should be heard accordingly. He stated that he had submitted an IPO of
Rs.100/- with his RTI applications dated 31/01/2012 ... applications but
this was also not done. He then sent a fresh IPO of Rs.10/- on 11/06/2012 which was returned
stating that
should be heard accordingly. He stated that he had submitted an IPO of
Rs.100/- with his RTI applications dated 31/01/2012 ... applications but
this was also not done. He then sent a fresh IPO of Rs.10/- on 11/06/2012 which was returned
stating that
furnishing
therewith the additional fee of Rs. 27/- by way of IPOs. You may aware
that the validity of IPO is only six months from ... months, should be given to CPIO/Accounts Officer for encashment
of IPO(s). One of the IPO No. ID 132843 (OF Rs.7/-) has already
Accounts Officer' DDA with
an advice to submit a fresh IPO in favour of DDA. It was further informed that his earlier RTI
application ... dated 30.03.2017 submitted by him addressed to the CPIO, DDA with an IPO in favour
of 'Accounts Officer, DDA' was duly accepted
account for depositing RTI fees received from the RTI applicants. All the IPOs
received along with the RTI applications at New Delhi office were always ... appellant/complainant along with the RTI
application dated 08.03.2017 had submitted the IPO favouring 'Accounts officer'
only, he was advised and requested vide
CPIO as
the RTI application was returned despite filing of the IPO as per the RTI Rules.
Moreover, he was not aware of the authority ... whose name the IPO should
have been drawn in CBSE.
The CPIO submitted that in the website of CBSE the details of the authority
Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.11.2022 seeking information
regarding Paytm IPO on the following points:
(i) Name and employee code of all those SEBI ... employees who approved the Paytm
IPO.
(ii) Copy of file notings which finally lead to Paytm IPO.
(iii) Copy of green sheet with signature
been submitted in the
form of an Indian Postal Order (IPO) bearing no. 64F 766656 dated 21.06.2024 for
Page ... amount of Rs. 10. As per the terms & conditions of the IPOs, the IPOs are valid for
a period of only 6 months from
CPIO in rejecting his RTI
application on the pretext that the IPO was not properly addressed, directing
him to send the application fee in favour ... activism, filed a plethora of RTI applications with
AICTE with all the IPOs drawn in favour of "Accounts Officer, All India Council
for Technical
with railway
administration.
Shri Rajeev Singh, PIO replied on 10.9.09 returning the IPO to the Applicant as it was
drawn in favour of the wrong ... payee and requesting him to send the IPO in favour of
FA&CAO/NWR, JP. The Applicant submitted the revised IPO requesting
