Report Wire - Commissioner Mr. Aggarwal imposed a high quality of 25-25 thousand on 5 public info officers
December 6, 2022

Report Wire

News at Another Perspective

Commissioner Mr. Aggarwal imposed a high quality of 25-25 thousand on 5 public info officers

4 min read
Commissioner Mr. Aggarwal imposed a fine of 25-25 thousand on five public information officers

In a democratic system, the Right to Information Act 2005 is efficient with the intention of guaranteeing transparency and accountability within the functioning of presidency and administration. This act is proving to be a millstone to make the residents conscious in regards to the actions of the federal government. Chhattisgarh State Information Commissioner Mr. AK Agarwal has really helpful disciplinary motion in opposition to a Public Information Officer, imposing a high quality of Rs. 25 thousand every on 5 instances.
Under the Right to Information Act 2005, Mr. Gorelal Sahu of Raipura utilized to Public Information Officer and Assistant Conservator of Forests (CAMPA), Chief Executive Officer CAMPA Mahasamund on 27 March 2021, licensed CAMPA Form 14 obtainable within the workplace from September 2020 to February 2021 A replica was demanded. On non-receipt of data, a criticism was submitted to the Commission on 3 June 2021.
State Information Commissioner Mr. AK Agrawal, within the listening to of the case, discovered that the response of the Public Information Officer on the criticism utility of the applicant was not discovered to be passable and passable, the then Public Information Officer and Assistant Conservator of Forests (CAMPA), Chief Executive Officer CAMPA Mahasamund Mr. Imposing a high quality of Rs 25,000 on DKS Maurya below Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Aranya Bhawan, Nava Raipur has been directed to get better the quantity of high quality from the involved and ship the knowledge to the Commission. Do it.
Similarly, on January 15, 2020, Mr. Nitin Singhvi, Raipur, in an utility to the Public Information Officer and Forest Officer, Mahasamund, after making use of radio collars to elephants, the paperwork associated to the motion space of ​​elephants, which wildlife SOS has submitted to the Mahasamund forest division, licensed these paperwork. Asked to provide copies below Right to Information. On being dissatisfied with the choice of the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Officer, a second attraction was introduced earlier than the Commission on 18 August 2020. State Information Commissioner Mr. Aggarwal discovered throughout the listening to that the then Public Information Officer Mr. Mayank Pandey, Divisional Forest Officer, General Forest Division, Mahasamund, the present posting, Divisional Forest Officer, Balod, didn’t resolve the authorized situation and didn’t ship any reply to the Commission in help of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Imposing a high quality of Rs 25 thousand below Section 20(1), the Secretary Forest and Climate Change Department has been really helpful to take disciplinary motion.
The applicant Mr. Virendra Pandey, New Shanti Nagar Raipur, transferred the appliance obtained by the Public Information Officer, Section Rights, General Administration Department, to the Public Information Officer, Ministry of Public Works Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, below Section 6(3)(III) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In the appliance, the criticism of the asphalt rip-off in PWD was introduced within the 12 months 2013, which was determined to be investigated by the Economic Offenses Investigation Bureau. In the absence of investigation, we’ve written 10 reminders for motion by getting the investigation achieved sometimes. Demanded a replica of the notesheet used from the date of criticism until the date of utility and the motion taken on the reminder letters and replica of all correspondence. Public Information Officer Mr. C. Tirkey, in his reply earlier than the State Information Commissioner, stated that it isn’t potential to offer info because of the matter being pending within the Hon’ble High Court, in his reply, the State Information Commissioner Mr. Aggarwal, Section 8(1)(a) of the Right to Information Act L) Referring to the then Public Information Officer C Tirkey, Public Works Department, current posting Deputy Secretary Chhattisgarh Government Housing and Environment Department, Ministry of Nava Raipur, below part 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 imposed a high quality of Rs.
The applicant Mr. Dashrath Kumar Verma, Raipur, in his two functions, demanded a replica of the MB guide and an authorized copy of the fee voucher associated to Chhattisgarh Housing Board Division-3 Raipur contract quantity 238 and 244. The info sought by the applicant was declared unclear by the Public Information Officer, on account of which the applicant introduced the primary attraction. The First Appellate Authority determined to offer the knowledge sought by the applicant inside 15 days. In the second attraction, the State Information Commissioner Mr. Aggarwal discovered within the listening to of the case that the Public Information Officer, Chhattisgarh Housing Board Division, didn’t take any authorized motion on the applicant’s utility and didn’t give passable and passable solutions to the knowledge letters of the Commission. 3 Raipur Mr. Shriram Thakur, below Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, imposed a high quality of Rs. 25-25 thousand and directed the Commissioner, Chhattisgarh Housing Board, Durg, District Durg, to get better the quantity of imposed high quality and switch it to the federal government fund. Inform the Commission by depositing it in

“slotId”: “4522015006”, “unitType”: “in-feed”, “pubId”: “pub-9441652835309653”, “layout_key”: “-g7+15-5o-ea+1bn”

Like this:

Like Loading…

Continue Reading