant has neither suffered any detriment nor is there any public interest in seeking the information. Therefore, his plea for award of compensation is not accepted.”
* Copy of Minutes of the CIC Meeting dated 13.12.2011, reg. norms for according priority to appeals/complaints filed before the Commission (As on CIC website-01.02.15)
* CIC Decision dated 21.01.2015 on Appeal from Ms. Harpreet Kaur Vs. Delhi Subordinate Selection Board, Delhi – “… the candidate with regard to his/her own answer sheet can obtain the copy of the same as a matter of right, but with regard to the answer sheet of third party, unless the candidate is able to show that large public interest is involved, the same cannot be furnished unless the candidate from whom it is sought for permits the same.” The Commission, therefore, directed to follow the procedure for supplying third party information U/S 11 of RTI Act, by seeking the opinion of the third party and taking a final decision by the PIO in this respect. [Sections 3, 8(1)(j), 11 and 19(3)] 
* CIC Decision dated 14.01.2015 on Complaint from Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. National Green Tribunal, New Delhi – The Commission recommended change of officer to be designated as FAA.
* CIC Decision dated 07.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri S.N. Shukla, Lucknow Vs. Department of Justice, Govt. of India, New Delhi – The CIC has directed the Law Ministry to disclose the Cabinet note about the decision to establish a National Judicial Appointments Commission, saying that such documents are not secret and should thus be made public.
* CIC Decision dated 17.12.2014 – Mr. Francis Assis Fernandes, Indore Vs. CPIO & Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Ujjain [Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j)] * Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 – The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. – Hon’ble Delhi High Court: “I find no infirmity with the impugned order in so far as it directs that the records may be maintained in a manner so that the information regarding the period for which the judgments are pending after being reserved, is available with the petitioner in future.” [Sections 4(1)(b), 7(9) and 19(8)(a)(iv)]
* Decision dated 01.12.2014 – Attar Singh Kaushik Vs. Education Deptt., GNCTD, Delhi – CIC: “The Commission after hearing the submissions made directs the PIO to conduct an inquiry u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act to find out reasons and officer responsible for delay in payment of remuneration to the Appellant for nearly three years, for initiating disciplinary action against such officer. …”
* Decision dated 25.11.2014 – Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi – CIC: “The Appellate Authority is cautioned not to dismiss any appeals without reading the contents of the appeals or hearing the parties.” * Decision dated 12.11.2014 – Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi – “Passing orders in first appeal without hearing or sending hearing notice is illegal and will render the order invalid. The Commission sets aside the order of First Appellate Authority for violating RTI Act and breach of natural justice by denying the appellant a chance of presenting his case and by raising entirely a new defence which was never claimed. Commission finds it deserves action though the concerned officer retired from service and recommends Public Authority to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned FAO for acting totally against the RTI Act in this case.”
“… the respondents consider possibility of facilitating inspection before invoking Section 7(9) of RTI Act.”
* O.M. dated 11.11.2014 – Report of the Committee to evolve model formats for RTI Replies * O.M. dated 10.11.2014 – Guidelines on Internship for Undergraduates or graduates pursuing 5-year integrated course/Bachelor’s degree in Law under the CSS relating to RTI Act
* Decision dated 10.10.2014 – Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Jal Board – “The Commission … … recommends the Public Authority to treat the RTI application as a complaint and as a regulatory initiate action against the persons who had installed nonfunctioning meters.”
* O.M. dated 22.09.2014 – Guidelines on implementation of suo motu disclosure under Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005 – Compliance of > Madras High Court Judgement dated 17.09.2014 – PIO-Registrar (Admn.), High Court, Madras Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi & another – “… … the first respondent-Commission clearly erred in passing the impugned order in this Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to furnish the details to the second respondent as well as sending a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the second respondent.”
* Decision dated 20.08.2014 – Dr. Srinivas Vyas Vs. Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College & Hospital, GNCTD, New Delhi – “The Commission recommends the respondent authority to prepare a consolidated report of the appellant’s RTI applications and upload the same in their website, showing it as a case of misuse of RTI.”
* Decision dated 25.06.2014 – Mr. R.C. Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, GNCTD, Delhi – CIC advised the DOPT the framing of the guidelines for prevention of abuse of the RTI Act, 2005 * Decision dated 19.06.2014 – Lt. Gen. S.S. Dahiya (Retd.) Vs. CPIO, Appellate Authority, Air Hqrs., Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi – Air Force Sports Complex is a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005.
* Decision dated 21.05.2014 – Mr. Patel Shankarlal Ambalal Vs. CPIO & Supdt. of Post Offices, Godhara – “The mere pendency of investigation is not sufficient justification by itself for withholding the information.”
* Decision dated 15.05.2014 – Shri Hardeep Singh Sawhney Vs. Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi – Additional information can not be sought at the appeal stage.
* Decision dated 24.04.2014 – Shri Dipak J. Gandhi Vs. Supreme Court –  The public authority is not bound to compile information as per the format of the applicant.
* Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 – Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta – The impugned order dated 13th October, 2011 imposing penalty on the PIO was set aside..
* 27.03.2014 – Report of the National Workshop on RTI held on 09.01.2014
* O.M. dated 14.03.2014 – RTI Web Portal for online filing of RTI applications 
* O.M. dated 13.02.2014 – Electronic Indian Postal Order – extension of service to Indian Citizens residing in India
* Decision dated 07.01.2014 – Ms. Jyoti Seherawat Vs. Home (General) Department, Govt. of Delhi – CIC: Wife has right to know husband’s salary.
* Decision dated 07.01.2014 – Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Ministry of Coal – CIC has, inter alia, decided the Department of Posts is to apprise the Commission regarding the present status with regard to the issuance of RTI stamps.
* O.M. dated 08.01.2014 – Order dated 20.11.2013 of Calcutta High Court in Writ Petition No.33290 of 2013 in the case of Mr. Avishek Goenka Vs. Union of India regarding personal details of RTI applicant
* Decision dated 24.12.2013 – First Appellate Authority (RTI), PAO (Ors), BEG, Roorkee, Uttarakhand – Broad outcome of investigation into tax evasion complaint to be disclosed

Go to NEWS.

‘Deduct info officer’s salary for RTI lapses’   Timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Feb 14, 2015
MUMBAI: Reminding state government agencies that the office of the chief information commissioner is akin to a civil court, the general administration department has expressly told department heads to ensure that penalties imposed on public information officers (PIOs), failing to deliver on RTI complaints, are recovered from their salaries. …

You may like to click on any of the following links:-
Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI  Orders.
Service Law – News
CVC Circulars/Orders/Notifications
Vigilance Clearance
Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions
Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise and Subject-Wise
CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates
Public Sector Enterprises Service Rules and Other Rules/Circulars/Guidelines
Verification of SC/ST/OBC Caste Status or Claims of SCs, STs and OBCs

Info panel issues bailable warrant against engineer   Timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Feb 9, 2015
GURGAON: The state information commission has issued a bailable warrant against a superintending engineer of the Haryana irrigation department for repeatedly failing to appear before it and not responding to an RTI plea seeking the layout plan of the Jharsa embankment near Rajiv Chowk. …

Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info@dtf.in.

RESERVATION: 33% Cops in Delhi, Union Territories to be women: Government; Maharashtra govt scraps 5% quota for Muslims …

28/03/2015 Comments Off on RESERVATION: 33% Cops in Delhi, Union Territories to be women: Government; Maharashtra govt scraps 5% quota for Muslims …

33% Cops in Delhi, Union Terrotories to be women: Government
Not just job reservation: Maharashtra govt scraps 5% education quota for Muslims too
Hindu reconvert gets SC benefits

Go to NEWS.

——————————————————————————————–
RECENT JUDGEMENTS 
* Benefits of Reservation on Reconversion  – SC: “… we are inclined to hold that the appellant after reconversion had come within the fold of the community and thereby became a member of the scheduled caste.” – SC Judgment dated 26.02.2015 – K.P. Manu Vs. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate >>> Court Judgements on Service Matters
——————————————————————————————–

33% Cops in Delhi, Union Territories to be women: Government   Economictimes.indiatimes.com
21 Mar, 2015,
NEW DELHI: The Union Cabinet has cleared 33 per cent reservation for woman in the lower levels of police units of the seven Union Territories (UTs), including Delhi. It will remain a far-off proposition in most states and central armed police forces. …

Not just job reservation: Maharashtra govt scraps 5% education quota for Muslims too   Firstpost.com
Mar 5, 2015
Mumbai: While scrapping a five percent reservation for Muslims in government jobs that was struck down by the Bombay High Court, the Maharashtra state government has also axed a five percent reservation that had been provided for the community in educational institutions. …

You may like to click on any of the following links:-
* Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI Circulars / Orders / Notifications / Guidelines
* Reservation for SCs/STs/OBCs/PWDs/Minorities
* Reservation-I– News
* Caste– News
* Vigilance Clearance
* Right to Information (RTI) – Rules/ Notifications/Circulars/Guidelines (Subject-Wise) & CIC Decisions
* Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise and Subject-Wise
* CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates.

Hindu reconvert gets SC benefits   Economictimes.indiatimes.com
27 Feb, 2015
NEW DELHI: In a ruling that would stoke the debate over religious conversion and reconversion, the Supreme Court on Thursday ordered that a Christian who reconverted to Hinduism be given back his Scheduled Caste benefits. …

Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. However, if you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, info@dtf.in.

LEARNING: Dos and don’ts of writing professional e-mails; Dr. Subhash Chandra Shows (Videos)

27/03/2015 Comments Off on LEARNING: Dos and don’ts of writing professional e-mails; Dr. Subhash Chandra Shows (Videos)

More:-  Latest DOPT/CVC/RTI/MOF/CGHS/DPE/RBI/IRDA Orders/Notifications/Circulars; News * Vigilance Clearance and Vigilance Clearance Certificate * Vigilance Related GOI/CVC Notifications/Office Orders/Circulars * Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise and Subject-Wise * RTI Act/Rules/Circulars * Deptt. of Public Enterprises (DPE) Circulars * CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates * RBI Circulars/Master Circulars – Subject-Wise/Category-Wise – Part-I

LEARNING

Dos and don’ts of writing professional e-mails   Timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Mar 16, 2015
Whether you are applying for a job, internship, loan, grant, applying for admission in a college or just writing an e-mail for business or job related communication, these tips will help you give your mails a professional touch. …

DR. SUBHASH SHANDRA SHOWS (Youtube)

* Dr Subhash Chandra Show: What is true success; how to handle it wisely?
* Dr Subhash Chandra Show: Mantra for success
* Zee Business: Dr. Subhash Chandra Show
* Dr Subhash Chandra Show: How to manage your time effectively?

RTI: CIC can take up suo motu case; 3.7 lakh complaints against banks in five years …

27/03/2015 Comments Off on RTI: CIC can take up suo motu case; 3.7 lakh complaints against banks in five years …

CIC can take up suo motu case
3.7 lakh complaints against banks in five years, reveals RTI response

Go to NEWS.

SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS/POSTS
* Office of the Attorney General of India is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. –  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 10.03.2015 – Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Office of Attorney General and R.K. Jain Vs. Office of Attorney General of India
* CIC Decision dated 04.03.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Jitendra Anandrao Chauhan, Kolhapur Central Prison Vs. Department of Posts, New Delhi –  The Department of Posts has been requested to look into the issue and take appropriate steps to provide access to PIN code to prisoners lodged in various jails. (Larger Public Interest)
* CIC Decision dated 03.03.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Baladevan Rangaraju Vs. PIO, Delhi Commission for Women, GNCTD, New Delhi (Non-Disclosure Agreement, Section 10)
* CIC Decision dated 02.03.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Amal Kumar Bhattacharya, Vadodara Vs. Medical Council of India, New Delhi (Voluminous Records, Section 10)
* CIC Decision dated 26.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri Anbuvendhan, Chennai Vs. the CPIO, National Commission for Scheduled Castes, New Delhi [Section 5(4)]
* CIC Decision dated 18.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri Shyam Mohan Parashar, Faridabad Vs. Dte. of Training and Technical Education, Delhi – “The Commission directed the respondent authority to furnish information to the appellant as to the reasons for denial of Selection Grade to him as they are bound to give the same under Section 4(1)(c.) …” (Section 4(1)(c) – Disclosure of Reasons)
* O.M. dated 17.02.2015 – Guidelines for Public Information Officers/FAAs for supply of information and disposal of first appeal respectively – reiteration of  >>> RTI – Rules/Circulars
* Decision dated 05.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Pradeep Sharma Vs. Social Welfare Officer (respondent) – “The Commission reiterates that the Bar Council of Delhi should initiate proceedings against the complainant for alleged misconduct of sending a blank paper as RTI application and causing wastage of public money and time of Public Authority.” (Misuse of RTI/Action against Complainant)
* Decision dated 03.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Roshan Lal Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi – “The Commission after hearing the submissions made directs the PIO to obtain the information from the Society and furnish the same to the Complainant within thirty days of receipt of this order.” (Section 18)
* CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Roshan Lal Vs. Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare, GNCTD, Delhi – “The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority to inquire into the complaint of the complainant and provide the action taken report on the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.” (Section 18)
* CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri SKT Sherman Vs. RCS, GNCTD, New Delhi “The Commission also advises the appellant not to file repeated RTI applications which are aimless and useless. The Commission also advises the respondent authority not to share any personal information of the officers with the people like the appellant without invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act.” (Abuse of RTI)
* CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Satya Prakash, Delhi Vs. Lalit Kala Akademi, New Delhi – “The CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant copies of such agreements, if available on the records of the public authority, by severing any information of a personal nature concerning the advocates, such as their personal address, bank account and income tax details etc., under Section 10 of the RTI Act.” [Section 10]
* CIC Decision dated 30.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri N.B. Deshmukh, Thane Vs. CPIO Air India Ltd., Mumbai – The Commission cautioned the FAA to strictly follow the RTI regime while disposing of appeals and pass a speaking order, after taking due cognizance of merits of each case.
* CIC Decision dated 27.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri Harsh Vardhan Nayyar, New Delhi Vs. NDMC, New Delhi – “… names, addresses and phone nos./email addresses of all plaintiffs cannot be provided to the appellant as the same is third party information u/s 8(1)(j), the disclosure of which serves no larger public interest. … .. the appellant has neither suffered any detriment nor is there any public interest in seeking the information. Therefore, his plea for award of compensation is not accepted.”
* Copy of Minutes of the CIC Meeting dated 13.12.2011, reg. norms for according priority to appeals/complaints filed before the Commission (As on CIC website-01.02.15)
* CIC Decision dated 21.01.2015 on Appeal from Ms. Harpreet Kaur Vs. Delhi Subordinate Selection Board, Delhi – “… the candidate with regard to his/her own answer sheet can obtain the copy of the same as a matter of right, but with regard to the answer sheet of third party, unless the candidate is able to show that large public interest is involved, the same cannot be furnished unless the candidate from whom it is sought for permits the same.” The Commission, therefore, directed to follow the procedure for supplying third party information U/S 11 of RTI Act, by seeking the opinion of the third party and taking a final decision by the PIO in this respect. [Sections 3, 8(1)(j), 11 and 19(3)] 
* CIC Decision dated 14.01.2015 on Complaint from Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. National Green Tribunal, New Delhi – The Commission recommended change of officer to be designated as FAA.
* CIC Decision dated 07.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri S.N. Shukla, Lucknow Vs. Department of Justice, Govt. of India, New Delhi – The CIC has directed the Law Ministry to disclose the Cabinet note about the decision to establish a National Judicial Appointments Commission, saying that such documents are not secret and should thus be made public.
* CIC Decision dated 17.12.2014 – Mr. Francis Assis Fernandes, Indore Vs. CPIO & Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Ujjain [Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j)] * Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 – The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. – Hon’ble Delhi High Court: “I find no infirmity with the impugned order in so far as it directs that the records may be maintained in a manner so that the information regarding the period for which the judgments are pending after being reserved, is available with the petitioner in future.” [Sections 4(1)(b), 7(9) and 19(8)(a)(iv)]
* Decision dated 01.12.2014 – Attar Singh Kaushik Vs. Education Deptt., GNCTD, Delhi – CIC: “The Commission after hearing the submissions made directs the PIO to conduct an inquiry u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act to find out reasons and officer responsible for delay in payment of remuneration to the Appellant for nearly three years, for initiating disciplinary action against such officer. …”
* Decision dated 25.11.2014 – Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi – CIC: “The Appellate Authority is cautioned not to dismiss any appeals without reading the contents of the appeals or hearing the parties.” * Decision dated 12.11.2014 – Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi – “Passing orders in first appeal without hearing or sending hearing notice is illegal and will render the order invalid. The Commission sets aside the order of First Appellate Authority for violating RTI Act and breach of natural justice by denying the appellant a chance of presenting his case and by raising entirely a new defence which was never claimed. Commission finds it deserves action though the concerned officer retired from service and recommends Public Authority to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned FAO for acting totally against the RTI Act in this case.”
“… the respondents consider possibility of facilitating inspection before invoking Section 7(9) of RTI Act.”
* O.M. dated 11.11.2014 – Report of the Committee to evolve model formats for RTI Replies * O.M. dated 10.11.2014 – Guidelines on Internship for Undergraduates or graduates pursuing 5-year integrated course/Bachelor’s degree in Law under the CSS relating to RTI Act
* Decision dated 10.10.2014 – Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Jal Board – “The Commission … … recommends the Public Authority to treat the RTI application as a complaint and as a regulatory initiate action against the persons who had installed nonfunctioning meters.”
* O.M. dated 22.09.2014 – Guidelines on implementation of suo motu disclosure under Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005 – Compliance of > Madras High Court Judgement dated 17.09.2014 – PIO-Registrar (Admn.), High Court, Madras Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi & another – “… … the first respondent-Commission clearly erred in passing the impugned order in this Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to furnish the details to the second respondent as well as sending a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the second respondent.”
* Decision dated 20.08.2014 – Dr. Srinivas Vyas Vs. Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College & Hospital, GNCTD, New Delhi – “The Commission recommends the respondent authority to prepare a consolidated report of the appellant’s RTI applications and upload the same in their website, showing it as a case of misuse of RTI.”
* Decision dated 25.06.2014 – Mr. R.C. Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, GNCTD, Delhi – CIC advised the DOPT the framing of the guidelines for prevention of abuse of the RTI Act, 2005 * Decision dated 19.06.2014 – Lt. Gen. S.S. Dahiya (Retd.) Vs. CPIO, Appellate Authority, Air Hqrs., Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi – Air Force Sports Complex is a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005.
* Decision dated 21.05.2014 – Mr. Patel Shankarlal Ambalal Vs. CPIO & Supdt. of Post Offices, Godhara – “The mere pendency of investigation is not sufficient justification by itself for withholding the information.”
* Decision dated 15.05.2014 – Shri Hardeep Singh Sawhney Vs. Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi – Additional information can not be sought at the appeal stage.
* Decision dated 24.04.2014 – Shri Dipak J. Gandhi Vs. Supreme Court –  The public authority is not bound to compile information as per the format of the applicant.
* Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 – Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta – The impugned order dated 13th October, 2011 imposing penalty on the PIO was set aside..

Go to NEWS.

CIC can take up suo motu case   Thehansindia.com
March 24,2015
The Central Information Commission has directed the Ministry of Environment and Forests to inform the people through the Commission about impact and harmful effects on Mumbai people due to digging and burning of hills, report of study done or action taken, if any, or if any action is contemplated on this situation, and to find out from the authorities concerned whether such destruction of hills is permitted. …

3.7 lakh complaints against banks in five years, reveals RTI response  Dnaindia.com
March 16, 2015
Over 3.70 lakh complaints have been received by the banking ombudsman during last five years with highest number of complaints, reveals a Right to Information Act (RTI) response. …

You may like to click on any of the following links:-
Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI  Orders.
Service Law – News
CVC Circulars/Orders/Notifications
Vigilance Clearance
Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions
Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise and Subject-Wise
CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates
Public Sector Enterprises Service Rules and Other Rules/Circulars/Guidelines
Verification of SC/ST/OBC Caste Status or Claims of SCs, STs and OBCs

Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info@dtf.in.

INTERNET/IT ACT: Supreme Court strikes down Section 66A of IT Act which allowed arrests for objectionable content online

27/03/2015 Comments Off on INTERNET/IT ACT: Supreme Court strikes down Section 66A of IT Act which allowed arrests for objectionable content online

Supreme Court strikes down Section 66A of IT Act which allowed arrests for objectionable content online

Go to NEWS.

Supreme Court strikes down Section 66A of IT Act which allowed arrests for objectionable content online   Timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Mar 24, 2015 …
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declared Section 66A of Information Technology Act as unconstitutional and struck it down. …

You may like to click on any of the following links:-
* Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI / IRDA Circulars / Orders; News
* Privacy – News
* Vigilance Clearance
* Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions
* Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise and Subject-Wise
* CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates.

How offline internet could make the web more accessible to India’s telecom user base   Economictimes.indiatimes.com
3 Feb, 2015
Last December, when Google started offering YouTube videos in the offline mode — downloaded online, but watched offline — it opened up a whole new and perhaps even strange way to experience the internet — offline. …

Internet will ‘disappear’, says Google boss Eric Schmidt   Timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Jan 23, 2015
DAVOS, Switzerland: Google boss Eric Schmidt predicted on Thursday that the internet will soon be so pervasive in every facet of our lives that it will effectively “disappear” into the background. …

Note:- The above information is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. However, in case there has occurred any further event (reported in the media or not) with respect to any of the media news items, above, or there is any objection to any of the media news items, published in this website, it may please be brought to our notice for an appropriate decision to remove the existing news item/s or to publish the latest event, at info@dtf.in.

RTI: Angry over missing Govt file, Bombay HC directs FIR against officers; HC directs Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to upload its crime manual …

26/03/2015 Comments Off on RTI: Angry over missing Govt file, Bombay HC directs FIR against officers; HC directs Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to upload its crime manual …

Angry over missing Govt file, Bombay HC directs FIR against officers
HC directs Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to upload its crime manual on its website

Go to NEWS.

SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS/POSTS
* Office of the Attorney General of India is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. –  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 10.03.2015 – Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Office of Attorney General and R.K. Jain Vs. Office of Attorney General of India
* CIC Decision dated 18.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri Shyam Mohan Parashar, Faridabad Vs. Dte. of Training and Technical Education, Delhi – “The Commission directed the respondent authority to furnish information to the appellant as to the reasons for denial of Selection Grade to him as they are bound to give the same under Section 4(1)(c.) …” (Section 4(1)(c) – Disclosure of Reasons)
* O.M. dated 17.02.2015 – Guidelines for Public Information Officers/FAAs for supply of information and disposal of first appeal respectively – reiteration of  >>> RTI – Rules/Circulars
* Decision dated 05.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Pradeep Sharma Vs. Social Welfare Officer (respondent) – “The Commission reiterates that the Bar Council of Delhi should initiate proceedings against the complainant for alleged misconduct of sending a blank paper as RTI application and causing wastage of public money and time of Public Authority.” (Misuse of RTI/Action against Complainant)
* Decision dated 03.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Roshan Lal Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi – “The Commission after hearing the submissions made directs the PIO to obtain the information from the Society and furnish the same to the Complainant within thirty days of receipt of this order.” (Section 18)
* CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Roshan Lal Vs. Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare, GNCTD, Delhi – “The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority to inquire into the complaint of the complainant and provide the action taken report on the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.” (Section 18)
* CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri SKT Sherman Vs. RCS, GNCTD, New Delhi “The Commission also advises the appellant not to file repeated RTI applications which are aimless and useless. The Commission also advises the respondent authority not to share any personal information of the officers with the people like the appellant without invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act.” (Abuse of RTI)
* CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Satya Prakash, Delhi Vs. Lalit Kala Akademi, New Delhi – “The CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant copies of such agreements, if available on the records of the public authority, by severing any information of a personal nature concerning the advocates, such as their personal address, bank account and income tax details etc., under Section 10 of the RTI Act.” [Section 10]
* CIC Decision dated 30.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri N.B. Deshmukh, Thane Vs. CPIO Air India Ltd., Mumbai – The Commission cautioned the FAA to strictly follow the RTI regime while disposing of appeals and pass a speaking order, after taking due cognizance of merits of each case.
* CIC Decision dated 27.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri Harsh Vardhan Nayyar, New Delhi Vs. NDMC, New Delhi – “… names, addresses and phone nos./email addresses of all plaintiffs cannot be provided to the appellant as the same is third party information u/s 8(1)(j), the disclosure of which serves no larger public interest. … .. the appellant has neither suffered any detriment nor is there any public interest in seeking the information. Therefore, his plea for award of compensation is not accepted.”
* Copy of Minutes of the CIC Meeting dated 13.12.2011, reg. norms for according priority to appeals/complaints filed before the Commission (As on CIC website-01.02.15)
* CIC Decision dated 21.01.2015 on Appeal from Ms. Harpreet Kaur Vs. Delhi Subordinate Selection Board, Delhi – “… the candidate with regard to his/her own answer sheet can obtain the copy of the same as a matter of right, but with regard to the answer sheet of third party, unless the candidate is able to show that large public interest is involved, the same cannot be furnished unless the candidate from whom it is sought for permits the same.” The Commission, therefore, directed to follow the procedure for supplying third party information U/S 11 of RTI Act, by seeking the opinion of the third party and taking a final decision by the PIO in this respect. [Sections 3, 8(1)(j), 11 and 19(3)] 
* CIC Decision dated 14.01.2015 on Complaint from Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. National Green Tribunal, New Delhi – The Commission recommended change of officer to be designated as FAA.
* CIC Decision dated 07.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri S.N. Shukla, Lucknow Vs. Department of Justice, Govt. of India, New Delhi – The CIC has directed the Law Ministry to disclose the Cabinet note about the decision to establish a National Judicial Appointments Commission, saying that such documents are not secret and should thus be made public.
* CIC Decision dated 17.12.2014 – Mr. Francis Assis Fernandes, Indore Vs. CPIO & Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Ujjain [Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j)] * Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 – The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. – Hon’ble Delhi High Court: “I find no infirmity with the impugned order in so far as it directs that the records may be maintained in a manner so that the information regarding the period for which the judgments are pending after being reserved, is available with the petitioner in future.” [Sections 4(1)(b), 7(9) and 19(8)(a)(iv)]
* Decision dated 01.12.2014 – Attar Singh Kaushik Vs. Education Deptt., GNCTD, Delhi – CIC: “The Commission after hearing the submissions made directs the PIO to conduct an inquiry u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act to find out reasons and officer responsible for delay in payment of remuneration to the Appellant for nearly three years, for initiating disciplinary action against such officer. …”
* Decision dated 25.11.2014 – Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi – CIC: “The Appellate Authority is cautioned not to dismiss any appeals without reading the contents of the appeals or hearing the parties.” * Decision dated 12.11.2014 – Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi – “Passing orders in first appeal without hearing or sending hearing notice is illegal and will render the order invalid. The Commission sets aside the order of First Appellate Authority for violating RTI Act and breach of natural justice by denying the appellant a chance of presenting his case and by raising entirely a new defence which was never claimed. Commission finds it deserves action though the concerned officer retired from service and recommends Public Authority to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned FAO for acting totally against the RTI Act in this case.”
“… the respondents consider possibility of facilitating inspection before invoking Section 7(9) of RTI Act.”
* O.M. dated 11.11.2014 – Report of the Committee to evolve model formats for RTI Replies * O.M. dated 10.11.2014 – Guidelines on Internship for Undergraduates or graduates pursuing 5-year integrated course/Bachelor’s degree in Law under the CSS relating to RTI Act
* Decision dated 10.10.2014 – Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Jal Board – “The Commission … … recommends the Public Authority to treat the RTI application as a complaint and as a regulatory initiate action against the persons who had installed nonfunctioning meters.”
* O.M. dated 22.09.2014 – Guidelines on implementation of suo motu disclosure under Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005 – Compliance of > Madras High Court Judgement dated 17.09.2014 – PIO-Registrar (Admn.), High Court, Madras Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi & another – “… … the first respondent-Commission clearly erred in passing the impugned order in this Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to furnish the details to the second respondent as well as sending a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the second respondent.”
* Decision dated 20.08.2014 – Dr. Srinivas Vyas Vs. Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College & Hospital, GNCTD, New Delhi – “The Commission recommends the respondent authority to prepare a consolidated report of the appellant’s RTI applications and upload the same in their website, showing it as a case of misuse of RTI.”
* Decision dated 25.06.2014 – Mr. R.C. Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, GNCTD, Delhi – CIC advised the DOPT the framing of the guidelines for prevention of abuse of the RTI Act, 2005 * Decision dated 19.06.2014 – Lt. Gen. S.S. Dahiya (Retd.) Vs. CPIO, Appellate Authority, Air Hqrs., Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi – Air Force Sports Complex is a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005.
* Decision dated 21.05.2014 – Mr. Patel Shankarlal Ambalal Vs. CPIO & Supdt. of Post Offices, Godhara – “The mere pendency of investigation is not sufficient justification by itself for withholding the information.”
* Decision dated 15.05.2014 – Shri Hardeep Singh Sawhney Vs. Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi – Additional information can not be sought at the appeal stage.
* Decision dated 24.04.2014 – Shri Dipak J. Gandhi Vs. Supreme Court –  The public authority is not bound to compile information as per the format of the applicant.
* Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 – Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta – The impugned order dated 13th October, 2011 imposing penalty on the PIO was set aside..

Go to NEWS.

Angry over missing Govt file, Bombay HC directs FIR against officers   Zeenews.india.com
March 1, 2015
Mumbai: Observing that information under Right to Information Act (RTI) cannot be denied to a citizen, the Bombay High Court has directed Deputy Secretary of Urban Development Department in Maharashtra to register an FIR against officers responsible for a ‘missing’ file. …

HC directs Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to upload its crime manual on its website   Economictimes.indiatimes.com
Feb 25, 2015
MADURAI: The Madras High Court bench here has directed the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption to upload its crime manual on its website within six weeks, rejecing DVAC’s contention that it was a privileged document and could not be made public. …

You may like to click on any of the following links:-
Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI  Orders.
Service Law – News
CVC Circulars/Orders/Notifications
Vigilance Clearance
Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions
Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise and Subject-Wise
CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates
Public Sector Enterprises Service Rules and Other Rules/Circulars/Guidelines
Verification of SC/ST/OBC Caste Status or Claims of SCs, STs and OBCs

Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info@dtf.in.

RTI: In Ajmer university, it’s RTI versus RTI; No access to Internet, prisoner demands PIN codes through RTI …

26/03/2015 Comments Off on RTI: In Ajmer university, it’s RTI versus RTI; No access to Internet, prisoner demands PIN codes through RTI …

In Ajmer university, it’s RTI versus RTI
No access to Internet, prisoner demands PIN codes through RTI
Order against NGT Registrar General stayed
Priyanka Gandhi requests Himachal govt not to disclose her property details

Go to NEWS.

SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS/POSTS
* Office of the Attorney General of India is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. –  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 10.03.2015 – Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Office of Attorney General and R.K. Jain Vs. Office of Attorney General of India
* CIC Decision dated 04.03.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Jitendra Anandrao Chauhan, Kolhapur Central Prison Vs. Department of Posts, New Delhi –  The Department of Posts has been requested to look into the issue and take appropriate steps to provide access to PIN code to prisoners lodged in various jails. (Larger Public Interest)
* CIC Decision dated 03.03.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Baladevan Rangaraju Vs. PIO, Delhi Commission for Women, GNCTD, New Delhi (Non-Disclosure Agreement, Section 10)
* CIC Decision dated 02.03.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Amal Kumar Bhattacharya, Vadodara Vs. Medical Council of India, New Delhi (Voluminous Records, Section 10)
* CIC Decision dated 26.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri Anbuvendhan, Chennai Vs. the CPIO, National Commission for Scheduled Castes, New Delhi [Section 5(4)]
* CIC Decision dated 18.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri Shyam Mohan Parashar, Faridabad Vs. Dte. of Training and Technical Education, Delhi – “The Commission directed the respondent authority to furnish information to the appellant as to the reasons for denial of Selection Grade to him as they are bound to give the same under Section 4(1)(c.) …” (Section 4(1)(c) – Disclosure of Reasons)
* O.M. dated 17.02.2015 – Guidelines for Public Information Officers/FAAs for supply of information and disposal of first appeal respectively – reiteration of  >>> RTI – Rules/Circulars
* Decision dated 05.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Pradeep Sharma Vs. Social Welfare Officer (respondent) – “The Commission reiterates that the Bar Council of Delhi should initiate proceedings against the complainant for alleged misconduct of sending a blank paper as RTI application and causing wastage of public money and time of Public Authority.” (Misuse of RTI/Action against Complainant)
* Decision dated 03.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Roshan Lal Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi – “The Commission after hearing the submissions made directs the PIO to obtain the information from the Society and furnish the same to the Complainant within thirty days of receipt of this order.” (Section 18)
* CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Roshan Lal Vs. Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare, GNCTD, Delhi – “The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority to inquire into the complaint of the complainant and provide the action taken report on the same within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.” (Section 18)
* CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri SKT Sherman Vs. RCS, GNCTD, New Delhi “The Commission also advises the appellant not to file repeated RTI applications which are aimless and useless. The Commission also advises the respondent authority not to share any personal information of the officers with the people like the appellant without invoking Section 11 of the RTI Act.” (Abuse of RTI)
* CIC Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Satya Prakash, Delhi Vs. Lalit Kala Akademi, New Delhi – “The CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant copies of such agreements, if available on the records of the public authority, by severing any information of a personal nature concerning the advocates, such as their personal address, bank account and income tax details etc., under Section 10 of the RTI Act.” [Section 10]
* CIC Decision dated 30.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri N.B. Deshmukh, Thane Vs. CPIO Air India Ltd., Mumbai – The Commission cautioned the FAA to strictly follow the RTI regime while disposing of appeals and pass a speaking order, after taking due cognizance of merits of each case.
* CIC Decision dated 27.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri Harsh Vardhan Nayyar, New Delhi Vs. NDMC, New Delhi – “… names, addresses and phone nos./email addresses of all plaintiffs cannot be provided to the appellant as the same is third party information u/s 8(1)(j), the disclosure of which serves no larger public interest. … .. the appellant has neither suffered any detriment nor is there any public interest in seeking the information. Therefore, his plea for award of compensation is not accepted.”
* Copy of Minutes of the CIC Meeting dated 13.12.2011, reg. norms for according priority to appeals/complaints filed before the Commission (As on CIC website-01.02.15)
* CIC Decision dated 21.01.2015 on Appeal from Ms. Harpreet Kaur Vs. Delhi Subordinate Selection Board, Delhi – “… the candidate with regard to his/her own answer sheet can obtain the copy of the same as a matter of right, but with regard to the answer sheet of third party, unless the candidate is able to show that large public interest is involved, the same cannot be furnished unless the candidate from whom it is sought for permits the same.” The Commission, therefore, directed to follow the procedure for supplying third party information U/S 11 of RTI Act, by seeking the opinion of the third party and taking a final decision by the PIO in this respect. [Sections 3, 8(1)(j), 11 and 19(3)] 
* CIC Decision dated 14.01.2015 on Complaint from Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. National Green Tribunal, New Delhi – The Commission recommended change of officer to be designated as FAA.
* CIC Decision dated 07.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri S.N. Shukla, Lucknow Vs. Department of Justice, Govt. of India, New Delhi – The CIC has directed the Law Ministry to disclose the Cabinet note about the decision to establish a National Judicial Appointments Commission, saying that such documents are not secret and should thus be made public.
* CIC Decision dated 17.12.2014 – Mr. Francis Assis Fernandes, Indore Vs. CPIO & Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Ujjain [Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j)] * Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 – The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. – Hon’ble Delhi High Court: “I find no infirmity with the impugned order in so far as it directs that the records may be maintained in a manner so that the information regarding the period for which the judgments are pending after being reserved, is available with the petitioner in future.” [Sections 4(1)(b), 7(9) and 19(8)(a)(iv)]
* Decision dated 01.12.2014 – Attar Singh Kaushik Vs. Education Deptt., GNCTD, Delhi – CIC: “The Commission after hearing the submissions made directs the PIO to conduct an inquiry u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act to find out reasons and officer responsible for delay in payment of remuneration to the Appellant for nearly three years, for initiating disciplinary action against such officer. …”
* Decision dated 25.11.2014 – Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi – CIC: “The Appellate Authority is cautioned not to dismiss any appeals without reading the contents of the appeals or hearing the parties.” * Decision dated 12.11.2014 – Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi – “Passing orders in first appeal without hearing or sending hearing notice is illegal and will render the order invalid. The Commission sets aside the order of First Appellate Authority for violating RTI Act and breach of natural justice by denying the appellant a chance of presenting his case and by raising entirely a new defence which was never claimed. Commission finds it deserves action though the concerned officer retired from service and recommends Public Authority to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned FAO for acting totally against the RTI Act in this case.”
“… the respondents consider possibility of facilitating inspection before invoking Section 7(9) of RTI Act.”
* O.M. dated 11.11.2014 – Report of the Committee to evolve model formats for RTI Replies * O.M. dated 10.11.2014 – Guidelines on Internship for Undergraduates or graduates pursuing 5-year integrated course/Bachelor’s degree in Law under the CSS relating to RTI Act
* Decision dated 10.10.2014 – Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Jal Board – “The Commission … … recommends the Public Authority to treat the RTI application as a complaint and as a regulatory initiate action against the persons who had installed nonfunctioning meters.”
* O.M. dated 22.09.2014 – Guidelines on implementation of suo motu disclosure under Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005 – Compliance of > Madras High Court Judgement dated 17.09.2014 – PIO-Registrar (Admn.), High Court, Madras Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi & another – “… … the first respondent-Commission clearly erred in passing the impugned order in this Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to furnish the details to the second respondent as well as sending a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the second respondent.”
* Decision dated 20.08.2014 – Dr. Srinivas Vyas Vs. Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College & Hospital, GNCTD, New Delhi – “The Commission recommends the respondent authority to prepare a consolidated report of the appellant’s RTI applications and upload the same in their website, showing it as a case of misuse of RTI.”
* Decision dated 25.06.2014 – Mr. R.C. Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, GNCTD, Delhi – CIC advised the DOPT the framing of the guidelines for prevention of abuse of the RTI Act, 2005 * Decision dated 19.06.2014 – Lt. Gen. S.S. Dahiya (Retd.) Vs. CPIO, Appellate Authority, Air Hqrs., Vayu Bhawan, New Delhi – Air Force Sports Complex is a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005.
* Decision dated 21.05.2014 – Mr. Patel Shankarlal Ambalal Vs. CPIO & Supdt. of Post Offices, Godhara – “The mere pendency of investigation is not sufficient justification by itself for withholding the information.”
* Decision dated 15.05.2014 – Shri Hardeep Singh Sawhney Vs. Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi – Additional information can not be sought at the appeal stage.
* Decision dated 24.04.2014 – Shri Dipak J. Gandhi Vs. Supreme Court –  The public authority is not bound to compile information as per the format of the applicant.
* Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 – Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta – The impugned order dated 13th October, 2011 imposing penalty on the PIO was set aside..

Go to NEWS.

In Ajmer university, it’s RTI versus RTI   Timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Mar 14, 2015
AJMER: It’s literally Right To Information (RTI) ‘war’ at Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University (MDS) here. …

No access to Internet, prisoner demands PIN codes through RTI   Business-standard.com
March 11, 2015
A poor prisoner in Kolhapur in Maharashtra had to approach the CIC for a simple piece of information – the PIN code directory of postal department – as he did not have access to Internet to know the correct code for sending letters to his family. …
More: CIC Decision dated 04.03.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Jitendra Anandrao Chauhan, Kolhapur Central Prison Vs. Department of Posts, New Delhi –  The Department of Posts has been requested to look into the issue and take appropriate steps to provide access to PIN code to prisoners lodged in various jails. (Larger Public Interest)

You may like to click on any of the following links:-
Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI  Orders.
Service Law – News
CVC Circulars/Orders/Notifications
Vigilance Clearance
Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions
Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise and Subject-Wise
CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates
Public Sector Enterprises Service Rules and Other Rules/Circulars/Guidelines
Verification of SC/ST/OBC Caste Status or Claims of SCs, STs and OBCs

Order against NGT Registrar General stayed   Thehindu.com
Feb 25, 2015
An order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) passing adverse remarks against the Registrar General of the National Green Tribunal was stayed by the Delhi High Court on Tuesday. …
See the CIC’s Order dated 14.01.2015 >>> CIC Decision dated 14.01.2015 on Complaint from Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. National Green Tribunal, New Delhi – The Commission recommended change of officer to be designated as FAA.”

Priyanka Gandhi requests Himachal govt not to disclose her property details   Indiatvnews.com
Feb 24, 2015
New Delhi: Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s daughter Priyanka Gandhi Vadra has written a letter to Himachal Pradesh government requesting not to disclose the details of her property she owns in the state. …

Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info@dtf.in.

Copyright DTF.in 2006-2019, All Rights Reserved | Developed & Maintained by Star INXS