Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 112 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Shri K.L. Bablani vs Directorate General Of Vigilance, ... on 16 September, 2009

Sowesh Pattanaik vs Ndmc on 3 March, 2025

(b) Further, the denial of information by the PIO vide para 2 of the reply, "in pursuance of decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in case No. CIC/AT/A/2009/0677 dated 16.09.2009 in the case of K.L. Bablani Vs. DG Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise. The aforesaid CIC order had also been relied upon the CIC while delivering decision in Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010 and in Case No. CIC/SB/A/22015/000649 dated 08.02.2077" is flawed, invalid, misplaced, and perfunctory due to irrelevant extrapolation. It is pertinent to note that the decisions of the Hon'ble CIC cited by the PIO are in reference to a common matter, i.e. "disclosure of file notings," "correspondence and note-sheets" that does not form the subject matter of information sought by the appellant.
Central Information Commission Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Satish Ashok Sherkhane vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 11 February, 2021

" 7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the information related to CVC has been provided to the appellant. Hence, no action on part of CPIO, CVC is pending. The Commission further observes that the CPIO, North- Eastern Railways has not provided the copy of the inquiry report in respect of appellant's complaint on the plea that the matter relates to a vigilance enquiry and the disclosure of the report would endanger the life or physical safety of the officers who were associated on completion of the said inquiry. The Commission further takes note of an earlier decision of the Commission relied upon by the respondent i.e. Case No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12. I 1.20I0, wherein the Commission hos relied upon the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009.................................., In view of the above ratio, the file notings in vigilance files cannot be outhorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentiality held by the Public Authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005. Hence, the information sought is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(d of the RTI Act."
Central Information Commission Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V N Sarna - Full Document

Raj Kumar Dak vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 14 June, 2022

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought copies of all the documents of the file (as mentioned in the RTI Application) & other queries related thereto. The respondent has contended that the appeal dated 17.05.2019 as mentioned by the applicant was considered by the Appellant Authority (Zonal Manager) and the contentions raised by the applicant were addressed and Appellate Order dated 22.11.2019 was issued which was received by the applicant on 11.12.2019. Further they have denied to provide the copy of relevant note sheets to the appellant w.r.t his departmental proceedings as disclosure of such information would endangers the life of the persons involved and will disclose the sources of information , hence denied u/s 8 (1) (g) of RTI Act, 2005. The respondent in support of their argument has also relied on one judgment passed by the Commission titled as Sh. K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi (CIC/AT/A/2019/000617 dated 16.09.2009) wherein the Commission has held as under:-
Central Information Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - N K Gupta - Full Document

Satish Ashok Sherkhane vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 15 February, 2021

" 7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the information related to CVC has been provided to the appellant. Hence, no action on part of CPIO, CVC is pending. The Commission further observes that the CPIO, North- Eastern Railways has not provided the copy of the inquiry report in respect of appellant's complaint on the plea that the matter relates to a vigilance enquiry and the disclosure of the report would endanger the life or physical safety of the officers who were associated on completion of the said inquiry. The Commission further takes note of an earlier decision of the Commission relied upon by the respondent i.e. Case No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12. I 1.20I0, wherein the Commission hos relied upon the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009.................................., In view of the above ratio, the file notings in vigilance files cannot be outhorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentiality held by the Public Authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005. Hence, the information sought is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(d of the RTI Act."
Central Information Commission Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V N Sarna - Full Document

Satish Ashok Sherkhane vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 15 February, 2021

" 7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the information related to CVC has been provided to the appellant. Hence, no action on part of CPIO, CVC is pending. The Commission further observes that the CPIO, North- Eastern Railways has not provided the copy of the inquiry report in respect of appellant's complaint on the plea that the matter relates to a vigilance enquiry and the disclosure of the report would endanger the life or physical safety of the officers who were associated on completion of the said inquiry. The Commission further takes note of an earlier decision of the Commission relied upon by the respondent i.e. Case No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12. I 1.20I0, wherein the Commission hos relied upon the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009.................................., In view of the above ratio, the file notings in vigilance files cannot be outhorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentiality held by the Public Authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005. Hence, the information sought is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(d of the RTI Act."
Central Information Commission Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V N Sarna - Full Document

Satish Ashok Sherkhane vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 15 February, 2021

" 7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the information related to CVC has been provided to the appellant. Hence, no action on part of CPIO, CVC is pending. The Commission further observes that the CPIO, North- Eastern Railways has not provided the copy of the inquiry report in respect of appellant's complaint on the plea that the matter relates to a vigilance enquiry and the disclosure of the report would endanger the life or physical safety of the officers who were associated on completion of the said inquiry. The Commission further takes note of an earlier decision of the Commission relied upon by the respondent i.e. Case No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12. I 1.20I0, wherein the Commission hos relied upon the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009.................................., In view of the above ratio, the file notings in vigilance files cannot be outhorized to be disclosed as these amounted to information confidentiality held by the Public Authority and thereby come within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005. Hence, the information sought is denied on the ground that the same is exempted from disclosure as per Section 8(1)(d of the RTI Act."
Central Information Commission Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V N Sarna - Full Document

O P Tanwar vs Railway Board on 2 July, 2019

In view of the above ratio laid down by the Commission, it is observed that furnishing of the copies of the file notings of the vigilance officials may lead to disclosure of some sensitive information which has no bearing with the objective of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, it is also to be noted that the necessary documents as Page 3 of 5 required to be given under the department/vigilance rules have already been provided to the appellant. Hence, copy of the file notings of the vigilance officials cannot be authorized to be disclosed as this amounts to the information confidentially held by the Public Authority and thereby falls within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005. Therefore, the information sought by the appellant is exempted from disclosure as per the exemption available u/Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, the respondent no. 1 is directed to communicate to the appellant only the outcome of the advice after redacting the name and designation of the concerned officers, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Central Information Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N K Gupta - Full Document

A. K. Srivastava vs Ministry Of Railways on 18 July, 2019

In view of the above ratio laid down by the Commission, it is observed that furnishing of the documents of the 1st stage advice to the appellant and providing him an opportunity to inspect the complete vigilance file may lead to disclosure of some sensitive information which has no bearing with the objective of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, it is also to be noted that the necessary documents as required to be given under the department/vigilance rules have already been provided to the appellant. Hence, copy of the documents of the 1st stage advice cannot be authorized to be disclosed as this amounts to the information confidentially held by the Public Authority and thereby falls within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005. Therefore, the information sought by the appellant is exempted from disclosure as per the exemption available u/Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Central Information Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N K Gupta - Full Document

P. V. Mathew vs Central Railside Warehouse Company ... on 25 June, 2019

In view of the above ratio laid down by the Commission, it is observed that the furnishing of the copies of the vigilance file of the appellant may lead to disclosure of some sensitive information which has no bearing with the objective of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, it is also to be noted that the necessary documents as required to be given under the department/vigilance rules have already been provided to the appellant. Hence, copy of the vigilance file cannot be authorized to be disclosed as this amounts to the information confidentially held by the Public Page 3 of 5 Authority and thereby falls within the scope of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(n) of the RTI Act 2005. Therefore, the information sought by the appellant is exempted from disclosure as per the exemption available u/Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005 on point nos. 1 and 2 of the RTI Act. The information sought by the appellant on point no. 4 of the RTI application is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. However, the information related to correspondence of Disciplinary Authority, after receiving the report of the inquiry officer with the Vigilance department and others before taking the final decision on the enquiry report (as sought by the appellant on point no. 3 of the RTI application) can be furnished to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Central Information Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N K Gupta - Full Document

Tilak Raj vs Bureau Of Indian Standards on 1 May, 2019

5. This Commission observed that the disclosure of the complete vigilance file and providing the opportunity of its inspection to the appellant would endanger the life or physical safety of the officers who were associated with the completion of the said inquiry. This Commission further takes note of an earlier decision of the Commission which has been relied upon by the respondent i.e. Case No. CIC/AT/A/2010/000757 dated 12.11.2010, wherein, the Commission has relied upon the case of Shri K.L. Bablani v. DG Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi, CIC/AT/A/2009/000617 dated 16.09.2009, wherein the Commission has held as follows:-
Central Information Commission Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N K Gupta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next