Re: [HumJanenge] CIC SM Imposed full penalty on CPIO IDRBT

Manoj ji, thanks for the research of CIC's decision, please keep this up and u have developed your interest in that particular area. This research is very useful for members. I shall be giving inputs from time to time. --- On Wed, 17/8/11, Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> wrote: From: Manoj Pai <manojpai@yahoo.com> Subject: [HumJanenge] CIC SM Imposed full penalty on CPIO IDRBT To: "HJ GG" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com> Date: Wednesday, 17 August, 2011, 12:37 AM 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)