Commission records admonition for illegally insisting on Aadhar Card etc. to prove citizenship, identity and address, and also demanding proof of citizenship. Denial of information for lack of Aadhaar card will be a serious breach of right, which was guaranteed by the RTI Act
D K Bose Vs. PIO (Central Information Commission) CIC held that In fact, being a public body concerned with public activity like football, the Delhi Soccer Association (DSA) should have voluntarily disclosed entire information about it, including the bits and pieces asked by the appellant in this and several other appeals, and fulfill its obligation […]
Shri R K Jain Vs. Indian Bank Association (IBA) (Central Information Commission) Taking into account that the IBA performs functions as State agency and its majority control vests in Government of India appointed Managing Directors of Public Sector Banks, the IBA qualifies to be a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, therefore, directs the IBA […]
Commission is convinced with the averment of the Appellant for having suffered gross detriment due to the delay of over 2 years in providing the information to him. Appellant deserves to be compensated on this account.
Judicial proceedings and records thereof are public records and the appellant has a right to secure desired information. After hearing the appellant and perusal of record, the Commission deems it fit to direct the respondent PIO to offer inspection of the judicial file to the appellant on a mutual convenient day and time.
The Commission however felt that there was palpable lack of communication/ internal co-ordination within the Public Authority that needs to be revisited and strengthened within the Public Authority itself.
Mr. Venkatesh Nayak Vs CPIO & DCIT (OSD) (Central Information Commission) When a Public Authority is largely funded by the Government and performs the duty of bringing back unaccounted money unlawfully kept in bank accounts abroad, it was essentially performing a Public Duty and thus every citizen has every right to know about certain information […]
The appellant sought to know: a) how many persons exchanged old notes for new notes at Pinto Park branch and also in 3 Wing Branch of Post Office in Air Force area, during the period 08.11.2016 to 25.11.2016 after demonetization; b) total amount of new currency issued for the period 08.11.2016 to 01.12.2016 from both the post offices; c) how many individuals exchanged the currency notes by producing their respective ID cards for the period 08.11.2016 to 01.12.2016 and sought addresses of all such individuals.
he public authorities working under the aegis of Union Government shall make public: (a). Year wise Numeric data of pending as well as disposed Departmental / Vigilance / Court cases against their employees initiated at instance of the employer;(b). Rank/Post held by the charge sheeted employee; without disclosure of identity of the individual.(c). Details of outcome in terms of finding ie. exoneration or found guilty.
The Court directed the department to form a Vigilance Cell to ensure that there is a monitoring authority, which would monitor various policy decisions which are taken. It also directed the setting up of a self auditing mechanism to ensure that the income tax assessees are not made to run from pillar to post for the purpose of redressal of their grievances.
