Home » News » Headlines-1 » RTI: RTI between spouses … Applicant awarded Rs 52,000 compensation from information commission …

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

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. 

Check Also


CGHS: Linking of CGHS Beneficiary ID with ABHA; Billing/Bills of CGHS empanelled Hospitals …

CGHS NEWS Linking of CGHS Beneficiary ID with ABHA (Ayshman Bharat Health Account) ID Billing/Bills …

One comment

  1. When multiple registered complaints against Directorate of Secondary Education, Ranchi, Jharkhand, regarding snatching of service tenure for more than six years of a Jharkhand Government school teacher failed to yield a justified response, I raised appropriate RTI queries to DARPG. Queries and Appeal have failed to yield satisfactory reply, then this issue is raised to Honorable CIC. It’s true that my all registered complaints were forwarded to appropriate competent authority, but the opposite party here,Directorate of Secondary Education, Ranchi, Jharkhand, has maintained complete silence. I specifically asked DARPG to inform in such condition when DARPG directives are flouted then what is DARPG’s line of action. I’m indeed spell bound to see Honorable CIC’s decision in disposal of my appeal that “DARPG is neither concerned or can do anything as the case relate to state government service matter”, What’s justification for provision of registration of complaint about state government issue is better known to competent authorities. I seek your guidance regarding Honorable CIC’s decision.
    Note: The author is entirely responsible for the contents.