RTI Corner

The Appellant sought information whether a Superintendent of CGST (third party) has taken station leave permission to visit CBI Delhi office for more than 50 times during year 2015 to 2020 and related information. The PIO informed that on the basis of available record, the third party has neither applied nor granted any station leave to visit CBI Delhi office. The PIO submitted that the Appellant wanted an answer terms of Yes or No which is not as per the provisions of the RTI Act. It was further submitted that the OM dated 11.09.2012 was applicable as it relates to official tours for the Joint Secretary and above rank which is not the case here. The CIC observed that concededly, the information sought for in the RTI Application does not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act as the Appellant has raised interrogative and speculative queries regarding a third party. The CIC held that the clarifications sought for relate to a third party, disclosure of which stands exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It was further held that the appellant is seeking an action which is beyond the mandate of the RTI Act.
Comments
Looking into the extent of the RTI Act in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished. In another case, the Supreme Court held that the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority.
Citation: Jitendra Pratap Singh v. CPIO, O/o the Pr. Commissioner, Vadodata-1, CGST Commissionerate, File No : CIC/CCEVD/A/2021/641582, Date of Decision: 06.10.2022
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Certified details of meeting-wise honorarium paid to Chairman and each member of Bar Council was denied by the PIO under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC upheld the denial citing the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044, 10045, 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of “personal information” envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified.
Comments
Personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.
Citation: Maman Chand Sharma v. Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana in File No: CIC/BCOIN/A/2022/114136, Date of Decision: 06.10.2022
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Appellant had a personal grievance regarding schemes offered by Tata Sky DTH Services. He sought information about the schemes offered by Tata Sky DTH Services to its retail customers and the regulatory actions which can be taken by TRAI against service providers where they do not give the credit of the schemes offered by them to the eligible customers. The Commission observed that the TRAI is the controlling authority and therefore, whatever information was accessible u/s Sec 2(j) of the RTI Act by them was given. Further, the applicant’s plea that updated information should be given is considered in the interest of justice as the PIO also had admitted that the hyperlink given may not be working due to change of website domain etc. The CIC ruled that no action is taken on the complaint as no malafide intent could be found on the part of the PIO. However, in terms of the second appeal, the PIO was directed to make an effort to obtain the information from the service provider and the inputs received be forwarded to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order.
Comments
The case law shows how the regulatory authority can be used to obtain information from a private service provided who is otherwise not covered under the definition of public authority.
Citation: Akshay Kumar Malhotra v. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in CIC/TRAOI/A/2021/147091+ CIC/TRAOI/C/2021/145847, Date of Decision: 19/09/2022
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Certified copy a report of fact finding committee constituted by the UGC, chaired by Mrs. Mamta Aggarwal, the then Joint Secretary, UGC, New Delhi and its supporting documents, were not provided and it was submitted that it is not available with the office of UGC, New Delhi. The CIC remarked that Fact finding Committee’s Report which has duly been produced before Hon’ble Supreme Court, is supposed to be available with the UGC, to which it was submitted that an effort would be made to locate the desired report, but there is another possibility of it being weeded out. The CIC observed that no information with respect to the instant RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant. The CIC further observed that the replies furnished by the UGC were inadequate, misleading and blithe, that too with inordinate delay. The CIC took grave exception for the cavalier and irresponsible conduct of the UGC and strictly admonishes them for the same. The CIC sternly cautioned the UGC that in future, they shall ensure that replies to the RTI Applications shall be provided with mindful approach and within a stipulated time-frame as specified in the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC admonishes the UGC for poor management of the official records and cautioned them to remain careful in future. The CIC directed to make effort to search their records in a prudent manner to locate the report and provide the same along to the Appellant. The CIC directed to provide the record retention schedule and copy of the weeding out report to the Appellant with a copy marked to the CIC, in case the said Report has been weeded out.
Comments
In case of any claim of records being weeded out, the copy of destruction memo must be produced. This is one case where the CIC has admonished the public authority but has not preferred to invoke any penal provisions.
Citation: Rajesh Gill v. University Grants Commission in Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/111603, Date of Decision: 22.07.2022
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The applicant sought the name of CPIO and FAA of Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. The CPIO/Director (NI) replied that he is the CPIO in respect of Ayodhya section of JKL division of the Ministry of Home Affairs. It was further mentioned that the Trust has been constituted by the Government of India as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given in the judgment dated 09.11.2019 in CA No 10866-67 of 2010 vide notification dated 05.05.2020. The said trust is an autonomous organisation /body. The CIC held that the reply of the PIO is not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act because though information sought by the Applicant has not been provided to him, none of the provisions of the RTI Act have been cited for the tacit denial. The reply sent by the PIO was found untenable in law. The CIC directed Shri Harish Kumar Wadhwa, CPIO and Dy Secretary, Arms and NI/ Ayodhya, Ministry of Home Affairs to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised point wise response strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act to the Applicant within three weeks. The CIC made it clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action, as per law.
Comments
The Delhi High Court in the case of National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. CIC & Ors. has held that a private company upon its incorporation or registration does not become an authority or institution of self-government as defined under section 2(h) of the RTI Act, but by a subsequent enactment or order/notification issued can become an authority or institution of self-government. The words ‘established' or ‘constituted' have to be read in a manner so as to effectuate the legislative intent in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Citation: Shri Neeraj Sharma v. Ministry of Home Affairs and Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust in Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/C/2021/606547 CIC/MHOME/A/2021/609248 CIC/MHOME/C/2021/612823 CIC/MHOME/A/2021/625152, Date of Decision: 08.07.2022
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The representative of the Complainant submitted that he has received the information and he further expressed his satisfaction with the same. The respondent submitted that earlier at the time of filing of the RTI Application, the averred information was not found therefore, the same was not furnished to the Complainant, but the same was later on found and provided to the Complainant on 04.05.2022 in another case bearing CIC file no. CIC/NIOPS/A/2021/696773. The CIC observed that though the Respondent has provided adequate information to the Complainant, the same was heedlessly denied on the first instance, which raises a doubt of existence of malafide intention in denial of averred information by the Respondent. Taking a grave exception to such unmindful and heedless approach of the Respondent while dealing with the instant RTI Application, the CIC admonished such conduct directed the Respondent to furnish a written explanation regarding the above conduct in the instant matter within a time frame of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Comments
The RTI Act, 2005 provides a strict timeline for providing the reply to the applicant failing which penal action can be initiated against the PIO.
Citation: Jatinder Singh v. National Institute of Open Schooling in Complaint No. CIC/NIOPS/C/2021/622506, Date of Decision: 01.09.2022
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Information[h1] about loan sanctioned to PG Dyes & Chem which become NPA and about action under SARFAESI Act 2002 was sought. The Indian Overseas Bank submitted that it had come into their knowledge that the appellant had passed away few months back. Moreover, they had provided para-wise reply/information to the appellant. Moreover, PG Dyes & Chem was sold to the Asset Reconstruction Company, therefore, the relevant documents relating to the company were no longer under their custody and was under the custody of the ARC. The CIC observed that as informed by the respondent, the appellant had demised and no successor had impleaded in the matter. Moreover, appropriate reply having been given by the CPIO, there appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter further.
Comments
Following the murders of some RTI Applicants which shook the country, the CIC had decided that no such RTI applications would abate on the death of the RTI Applicant.
Citation: C Arul Amuthan v. Indian Overseas Bank in Second Appeal No. CIC/IOVBK/A/2020/123471, Date of decision: 31.08.2022
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought documents related with reconstitution, partnership, ownership of M/s Manmad Gas Centre, Manmad, Dist: Nashik and other queries related thereto. The appellant contended that neither the reply of the PIO nor that of the FAO has been received by him. Before the CIC, the appellant contended that after filing the second appeal, he has only received one written submission wherein it is mentioned that the reply has already been sent. The respondent HPCL contended that the PIO reply was sent by an ordinary post but the FAO had replied on the email id of the appellant. He further contended that after filing the second appeal, he has only received one written submission wherein it is mentioned that the reply has already been sent. The CIC observed that the appellant had specifically mentioned in his first appeal that he did not receive the reply of the PIO, still the relevant reply had not been furnished by the respondent. The CIC cautioned the respondent to be more careful in future while dealing with the matters related to the RTI Act. The CIC directed the respondent to provide the proof of email sent to the appellant as exists in their records along with their reply of the PIO duly authenticated as per their records by registered post to the appellant.
Comments
As far as possible, the PIO should send a reply to the RTI Application through speed post and retain the proof of sending the reply.
Citation: Dilip Kumar Kachardas Bhandari v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in Second Appeal No.CIC/HPCLD/A/2020/682554, Date of decision: 04-07-2022
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The complainant alleged that information sought has not been provided while the RBI stated that point-wise reply, as per the documents available on record, has been provided. The RBI apologized for the delay caused in providing reply to the complainant due to Covid. The CIC observed that the complainant has sought voluminous information related to the names of the borrower entity of the Top 75 Banking Frauds as reported by the Cooperative banks in Uttarakhand for the 5 years till the end of FY 2019. The information sought is voluminous in nature and may not be readily available with the PIO in the manner as sought by the complainant, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, the disclosure of information is exempted as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The CIC referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009. The CIC further observed that the respondent has made every possible effort to provide replies and available information to the complainant and hence, no further intervention is required in the matter.
Comments
Subsection 9 PF section 7 provides that an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. It provides for only changing the form in which the information is available and does not provide blanket exemption.
Citation: Mr. Samir Sardana v. Reserve Bank of India in Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2020/693342, Date of decision: 04-07-2022
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant denied receipt of satisfactory information in compliance with the order of the SIC, J&K dated 18.07.2019 and stated that no opportunity of hearing was provided to him at the FAA stage. The Respondent remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation and an unsigned written submission was received by CIC from the O/o the Collector Land Acquisition I&FC Department, Srinagar vide letter dated 13.06.2022 wherein it was stated that the information was already provided to the Appellant on 14.01.2019. The CIC noted that a note ostensibly expressing satisfaction has been received by the respondent from a representative of Dr. Fayaz Ahmad on 11.06.2022, the factual veracity of which was not established. The CIC observed that as per available record, the order of the SIC, J&K has not been complied with till date since the statement of the compensation paid to each farmer/ land owner whose land has been acquired by the department has not been provided. Furthermore, the written submission given by the Respondent is unsigned and does not mention the name of the officer signing it. Holding that due to the absence of the Respondent, the proceeding before it is vitiated, the CIC issued show cause notice to the Collector, Land Acquisition I&FC Department, Srinagar to show cause why penal action should not be taken against him for not providing complete information to the Appellant and for not complying with the order of the SIC, J&K.
Comments
Not following the orders of the Information can lead to imposition of penalty on the concerned public information officer.
Citation: Dr. Fayaz Ahmad Bhat v. O/o Collector Land Acquisition, Irrigation & Flood Control Dept., Rajbagh, Srinagar in Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/114941, Date of Decision: 17.06.2022
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant sought information from Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University about a college. The PIO submitted that the said college has been disaffiliated in the year 2015. The CIC interjected and remarked that the Appellant is seeking information of the averred college prior to the year 2015 in the instant RTI Application. The CIC ruled that the information pertains to the rules related to the fee structure of different courses of the averred college prior to the year 2015 and denying the same under the garb of third party information is completely unwarranted and admonished the Respondent for the same. The CIC directed the Respondent to provide a relevant, categorical and point-wise revised reply to the Appellant.
Comments
If an organisation ceases to be a public authority on a particular date, the information for the prior period can still be sought under the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: G R Nautiyal v. Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University in Second Appeal No. CIC/HNBGU/A/2021/107261, Date of Decision: 17.06.2022
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

A timely reply had not been provided by the University to the applicant, which is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. A show - cause notice was issued by the CIC for imposition of penalty. The CIC observed that the RTI Application is addressed to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra (formerly known as Agra University), which is a State University under the control of the State Government, and dropped the proceedings.
Comments
Section 20 of the RTI Act reads, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that …” which implies that the jurisdiction of the CIC is limited to the central public authorities. Hence, a second appeal against the state government public authorities cannot be filed to the CIC.
Citation: Kaushal Agarwal v. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra in Complaint No. CIC/BBAUV/C/2017/178310, Date of decision: 08.07.2022.
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com