RTI Application for your complaint letter to know status

RTI Application under sec 6(1) of RTI Act-2005 From 13/06/2012 V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, 13/7, PAMMAL NALLA THAMBI Street, M.G.R.NAGAR, Chennai-78. To The Public Information Officer, Under Right to Information ACT 2005, Sir, Sub: Under the RTI ACT 2005 sec 6(1), request to furnish information and attested photo copy.- regarding. Ref: my complaint letter dated......... -------- 1. Kindly supply signed and stamped copy of all correspondence till date in the matter of my complaint letter dated ……………, including memos, note file, emails, covering letters for forwarding your complaint etc. 2.Kindly supply signed and stamped copy of logbook or any other book where details of my complaint letter dated ……………, are entered, marked to specific officers for their investigation and action. 3.Kindly supply signed and stamped copy of all their remarks, feedback, reports etc for my complaint letter dated ……………,. 4.Kindly supply signed and stamped copy of the closing remarks of the officer concerned, if the case on my complaint letter dated ……………, was closed.

Tamilnadu speaker, Deputy speaker and environment minister only receiving HRA

speaker, Deputy speaker and environment minister only receiving HRA at the rate of Rs.20,000/- fro 16/6/2011 to june 2012. PIO supplied incomplete information.

PAN NO OF CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMMISSIONER

RTI Application under sec 6(1) of RTI Act-2005 From 14/11/2011 V.GOPALAKRISHNAN, 13/7, Pammal Nalla Thambi Street, M.G.R.NAGAR, Chennai-78. To The Public Information Officer, Under Right to Information ACT 2005, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R. BUILDING, I. P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002. Sir, Sub: Under the RTI ACT 2005 sec 6(1), request for furnish information and attested photo copy.- regarding. -------- 1. Kindly inform total income informed by the below assessee and supply copy of income tax returns and Balance sheet submitted from year , 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 (a) WAJAHAT HABIBULLAHI AAZPH5750R (a) sathyananadha mishra ABFPM 0609R (b) ANNAPUMA DIXIT ACJPD 6077H (c) SHALIESH RAM KUMAR GANDHI AAAPG 7762A (d) MADAN LAL SHARMA AMHPS 0876K (e) DEEPAK SANDHU AAMPS1681D (f) SUSHMA SINGH AAMPS1150R (g) A.N.TIWARI AASPT 1262G (h) M.M.ANSARI AAAPA 0523E (i) O.P.KEJARIAWAL AAAPK 1574H I ENCLOSED INDIAN POSTAL ORDER OF RS.10 TOWARDS RTI FEE. NO.03F 513560 V.GOPALAKRISHNAN

Consumer court holds TAMILNADU information COMMISSION panel liable for deficiency in service

Consumer court holds information panel liable for deficiency in service R. Sivaraman Share · Comment · print · T+ Share They are both statutory forums that redress the grievances of people but have been placed at the loggerheads following a verdict by a city consumer court. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai, (South) has held the Public Information Officer of the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission liable for “deficiency of service”. The consumer forum ordered the public information officer to pay compensation of Rs.5,000 to an applicant, holding that he had committed deficiency in service by not furnishing information sought by the complainant under RTI Act within the stipulated period. The ruling means that RTI applicants are consumers and the furnishing of information under the RTI Act is a ‘service’. The Commission questioned the maintainability of the complaint, but the Forum, comprising its president V. Gopal and member L. Deenadayalan, ruled against it, saying decisions of the Supreme Court and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cited by the complainant made it clear that “the complainant is the consumer and the opposite party (Information Commission) is a service provider. Aggrieved applicants Pointing out that the provisions of the Right Information Act provided only for an appeal by aggrieved applicants, the Forum said: “There is no power given to appellate authorities to order compensation to the applicant. When the relief which could be obtained by the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) as an additional remedy and when such remedy could not be granted by any other court or forum, then, naturally, the consumer can approach only the consumer forum and this view is clear from Section 3 of the CPA, 1986. B. Ramesh, an advocate, sent an application to the State Information Commission on April 5, 2011 seeking information regarding the number of persons against whom penalty was imposed and whether enquiry was conducted before penalising. The applicant raised 19 questions in the application. He also affixed a Rs.10 court fee stamp in that application and was, therefore, a consumer. He contended that the Commission was expected to furnish the information within 30 days but failed to do so. Aggrieved by this, Mr. Ramesh filed the complaint seeking payment of Rs.50,000 as compensation for mental agony and for deficiency in service. However, the Commission contended that its functioning was free of charge and such functioning would not constitute a ‘service’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The information requested by the complainant was provided to him on July 7, 2011. As the complainant received the information ultimately, he could not allege that there was deficiency in service on its part. The Commission further contended that if he did not receive information within the stipulated time, the complainant could have filed an appeal under Section 19 of RTI Act. Dismissing the contentions, the Consumer Forum said: “The Commission had not furnished the information within the stipulated period but furnished it only after the filing of the complaint. It has committed deficiency in service by not furnishing the information within the stipulated period.” Mental agony Holding that the complainant would have suffered mental agony and unnecessary expenditure due to the deficiency in service, the Forum directed payment of compensation of Rs.5,000 to the complainant within six weeks. If the commission failed to pay amount, it should carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum till date of payment. Keywords: TN Information Commission, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum