Annexure I
FORM – IIA
Quarterly Summary for Appellate Authorities for (Public authority) for quarter ending 31. 12.2007
|
Sl No. |
Name of Appellate Authority & Address |
No. of Appeals received during the Quarter |
No. of requests rejected during the quarter |
Decisions Received from CIC |
||||||||||||||||
|
No. of Decisions received During the Quarter |
No. of cases involving penalties and disciplinary action |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Relevant sections of RTI Act 2005 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sec 8(1) |
Sections |
Total |
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
a |
b |
c |
d |
e |
f |
g |
h |
i |
j |
9 |
11 |
24 |
Other |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
1 |
Sri. P K Mishra Director (Operations) Main Administrative Building Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Visakhapatnam – 530031 (AP) |
Nil |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Nil |
- |
- |
|
|
2 |
Sri. Y Manohar Director (Personnel) Main Administrative Building Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Visakhapatnam - 530031 (AP) |
4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Nil |
- |
- |
|
|
3 |
Sri. C G Patil Director (Commercial) Main Administrative Building Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Visakhapatnam - 530031 (AP) |
Nil |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Nil |
- |
- |
|
|
4 |
Sri. K S Shankar Director (Finance) Main Administrative Building Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Visakhapatnam - 530031 (AP) |
Nil |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Nil |
- |
- |
|
|
5 |
Sri. M V R Sarma E. D. (CA & S) Main Administrative Building Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Visakhapatnam - 530031 (AP) |
Nil |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Nil |
- |
- |
|
|
6 |
Sri. S Srinivasan, IAS Chief Vigilance Officer Main Administrative Building Visakhapatnam Steel Plant Visakhapatnam - 530031 (AP) |
Nil |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
Nil |
- |
- |
|
Annexure – II
The Progress report in respect of RTI – 2005 for the period from 01.10.2007 to 31.12.2007
|
(a) |
Number of requests received by each authority. |
12 |
|
(b) |
Number of decisions where applications were not entitled to access the document pursuant to the requests, the provisions of act under which these decisions were made and the number of times such provisions were invoked. |
NIL |
|
(c) |
The number of appeals referred to central Information Commission for review, the nature of appeals and the outcome of appeals. |
NIL |
|
(d) |
Details of disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect of administration of this act. |
NIL |
|
(e) |
Amount of charges collected by each public authority under this act |
Rs. 165 |
|
(f) |
The details to indicate efforts made by the Public Authorities to administer and implement the spirit and intention of this act: |
1) A Coordination meeting under the chairmanship of Director(Personnel) was conducted for all the Nodal officers and other officers who deal with RTI matters in the organization to impart clarity to them for effective implementation of the Act. Manpower of RTI Cell has been augmented.
|
|
(g) |
Suitable suggestions for reform including those required for development, improvement modernization, reform for the amendment of the Act or other legislation or common law or any other matter relevant for operationalisation of the Right to access the Information |
1) It has been found on many occasions that information seeker seeks number of information through a single application to the public information officer and submits a fee of Rs. 10/- as per the provision of the Act. Since information seekers seek lot of information through a single application, the public information officer has to put lots of effort through manpower and resources for obtaining, compiling and furnishing to the information seeker. It is suggested, the fee structure should be modified and there should be a prescribed fee (preferably Rs. 10/-) for each of the question of the information seeker, even though information is sought through a single application.
2) There should be some provision of collection of fees from the information seeker when the information seeker prefers an appeal to the Appellate Authority of the organization. Since the Appellate Authority has also to compile lot of information, if it is decided to furnish.
|