IMPA Facilitates Field Visit of HR Students of MIER

IMPA Conducts Field Visit of HR Students of MIER

Jammu, 24/Dec/2019: Jammu and Kashmir Institute of Management, Public Administration  & Rural Development, (JKIMPA-RD) Jammu, today facilitated one day filed visit cum study tour of a batch of 30 students undergoing Human Rights Course at MIER group of Colleges, Jammu. The study tour is conducted by Dr. Sunita Zalpuri Kaul, Prof & Head, Center for Good Governance & Administrative Reforms.

During their visit at IMPA Campus Jammu, the Students along with their Course Coordinator Monika Rathore were given first hand information about the functioning of the IMPA and were also taken to different blocks of the institute including Library, Computer Laboratory, Auditoriums, Administrative Blocks and also provided an opportunity to interact with the  KAS trainee officers undergoing training there.

To make these HR students familiar with other allied civil laws, Dr Sunita Zalpuri Kaul also presided a Special session on Right to Information Act, wherein visiting faculty, RTI practitioner Raman Sharma presented  a detailed power point presentation about important article of  the Constitution of India and different sections of the Right to Information Act. 

 During the session, Dr. Sunita and visiting faculty also replied various queries of the students.  On behalf of MIER group of colleges, Monika Rathore, the course coordinator thanked the Director General IMPA for allowing valuable field visit of the students in the campus of prestigious government training institute like IMPA. 

MHA Denies Information about RTI Act Implementation in UT of Ladakh

MHA Dodges Query about Status of RTI Act in Ladakh

            Jammu, 15/DEC/2019: Instead of providing simple information about implementation of Right to Information Act in Union Territory of Ladakh , Officer in the Union Home Ministry prefers to dodge an RTI query on the subject.

            Beena Yadav, CPIO, Central Public Information Officer and Director(Ladakh) of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh Department under  Union Home Ministry while rejecting plea of RTI Activist Raman Sharma on the subject writes(in her rejection order)  “As far as, the undersigned CPIO is concerned, the information may be treated as nil. It is to inform that under RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO is obligated to provide only such information which is available and held by the public authority or is under the control of the public authority. However, the information sought by you might be available with UT of Ladakh” , the CPIO further advised the applicant to approach UT of Ladakh for getting the requisite information in her letter dated 06/Dec/2019.

            Earlier Sharma in his online RTI application dated 03/Dec/2019 to Union Home Ministry had asked for providing certified copies of RTI Rules as framed by government of Union Territory Ladakh as mandated under section 27 read with section 2.a of Right to Information Act 2005 and  a copy of list showing names and designation of all Public Information Officers of Ladakh UT as designated under section 5 of RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005. 

             It is pertinent to mention here that under section 95 and 96 of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act 2019, from appointed day i.e. 31/Oct/2019, the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act 2019 has been repealed as falling under table 3 of fifth schedule of the JK Reorganization Act  2019 and RTI Act 2005(central act) has been applicable to the Union territories of Jammu-Kashmir and Ladakh.

            “ Section 27 and 2 of  RTI Act 2005 puts an obligation on every state and union territory government have to make rules for proper implementation of Right to Information Act and it was reason for seeking such information from the union home ministry” said applicant Sharma while reacting over RTI rejection  order of the MHA. He also informed that under section 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005, it was the responsibility of the concerned PIO to transfer the RTI application to UT of Ladakh if the officer was not having such information with her. He also intimated to file a review appeal again the order of the CPIO before the 1^st Appellate Authority.  

           

previous story of the blog :  https://jkrtiact.blogspot.com/2019/12/bsnl-refuses-to-share-information-on.html

Related Story: 

Two Months on , J & K High Court Yet to Frame New RTI Rules

BSNL Refuses to Share Information On Internet Ban In J & K

^{BSNL REFUSES TO SHARE INFORMATION ON INTERNET BAN IN J & K}

Jammu, 08/Dec/2019: Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, BSNL, the government owned telecom company have refused to share information about mobile internet ban in Jammu and Kashmir citing exemption clause of Right to Information Act.

While rejecting plea of RTI activist Raman Sharma wherein information was asked from the telecom company on internet ban in the state since 04-Aug-2019.

Earlier In his online RTI application dated 07/Nov/2019 ,  Jammu resident Sharma had asked from BSNL about the name and designation of the authority, officer of the state or union government on whose instructions, directions, order the mobile internet service are presently barred by BSNL in Jammu and Kashmir, in the following query he had asked for certified copy of  any order by the union or state government of Jammu and Kashmir  asking the telecom company to stop mobile internet facility in J & K.

The rejection order signed by DGM(CM) of BSNL, J & K Circle dated 06/12/2019 states that the asked information falls under section 8-1 of the Right to Information Act 2005 and cannot be provided however the Public Information officer has provided a gazette notification issued by the union government dated 07/Aug/2017 which reads that under section 7 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, the union government may make rules for temporary suspension of telecom services (Public Emergency or Public Safety).  

However, while giving reaction over the rejection by the CPIO of the BSNL, the applicant Raman expressed displeasure and said the reply is vague and it does not fall under exemption clause of the RTI Act as in his RTI request he had simply asked for name and designation of the authority who ordered ban and copy of order asking for such ban on internet services and he had not asked for reason for internet.  

following story of the blog: https://jkrtiact.blogspot.com/2019/12/mha-denies-information-about-rti-act.html

Public Information Officers of Jammu and Kashmir Bank

LIST OF PIOs, Public Information Officers of Jammu and Kashmir Bank under RTI Act

Public information officer

J&K Bank has designated 11 officers as Public information officers (PIO’s) who shall be responsible for giving information to the applicant under Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009.

1. Mr. MANZOOR-UL-HAQ. 

PIO/In charge Branches Department Zonal Office Kashmir Central 1 

Pin. 190001 Phone No. 9858308228

 2. Mr. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF. 

PIO/In charge Branches Department Zonal Office Kashmir Central 2 

Pin. 190012 Phone No 9906669854

 3. Mr. Imtiyaz Ahmad Kabadi.

PIO/In charge Branches Department Zonal Office Kashmir North 

Pin. 193201 Phone No. 9797234600 

4. Mr. NISSAR AHMAD DAR 

PIO/In charge Branches Department Zonal Office South 1 

Pin. 192301 Phone No. 7006883102

5. Mr. MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN BHAT

PIO/In charge Branches Department Zonal Office South 2

 Pin. 192101 Phone No 9906624329

6. Mr. Shishu Paul Malhotra. 

PIO/In charge Branches Department Zonal Office Jammu Central 1 

Pin.180004 Phone No. 9419263374 

7. Mr. RAHUL GUPTA.

PIO/In charge Branches Department Zonal Office Jammu Central 2

 Pin. 184102 Phone No. 9419909055

8. Mr. SATISH KUMAR 

PIO/In charge Branches Department Zonal Office Jammu North 1 

Pin. 182202 Phone No. 9469232709 

9. Mr. Surender Kumar Raina

PIO/In charge Branches Department Zonal Office Jammu North 2 

Pin. 182101 Phone No. 7006957668

10. Mr. YUDHVIR SINGH JAMWAL

PIO/In charge Branches Department Zonal Office Jammu West 

Pin. 185131 Phone No. 9419147605

 11. Ms. MASARAT RASOOL

PIO/In charge Branches Department Zonal Office Leh 

Pin. 194101 Phone No. 9419178642

LIST OF 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITIES UNDER RTI [ JK BANK ]

Appellate Authority

J&K Bank has designated 11 officers as “Appellate Authorities” (AA) under Jammu and Kashmir Right to information Act, 2009. Any applicant who has not been supplied the requisite information or is not satisfied with the information furnished may file appeal before the designated “Appellate Authority” as provided by the Jammu and Kashmir Right to information Act,2009.

1. Ms. TABASUM NAZIR. 

Appellate Authority/Zonal Head Zonal Office Kashmir Central 1

Pin. 190001 Phone No. 9419590900

2. Mr. SYED RAIS MAQBOOL

Appellate Authority/Zonal Head Zonal Office Kashmir Central 2 Pin. 190012 Phone No 9906667013

3. Mr. KARANJIT SINGH

Appellate Authority/Zonal Head Zonal Office Kashmir North Pin. 193201 Phone No. 9018088080

4. Mr. TASADUQ AHMAD DAR

Appellate Authority/Zonal Head Zonal Office South 1 Pin. 192301 Phone No. 9797793894/9596355066

5. Mr. MOHAMMAD AYUB WANCHOO 

Appellate Authority/Zonal Head Zonal Office South 2

Pin. 192101 Phone No 9419072942

6. Mr. SUDHIR GUPTA 

Appellate Authority/Zonal Head Zonal Office Jammu Central 1

Pin.180004 Phone No. 9419656682

7. Mr. NARJAY GUPTA 

Appellate Authority/Zonal Head Zonal Office Jammu Central 2

Pin. 184102 Phone No. 9419183311

8. Mr. SAJAD HUSSAIN 

Appellate Authority/Zonal Head Zonal Office Jammu North 1

Pin. 182202 Phone No. 981926-3336

9. Mr. ANAND PAL SINGH

Appellate Authority/Zonal Head Zonal Office Jammu North 2

Pin. 182101 Phone No. 9727044108

10. Mr. ASHUTOSH SARIN 

Appellate Authority/Zonal Head Zonal Office Jammu West

Pin. 185131 Phone No. 9419105577

11. Mr. CHETAN PALJOR 

Appellate Authority/Zonal Head/Divisional Head Zonal Office Leh

Pin. 194101 Phone No. 9419178645.

LIST OF APIOs, Assistant Public Information Officers [ JK BANK]

Assistant Public information officer  

J&K Bank has designated 812 officers as Assistant public information officers (APIO’s) under Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 who shall receive and forward the RTI applications/Appeals to the designated PIO and Appellate Authority. Assistant public information officer shall not by itself be responsible for supplying any information to the RTI Applicant or Appellant as the case may be.

MORE STORIES OF THE BLOG : https://jkrtiact.blogspot.com/

SIC-IMPA Organized RTI Training Program for Officers

Jammu, 31/March/2019; Jammu and Kashmir Institute of Management and Public Administration, JKIMPA supported by Jammu and Kashmir State Information Commission held a three days training program for senior officers of different  departments here at Sidhra Camp of JKIMPA at Jammu.

On the 1^st day, Narinder Singh Bali, Secretary, State Information Commissioner along with Prof Sunita Zalpuri Kaul, program coordinator and Head, Center for Good Governance and Administrative Reforms, JKIMPA inaugurated the training program in presence of Sh. Gh. Nabi Ganie, Joint Registrar,  Sunil Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Shahnawaz Ahmed, C.A.O, Satish Thaploo, Extension Officer, Zahoor Ahmed, Law Officer and Zaheer Abbas Legal Assistant JKSIC. 

During the three days program, the participating officers got the opportunity to interact with former Information Commissioner Dr. SK Sharma and clear their misconception and misinterpretations  about different  provisions of the   Right to Information Act and other allied laws. Other in house faculty members who interacted with the participants and shared their expertise on the subject include Prof Sunita Zalpuri Kaul, Dr. Rachna, Dr. Ruchi and Dr. Jyoti Sandhu, guest faculty include Advocate Aseem Sawhney and Raman Sharma.

On the concluding day, the trainees  were also awarded participation certificates by the senior officers of the JKSIC and JKIMPA. 

....................

Supreme Court Judgement Canara Bank VS CS Shyam on RTI

Supreme Court Judgement Canara Bank VS CS Shyam  On RTI

VERY IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT ON RTI

Canara Bank vs C.S. Shyam . on 31 August, 2017

Author: A M Sapre

                                                              REPORTABLE

                              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                CIVIL APPEAL No.22 OF 2009


                         Canara Bank Rep. by
                         its Deputy Gen. Manager            ….Appellant(s)

                                             VERSUS

                         C.S. Shyam & Anr.                 …Respondent(s)



               JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 20.09.2007 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 2100 of 2007 whereby the High Court disposed of the writ appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld the judgment passed by the Single Judge Signature Not Verified dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2017.08.31 16:58:31 IST Reason:

herein challenging the order of the Central Information Commission holding that the appellant must provide the information sought by respondent No.1 herein under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2) Few relevant facts need mention to appreciate the controversy involved in appeal.

3) The appellant herein is a nationalized Bank. It has a branch in District Malappuram in the State of Kerala. Respondent No. 1, at the relevant time, was working in the said Branch as a clerical staff.

4) On 01.08.2006, respondent No.1 submitted an application to the Public Information Officer of the appellant-Bank under Section 6 of the Act and sought information regarding transfer and posting of the entire clerical staff from 01.01.2002 to 31.07.2006 in all the branches of the appellant-Bank.

5) The information was sought on 15 parameters with regard to various aspects of transfers of clerical staff and staff of the Bank with regard to individual employees. This information was in relation to the personal details of individual employee such as the date of his/her joining, designation, details of promotion earned, date of his/her joining to the Branch where he/she is posted, the authorities who issued the transfer orders etc. etc.

6) On 29.08.2006, the Public Information Officer of the Bank expressed his inability to furnish the details sought by respondent No. 1 as, in his view, firstly, the information sought was protected from being disclosed under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act and secondly, it had no nexus with any public interest or activity.

7) Respondent No.1, felt aggrieved, filed appeal before the Chief Public Information Officer. By  order dated 30.09.2006, the Chief Public Information Officer agreeing with the view taken by the Public Information Officer dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Public Information Officer.

8) Felt aggrieved, respondent No.1 carried the matter in further appeal before the Central Information Commission. By order dated 26.02.2007, the appeal was allowed and accordingly directions were issued to the Bank to furnish the information sought by respondent No.1 in his application.

9) Against the said order, the appellant-Bank filed writ petition before the High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-Bank. Challenging the said order, the appellant-Bank filed writ appeal before the High Court.

10) By impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant's writ appeal and affirmed the order of the Central Information Commission, which has given rise to filing of this appeal.

11) Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application submitted by the 1st respondent under Section 6 of the Act.

12) In our considered opinion, the issue involved herein remains no more res integra and stands settled by two decisions of this Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794,  it may not be necessary to re-examine any legal issue urged in this appeal.

13) In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande's case (supra), the petitioner therein (Girish) had sought some personal information of one employee working in Sub Regional Office (provident fund) Akola. All the authorities, exercising their respective powers under the Act, declined the prayer for furnishing the information sought by the petitioner. The High Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner upheld the orders. Aggrieved by all the order, he filed special leave to appeal in this Court. Their Lordships dismissed the appeal and upholding the orders passed by the High Court held as under:-

“12. We are in agreement with the CIC and the courts below that the details called for by the petitioner i.e. copies of all memos issued to the third respondent, show-cause notices and orders of censure/punishment, etc. are qualified to be personal information as defined in clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The performance of an employee/officer in an organisation is primarily a matter  between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression “personal information”, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. On the other hand, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of that individual. Of course, in a given case, if the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, appropriate orders could be passed but the petitioner cannot claim those details as a matter of right.

13. The details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”

14) In our considered opinion, the aforementioned principle of law applies to the facts of this case on all force. It is for the reasons that, firstly, the information sought by respondent No.1 of individual employees working in the Bank was personal in nature; secondly, it was exempted from being disclosed under Section 8(j) of the Act and lastly, neither respondent No.1 disclosed any public interest much less larger public interest involved in seeking such information of the individual employee and nor any finding was recorded by the Central Information Commission and the High Court as to the involvement of any larger public interest in supplying such information to respondent No.1.

15) It is for these reasons, we are of the considered view that the application made by respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the Act was wholly misconceived and was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer whereas wrongly allowed by the Central Information Commission and the High Court.

16) In this view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and Central Information Commission and restore the orders  passed by the Public Information Officer and the Chief Public Information Officer. As a result, the application submitted by respondent No.1 to the appellant-Bank dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure-P-1) stands rejected.

………...................................J. 
[R.K. AGRAWAL] …...……..................................J. 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] 

New Delhi;

August 31, 2017