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
Justice Vibhu Bakhru of Delhi High Court, while setting aside a CIC (Central Information Commission) order, asking the apex court to maintain details of medical reimbursement availed by each judges of the apex court during last three years and such information shall be furnished to the information seekers. Since, Medical records of reimbursements of judges’ does not serve any public interest, Delhi High Court held that, such information cannot be disclosed under RTI Act.
High Court while terming the CIC (Central Information Commission) ruling as “erroneous” and said that, “medical records are not liable to be disclosed unless it is shown that the same is in larger public interest, and in the present case, the CIC has completely overlooked this aspect of the matter.”
It was a case where, the apex court responded to the RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal that, Supreme Court does not keep records of medical reimbursement of individual judges and, declined to furnish him the information under the transparency Act. Subsequently, Subhash Chandra Agrawal moved an appeal before the Central Information Commission, seeking directions to the Supreme Court to make necessary arrangements to maintain details of medical reimbursement made to judges.
However, the Supreme Court refused to furnish information, citing a stay by Delhi High Court in a similar case, prompting Agarwal to once again approach Central Information Commission. Subsequently, Central Information Commission directed the apex court to place the order before the Secretary General of the Supreme Court so that he can ensure its compliance.
Supreme Court subsequently moved to High Court in appeal, and the Court stressed that, “any information relating to the medical records would be personal information which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the Act. The medical bills would indicate the treatment and/or medicines required by individuals and this would clearly be an invasion of the privacy.”
In two different cases, the Information Commissioners Shri R K Jain and Shri Raghubir Singh have made a common recommendation to the Department of Personnel and Training for implementing postal stamps as a mode of payment of RTI fee thus reducing hassles of applicants. If this recommendation is accepted by the Centre, then people seeking information under RTI Act may now be able to use postal stamps as application fee.
Right to Information Act mandate every applicant to pay a fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) along with RTI Application either in cash, if the applicant files the application in person or in bank demand draft (DD) or Indian Postal Order in case the application is filed by Post.
It was observed by the Commission that, some authorities like Army and Indian air force refuse to accept applications drawn in favour of Accounts Officer despite clear directives of the Department of Personnel and Training causing hassles to applicants.
Commission finds merit in the appellant’s submissions that, the postal department’s recommendation for use of ordinary postal stamps for payment of RTI fee is both practical and user friendly and would urge the Department of Personnel and Training to consider this at the earliest. It was further observed by the Commission that, Government of Tamil Nadu has already allowed payment of RTI fee by affixing court fee stamps.
In this regard, Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu also issued an exhaustive order on the issue recommending to Department of Personnel and Training to avail the opportunity of giving New Year Gift to the citizens by permitting and publicising the use of ordinary postal stamps for the payment of RTI fee. Commissioner further opined that, “accepting postal stamps for RTI fee would resolve many difficulties in payment, besides preventing wastage of public money in returning or rejecting the IPOs or spending much larger amounts than Rs 10/- (Rupees Ten Only), for realising Rs 10/- (Rupees Ten Only), and avoidable litigation.”
At present individuals are exempted from disclosure of tax information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. In a recent judgment the High Court of Delhi, ordered that, even Private Limited Companies are exempted from disclosure of tax information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005.
While hearing the case, Court observed that, “The expression individual must be construed in an expansive sense and would include a body of individuals. The said exemption would be available even to unincorporated entities as also private, closely-held undertakings which are, in substance, alter egos of their shareholders.”
A private limited company is a company with a minimum paid-up share capital of Rs.1 lakh. Such a company shall have minimum 2 and maximum 50 shareholders, and it has limited liability. It cannot sell shares to the public nor transfer them freely between shareholders.
Court ruled that, confidential information of individuals cannot be disclosed unless it is in public interest. Court was hearing an appeal filed by Escorts Ltd, Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre and their promoters Naresh Trehan and Rajan Nanda, against a 2009 Central Information Commission (CIC) ruling that allowed disclosure of their income-tax assessment records under RTI.
Central Information Commission (CIC) had ruled that the Escorts Group had failed to explain “how disclosure of information relating to commercial confidence would harm their competitive interest”. Central Information Commission’s (CIC) order was in response to a request made by Rakesh Gupta, an informer of the income-tax department. Gupta had alleged tax evasion of over Rs.350 crore by the Escorts Group and sought tax records of the group and its promoters in public interest.
However, Delhi high court, said Central Information Commission (CIC) was wrong to ask tax authorities to disclose information to informers to enable them to bring instances of tax evasion to the notice of authorities. In Court’s view, this reasoning is flawed as it would tend to subvert the assessment process rather than aid it. If this idea is carried to its logical end, it would enable several busy bodies to interfere in assessment proceedings and throw up their interpretation of law and facts as to how an assessment ought to be carried out.
All the civic agencies were “sensitized” to develop model public toilets, the Delhi high court said. The court asked the municipal corporations and the cantonment board to form concrete proposals and clear-cut time schedule to build model toilets in area adopted by each of them. The court also said that there must be better toilets especially for women who come up in population. As revealed by the RTI ( Right to information), Lucknow, capital of Uttar Pradesh, 472 km from Delhi, doesn’t have public toilets for women and has a toilet for every 58,844 people.
Unhygienic sanitation spreads diseases like- cholera, intestinal worms, trachoma, tyhoid etc; to name a few throughout the society. Human beings are infected with hookworm parasites by direct contact, such as walking bare foot, in soil that contains human feces. These parasites cause bladder and kidney infections.
India’s first national wide program for rural sanitation, “The Central Rural Sanitation”, programme was launched and need for toilets were seeded in the minds of people in 1986. Sikkim has become the first state to achieve 100 percent rural sanitation coverage. In a survey conducted by WHO (World Health Organisation) and UNICEF (United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund) in 2008, 2.6 billion people 40% of world’s population had no access to improved sanitation facilities. Another survey conducted by WSP Global Inc. through an initiative named “Economics of Sanitation” in the year 2010 showed, an estimate that 1 in every 10 deaths in Indian villages is linked with poor sanitation.
United nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon on World Toilet Day (19 November 2014) said, one out of three women worldwide lack access to safe toilets. It is a moral imperative to end open defecation to ensure women and girls are not at risk of assault and rape simply because lack of sanitation facility.Adding to this, girls are often forced to miss schools or even drop out of education due to lack of sanitation facilities in the school. The individual household latrine coverage has nearly tripled from just 21.9% at national level as reported by the census in 2001 for around 68% in 2010 according to the latest data reported by the districts to the department of Drinking Water and Sanitation through online monitoring system.
Loopholes still surface with many of the fundamental concepts of the RTI even after 60 years of its implementation. Amongst many problems that persist, one of the major problems is about to what extents can person accesses another person’s information.
According to section 2 (n) of the RTI Act, 2005, ‘third party’ means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a ‘public authority’. In Shri Rajender Kumar Arya vs. Dy. Commissioner of Police (DCP). The commission ruled that they now have the decision of the Madras High Court in the context of right to privacy in light of the RTI Act. High Court observed that with the advent of the Right to Information Act, section 3 of the Act entitles a citizen to the right of information. Section 4(2) of the said Act obliges a public authority to disclose information to common people. Even personal information or information, which may otherwise amount to an invasion of privacy, may also be disclosed if the larger public interest so warrants. The court in fact came to the conclusion that the right to privacy virtually fades out in front of the ‘Right to Information’ and ‘larger public interest’. The contrary was decided in the present case.
A CIC directive to the TRAI was set aside by Justice V Jain to furnish the records to the applicant. The applicant argued that he was in need of those details to defend himself since his daughter-in-law had accused him. Justice Jain said that under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, with whom the subscriber communicates or sends or receives messages are his/her personal affairs and disclosure of which is bound to impinge on his privacy.The regulatory body argued that the CIC order will compromise the individual’s privacy because if these details are available, any individual will be able to access call and SMS details of any citizen by simply filing an RTI with TRAI. The power to call for information can be exercised by TRAI only if such information is required for discharge of functions assigned to it. TRAI disagreed with the CIC order and stated that under section 11 of the Act information’s like names, call details, SMSs copies etc are not amongst the functions assigned to TRAI .HC agreed and stated that if such information can be requisitioned by TRAI, it would result in a situation where by knowing with whom one communication is taking place where it is able to violate with impunity the fundamental right of a citizen to his privacy.