In a rare case CIC SM has imposed full penalty of Rs.25,000/- on CPIO - Mr. Vijay G. Belurgikar, Asst. General Manager, IDRBT, Hyderabad for knowingly refusing to provide information Under RTI Act 2005. It is interesting to learn that the respondent CPIO had "communicated to this Commission that the RTI Act is not applicable to IDRBT as it is not a "Public Authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.". However, the CIC SM quoting two separate High Court Orders decided to impose full penalty on the CPIO. Check link for decision. http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SM_C_2009_000665_M_64771.pdf A peek at their website at the following link states that it was established by the RBI. http://www.idrbt.ac.in/ An earlier decision, in a similar case, ruled that the body established by a Public Authority fails to be a PA U/s 2(h). Since access to most of the information on the website of IDRBT is difficult and links seem to fail, it is still not clear, if the respondent is indeed a PA. Would the respondent now approach the High Court? Manoj (I am neither the applicant nor the respondent) |
The Right to Information Act 2005, is the biggest fraud inflicted upon on the citizens since the Nehru-Gandhi family.
No comments:
Post a Comment