| Last updated less than one minute ago
Submit :
News                      Photos                     Just In                     Debate Topic                     Latest News                    Articles                    Local News                    Blog Posts                     Pictures                    Reviews                    Recipes                    
Follow Us
  
Food and Public Distribution Deptt. delaying RTI response
Incidentally, the documents, which have been sought relate to an ordinance issued purely to benefit sugar-mill owners in a big way, subsequently withdrawn after uproar in and outside Parliament.
DEPARTMENT OF Food and Public Distribution of union government is deliberately and continuously avoiding providing documents sought under Right To Information (RTI) Act despite CIC-verdict dated October 21, 2010, in petition-number CIC/SS/C/2010/00317 and clear provisions under section 7(6) of RTI Act. Firstly, it didn’t respond to RTI petition dated October 21, 2009, on some excuse or other.
 
Later, when all its pre-conditions were fulfilled through a fresh RTI petition dated January 25, 2010, seeking file-notings etc on controversial ordinance on sugar-pricing and its subsequent withdrawal, there was no response at all making Central Information Commission direct CPIO concerned to provide sought documents free-of-cost under section 7(6) of RTI Act because being after 30 days from RTI petition.

But, now the CPIO Adhir Jha has deliberately tried to further delay the response by demanding Rs 168 as copying charges, which is not only against CIC directions but also contrary to section 7(6) of RTI Act.

 
Incidentally, the documents, which have been sought relate to an ordinance issued purely to benefit sugar-mill owners in a big way, subsequently withdrawn after uproar in and outside Parliament. It is clear that sought file-notings will expose people behind the move to benefit sugar-mill owners at cost of public-exchequers. Such public-authorities deserve not only maximum penalties, but also should be made to pay compensation under section 19(8)(b) of RTI Act for deliberately harassing the petitioners.

It should also be inquired how an RTI petition sent by Speed Post on January 25, 2010, didn’t reach the department as claimed by the department.

COMMENTS
Individual User Corporate User ( For submitting Press Release and Jobs )
Email / Login ID
Password
Connect With Facebook


Not finding what you are looking for? Search here.