TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Central Information Commission clarifies jurisdiction under RTI Act, directs educational programs on provisions</h1> <h3>Mr. Rajender Singh Chauhan Versus CPIO and Others</h3> The Central Information Commission disposed of the appeal, emphasizing its limited role in providing access to information under the RTI Act and advising ... Pay fixation as per the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission not resolved - delayed transfer of his RTI application from the Head Office to Zonal Accounts Office, Shimla/ Patiala - circular issued by Ministry of Finance / DOE dated 30.08.2008 had not been furnished fully - HELD THAT:- The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, [2012 (2) TMI 723 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION], Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow [2012 (9) TMI 1229 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION], Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), [2013 (1) TMI 1043 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION] had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. However, a copy of the OM issued by the MoF dated 30.08.2008 be furnished to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, free of cost. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum. Appeal disposed off. Issues involved:1. Delayed transfer of RTI application2. Furnishing of circular issued by Ministry of Finance3. Jurisdiction of Central Information Commission under RTI Act4. Scope of Commission's intervention in grievance redressalDelayed transfer of RTI application:The Appellant raised concerns regarding the delayed transfer of his RTI application from the Head Office to Zonal Accounts Office, Shimla/Patiala. The Respondent clarified that their office at Shimla was established in 2012, leading to a delay in transferring such applications. The Commission noted the delay but did not delve into the merits of the case, citing the restrictions of the RTI Act.Furnishing of circular issued by Ministry of Finance:The Appellant sought details of a circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, which he claimed were not fully provided. The Commission directed the Respondent to furnish a copy of the OM issued by the MoF dated 30.08.2008 to the Appellant within 15 days, emphasizing the importance of providing information as per the RTI Act.Jurisdiction of Central Information Commission under RTI Act:The Commission referred to various legal precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court of Delhi, emphasizing that the role of the Commission is limited to providing access to information and not to adjudicate disputes or grievances. It highlighted that the RTI Act does not serve as a platform for redressal of grievances or disputes, advising the Appellant to seek appropriate forums for grievance redressal.Scope of Commission's intervention in grievance redressal:The Commission reiterated that its jurisdiction is confined to issues related to the right to information and does not extend to resolving grievances or disputes. It cited several cases to support its stance that the RTI Act is not the appropriate law for redressal of grievances. The Commission advised the Appellant to approach the relevant forum for redressal of his grievance, signaling the limitations of the Commission's intervention in such matters.In conclusion, the Commission disposed of the appeal, stating that no further intervention was necessary. It directed the Respondent to provide the requested circular to the Appellant and advised the Appellant to seek redressal through an appropriate forum. Additionally, the Commission instructed the Respondent to conduct conferences/seminars to educate officials on the provisions of the RTI Act for effective discharge of duties. The judgment underscored the Commission's role in providing access to information and highlighted the boundaries of its jurisdiction under the RTI Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
