Central Information Commissioner while considering an appeal against Rajasthan based ARID Forest Research Instituteホノミ漢方薬 チョウケイ錠「加味逍遥散」360錠×5個【剤盛堂薬品】【第2類医薬品】【4987474447219】【送料無料！】【メール便?ネコポス不可】, under the Right to Information Act observed that【便器は全品送料無料】アメージュZ シャワートイレ ECO4 床排水 便器【HBC-Z10ST】 機能部【DT-Z183TN】 Z3T 寒冷地?ヒーター?水抜併用方式 手洗付 INAX LIXIL?リ, the thesis submitted by a research student is not a personal or third party information and cannot be withheld by an Institution under the Right to Information Actもみじ 盆栽 小品盆栽. It was an appeal where the appellant sought for a copy of pre-thesis submission seminar details of a researcherその他 EBM 18-8 蛇口付 スープ寸胴鍋 60 EBM-3589000, copy of her thesis[ヨネックス バドミントン シャトル]エアロセンサ 700／AEROSENSA 700（AS-700）『1箱（10ダース・10本・120球入）』, all correspondence related to research workアクリルバードゲージカバー 観音開き式 W500×H600×D480 小ワイドタイプ【鳥かごケース、鳥、オウム、インコ、九官鳥、小動物、防塵、防音、保温、アクリルケース、バードケース、透明アクリル板, rules and regulation of research work and related records【EGD271】エバニュー（EVERNEW）交換袋 EGD261用.
Appellant☆ 特選盛込皿 ☆ 華唐草 長角大盛皿 [ 95 x 15.5 x 4.5cm 3100g ] | 盛り皿 盛皿 人気 おすすめ フルーツ皿 パーティー パスタ皿 食器 業務用 飲食店 カフェ うつ, while presenting her case before the Central Information Commissioner contented that【取寄せ】 ディズニー Disney 腕時計 時計 うでどけい とけい ウォッチ メンズ 大人 男性用 [並行輸入品] Invicta Disney Limited Edition Automati, her co-researcher cunningly and without the knowledge or consent of the appellant submitted the work of the appellant as her workリネンチェック?羽毛布団セット-ベッドタイプ（セミダブル）. In order to prove the allegations, appellant sought for a copy of relevant documents such as thesis work etc. However, the Public Information Officer rejected the claim on the ground of “third party” information.
After considering arguments as well as the other facts in this case, Central Information Commission observed that, “one of the purposes of seminar of pre-submission and viva voce of Ph.D candidate is to ascertain whether research work of candidate is original and the work done by the candidate only. It is not third party information. Moreover, there is a public interest in knowing the originality of otherwise of the thesis, especially when a serious allegation of appropriating the research work is made by the co-researcher, it is the duty of the academic institution to clear the allegation after due verification.”
Central Information Commissioner further directed the Institute to treat the RTI application as a complaint against the researcher, whose documents have been demanded by the applicant and carry out an inquiry into the allegations.
Read the Full Judgment of Meeta Sharma v. PIO, ARID Forest Research Institution, decided on 30-03-2015
Central Information Commissioner while considering an appeal from Shri Pフランティシェク・ハラマ FH-1694 花瓶 朝・昼・夜 uranit(ウランガラス)【楽ギフ_包装選択】【楽ギフ_のし宛書】.R『わたしの讃歌』出産祝還暦桃の節句マイネームインポエム名前詩毛筆文字命名紙命名札百寿命名書お雛祭り桃の節句端午の節句短歌名前詩歌誕生日古希喜寿敬老金婚式ブライダル引き出物名前旗命名軸七五三. Chandol held that【強力ラジウム！ゲルマニウム入浴器】 玉川の湯 「癒」 【大判】 – 『玉川の湯 癒』を家庭のお風呂に沈めれば、「ラジウム」「ラドンガス」「マイナスイオン」「遠赤外線効果」で身体を芯から温めます。【s, any information sought whether similar treatment has been given to all the employees of Central Council of Homeopathy for the same action or inaction relates to transparency in the Council and involves public interestビューモント ウィスキーメジャースタンド ロータリー式 6本立1 1／2oz 245×H545最大H630mm ＜白＞. Therefore【ポイント5倍】 オーツカ光学 (OOTSUKA) 照明拡大鏡 NEOLIGHT-MS 8倍 (マグネットスタンド式) (NEOLGHT-MS-8) 〈ネオライト〉, Central Information Commissioner directed Central Council of Homeopathy to provide information in the matter to the appellant【ポイント20倍】Bally（バリー） ブリーフケース TAJEST-MD 261 CHOCOLATE RED／WHITE.
EarlierBlu-ray・DVD 全巻購入特典 うしおととら とらフィギュア 徳間ジャパンコミュニケーションズ【中古】, appellant sought information vide his RTI Application dated 04勝?新 メソッド 古田新太編「体」 [DVD] 新品.02ブラックムートン【BlackMouton】コットンメランジサロペット（65538）【ワンピース | オールインワン・サロペット】.2014 regarding action taken by the office against the officials who came late to office in respect to an Office Memorandum dated 09送料無料(沖縄離島除く) amadana サーバー アマダナ サーバー クリティア【メーカー直送品】 ポイント2倍 豪華特典付きアマダナ ウォーターサーバー amadana × CLYTIA [HC1.09.2013 and the Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that, the Office Memorandum mentioned herein above are addressed only to the appellant. In such cases, there is no point in taking action against any other personal or staffs who comes late to the office.
It was contented by the appellant before the CIC that, five casual leaves (CL) were deducted against him for late coming, and he wanted to know that, whether similar action taken against other employees who comes late to the office. Accordingly, he filed the application under Right to Information Act.
However, PIO submitted before the Central Information Commissioner that, the appellant’s application was referring to a specific Office Memorandum where, it is specifically issued to the appellant. Therefore, there is no relevance in taking action against other employees for late arrival on the basis on the Office Memorandum mentioned in the RTI Application. Hence, it was informed by the Public Information Office that, they were not in a position to provide any information to the appellant.
CIC after hearing both the parties came to a conclusion that, the information sought relates to transparency in the Council and also involves public interest, whether similar treatment has been meted out to the other employees for the same lapse/action. CIC further directed the respondent, i.e., Central Council of Homeopathy to provide complete information in with respect to action taken by them for similar lapse of late coming to office by other employees.
However, the respondent is not supposed to disclose the names of such employees against which, they have taken any similar action. CIC further directed that, in case no similar action is taken against any employees for late coming, then proper justification for the same shall be provided to the appellant.
Read the Full Judgment of PR Chandol v. Central Council of Homeopathy decided on 28-04-2015
While considering an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, seeking certain information relating to the passport issued to his wife by the Regional Passport Officer, Passport officer rejects husband’s RTI application, and informed the applicant that, the info cannot be furnished. Such information is not liable to be disclosed in view of the provision of Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act which prohibits it.
After his appeal was rejected by the first appellate authority, the Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, applicant had appealed the Central Information Commissioner, and had approached the High Court. The High Court in its order noted that even if that issue of appeal before the Central Information Commissioner is kept aside, the Passport Officer was right in his stand. “The reasons indicated are justified in view of the provisions contained in the Right to Information Act. Hence, the same does not call for interference.”
Section 8(1) (j) in the Right to Information Act, 2005
Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.
The Right to Information Act, 2005 says nothing contained in the RTI Act will apply on the organization which are listed in the second schedule of the Section 24, provided that the information (any material in any form) held by or under the control of the public authorities related to allegations of corruption and human rights violation shall not be covered under the exemption.
Recent inclusion of CBI in the list of exempted organizations is one of the most debated as it primarily deals with corruption cases which are not covered in the protection given to organizations under Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Subsequently, a two-member committee constituted by the CIC has said that such decisions (inclusion of CBI in the list of exempted organizations) to shield organizations from the transparency law should not be the result of “political convenience or other extraneous factors“.
Section 24: Act not to apply to certain organizations —
- Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organizations to that Government: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub‑section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the Central Information Commission, and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty five days from the date of the receipt of request.
- The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, amend the Schedule by including therein any other intelligence or security organization established by that Government or omitting there from any organization already specified therein and on the publication of such notification, such organization shall be deemed to be included in or, as the case may be, omitted from the Schedule.
- Every notification issued under sub‑section (2) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
- Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organizations, being organizations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub‑section: Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such information shall be provided within forty five days from the date of the receipt of request.
- Every notification issued under sub‑section (4) shall be laid before the State Legislature.