A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters
..
HOME
INTRODUCTION
ABOUT US
CONTACT US
HOW TO FILE RTI APPLICATION
A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters
Menu
Home
Introduction
About Us
Contact Us
DOPT circulars
Link to other Organisations
FAQ - For an Applicant
FAQ - For a PIO
Join us
Web-Site Launch Photographs
Web-Site Launch Photographs
RTI Act, 2005
Hindi
English
Other language
Rules
Central rules
State rules
Guide book
DOPT circulars
Important judgments
Supreme court
High court
Tracking the appeal at CIC
Link to Information Commission
Link to other Organisations
For an Applicant
FAQ
For a PIO
FAQ
Feedback
Books on RTI
Join us
Copy of certificate of registration u/s 12A were sought by a Trust - CIC: Issues raised in the Appeal cannot be adjudicated upon within the confines of the RTI Act; PIO cannot be compelled to provide such information which does not exist in their records
Information about examination conducted by IAF for various posts - CIC: The RTI application was filed by Ms Latika Chitre and the subsequent appeals were filed by a different person, M P Shinde - CIC: The second appeal is not maintainable
Addition of surname in son’s name in service record - CIC: Delay of 05 days in transferring the RTI application from Min of Defence to Dept of Military Affairs and a further delay of 15 days to the PIO - CIC: PIO cautioned to strictly follow the timelines
CIC: Appellant has placed the facts of the case in a cumbersome manner - CIC: Appellant is in a habit of narrating grievances and seeks for information as a passing reference which PIO cannot be expected to deduce and interpret to his satisfaction
Appellant submitted a detailed explanation as to how he was not in a position to file his first appeal on time due to his father’s illness and paralysis attack alongwith COVID - CIC: Delay condoned; It is appropriate to consider the case on merits
Rules for preparing the seniority list of industrial employees - PIO: After the technical problem of user ID was resolved on the online portal, the appellant was offered inspection as the information sought was huge and bulky - CIC: No intervention
Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively
Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?
No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa
Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?
There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP
Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Analysis of the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) Annual Report for the year 2020-21
Fate of the complaint filed before the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir Human Rights Commission
Entries in Birth and Death Register are public documents and cannot be termed a 'Third Party Information'
Share on facebook
Tweet
Email
Gmail
Google
Rediff
Delhi HC seeks copies of audited accounts of Rajiv Gandhi Foundation
6 Jul, 2012
Justice Rajiv Shakdher of the Delhi High Court has directed the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation (RGF) to place on record its annual audited accounts right from its inception till 2010-2011 to decide whether the organization should be included within the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The next date of hearing the matter has been fixed for November 21. The HC directed "File the annual audited accounts right from its inception till the year 2010-2011 along with a tabular statement indicating year-wise overall income of the Foundation and the component thereof received from the central as well as state governments or the instrumentalities thereof,",
The Delhi High Court was hearing the plea of a Delhi-based lawyer, Mr. Shanmuga Patro, who challenged the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissing his appeal while holding that the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation is not a public authority. Earlier Mr. Patro had filed an application under the RTI Act seeking a copy of the constitution of the RGF, a copy of the updated bye-laws and rules and regulation of the Foundation and a copy of the documents showing its organizational structure. He claimed that the RGF was in receipt of funds from the government, and it is engaged in large-scale public activities and by virtue of such activities it assumes the character of a public authority. The RGF had denied the information on the ground that it was not a public authority and had received only 4% funding from the government, which is not substantial. Therefore, it is not a public authority and does not fall under the purview of Section
2(h)
“public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.