|S.No.||CIC CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||CIC/DOEAF/C/2017/105166/ISPNR||06 Aug, 2018||Ms Rashi Agrawal Vs CPIO, SPMCIL NEW DELHI, CPIO INDIAN SECURITY PRESS NASHIK
ISSUE : Non receipt of reply from the CPIO.
DECISION : The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to RTI applications.
The Commission directed the Public Authority to depute an officer of a senior rank to seek the explanation to the show cause notice from the concerned CPIOs and furnish the details sought by the complainant within a period of 30 days.
|2||CIC/DOEAF/C/2017/105166/ISPNR-BJ||06 Aug, 2018||Ms. Rashi Agrawal Vs. CPIO,Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001
The Complainant vide her RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding the date and diary number under which her First Appeal dated 09.11.2015 sent via speed post was received in the office of the FAA along with the certified copy of the Appellate order, if any,passed in the aforesaid appeal, present status with file noting of the Appeal, certified copies of all the communications exchanged between ISP, Nashik and Corporate Office and other issues related thereto.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the respondent, it is evident that the transfer of RTI application u/s 6 (3) to the concerned PIO was not made by the Respondent (SPMCIL, New Delhi) vide its initial reply dated 29.07.2016 and that no reply had been furnished by the Respondent (ISP Nashik) subsequent to the transfer of points 03 and 05 of the RTI application by FAA, SPMCIL, vide letter dated 06.09.2016 which was a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, therefore instructs the CMD, SPMCIL to depute an officer of a senior rank to seek the explanation to the show cause notice from the concerned CPIOs and furnish the details sought by the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act,2005, shall be initiated. The CMD, SPMCIL is also directed to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
|3||CIC/MOENF/C/2017/178184||30 Jul, 2018||Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs CPIO, MOEF and Climate Change
ISSUE :The appellant sought information relating to “conflicting rules of environment – Ministry aand MIDC puts entrepreneurs in problem” on fourteen points. The appellant was not satisfied by the reply of the CPIO and the FAA on grounds of the same being improper/incomplete. The appellant also sought for compensation for the detriment caused to him for the delay in supply of information to him.
DECISION : The CPIO is directed to affirm on affidavit and submit to the Commission, duly endorsed to the appellant that in respect of para 7 of the stated RTI application complete reply was provided vide replies dated 27/6/18 and 17/4/18. Otherwise he should furnish a revised consolidated reply within 10 days from the receipt of this order to the appellant on this point.
The Commission is of the opinion that a token amount of Rs 1000/- should be paid as compensation to the appellant u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the detriment caused to him. This amount is to be paid by the Public Authority, MOEF and Climate Change.
|4||CIC/IOCLD/A/2017/163417||25 Jun, 2018||Ajay Kumar Vs CPIO, IOC Ltd
ISSUE : The applicant had sought the Action Taken Report on his petition regarding fire accident claim arising out of leakage of the gas cylinder.
The applicant stated that he did not receive any reply to his petition.
DECISION : The respondent stated that they did not receive the RTI application of the appellant. Therefore they could not give a timely reply to the appellant. In fact the RTI application was addressed to their dealer. However they agreed to follow up the matter and provide a formal reply to the appellant as per the RTI Act.
The Commission observed that the respondent should take action as agreed to above.
|5||CIC/VS/C/2012/000468||20 Oct, 2017||Ramraj Sonkar Vs CPIO, SBI, Kanpur Nagar, UP
ISSUE : The complainant sought documents given as address proof by Sh R K Veramati at the time of opening of account in bank, date of opening of account, etc. The response of the CPIO and the FAA are not on record. The complainant filed a complaint on 12/5/17 before the CIC.
DECISION : The respondent is directed to give reply to the applicant on his RTI application within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of compliance may be sent to the Commission.
The respondent is further directed to show cause in writing that why action should not be taken against him for not attending the hearing in the Commission within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
|6||CIC/POSTS/A/2017/312335||31 Jul, 2017||N Chandra Shekara vs PIO, Department of Posts
The appellant sought certified copies of Employees Co-operative Housing Societies in Karnataka state which applied for permission to concerned competent authorities and its correspondences with notesheets; Employees Cooperative Housing Societies which approved permission by competent authorities and its correspondences with notesheets; list of Directors of Ministry of Communication Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore etc through six points. CPIO stated that the information sought does not pertain to this CPIO and the same may be obtained from the State Government. FAA provided information on point no. 4 and 6. Being dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Commission. The Commission directs the respondent authority to collect the complete information sought through the RTI application form the concerned authority and furnish that to the appellant, within 15 days from this date. Disposed of.
|7||CIC/POSTS/C/2017/309896||31 Jul, 2017||Girish Prasad Gupta Vs. PIO, Department of Posts
The appellant sought information regarding the amount that was sanctioned to MNREGA Fund OE-EC, how much was spent in March 2016; name and designation of the officers that spent money from the MNREGA fund as well as a copy of their approvals; copy of quotations presented by shops for computers to the MNREGA Fund panel as well as copy of the bill; copy of the CG-17 signed by shopkeepers after the bill is paid. CPIO replied on 24.05.2016 furnishing point wise information. FAA stated that the information provided on point 2 by the CPIO is insufficient and directed the CPIO to furnish the information within 10 days. The appellant stated that information regarding the funds allocated and spent for computer system under MNREGA scheme was not furnished to him. The officer responded that the appellant was informed earlier that no funds were allocated under category as mentioned by appellant but the expenses were taken from the Miscellaneous Fund. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide a comprehensive note about clarification on point no. 1 and 4 to the appellant, within 10 days from this date. Disposed of.
|8||CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299245/BJ||31 Jul, 2017||Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy Vs CPIO, Income Tax Department, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand
The ground that information was sought for narrow private interest and no larger public interest was going to be served with its disclosure. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
The Commission observed that the reply of the CPIO reflects palpable prejudice, arbitrariness, biasness and disregard to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. It was felt that the RTI applications were dealt with by the CPIO in most routine, casual and mechanical manner without any application of mind which was a clear violation of the provisions of Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission therefore, directs the CCIT, Ranchi to conduct an enquiry either by himself or through a nominee officer of senior rank and send an enquiry report to the Commission under intimation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
|9||CIC/RK/A/2016/001058||26 Jul, 2017||K K Kaushik Vs. CPIO, PIO, Northern Railway, DRM’s Office, State Entry Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi- 110055
The appellant vide RTI application dated 11.08.2015 sought copy of the affidavit submitted by the respondent PIO in compliance with the Commission’s order dated 20.05.2015 in appeal case no. CIC/BS/A/2013/002883. The CPIO’s reply or the First Appellate Authority’s order is not on record. The appellant being aggrieved filed second appeal before this Commission on 04.02.2016.
since no reply was provided to the appellant in almost two and half years, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, email etc. free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
|10||CIC/RK/A/2016/001063-AB||26 Jul, 2017||Suwalal Meena Vs. CPIO, North Central Railway, DRM’s Office, Agra, Cantt. Railway Station, Mall Rd, Agra
The appellant sought information relating to seniority of Helper in E.T.L Section. The appellant filed first appeal and the First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal by enclosing an earlier reply. The appellant filed second appeal before this Commission. On perusal of the case record, CIC found that the reply by both respondent CPIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) though proper was deficient to the extent that information on denial of promotion to the appellant had been missed.
CIC directed the respondent CPIO to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
|11||CIC/BS/A/2016/001813||25 Jul, 2017||Gangadhar Bajpai Vs. PIO, ESIC
The appellant sought to know whether ESIC provides services to hospitals all over India; whether all hospitals are online; number of IP smart card users in ESIC; how many of these IP smart card users donate money to ESIC; etc. CPIO informed that the information was furnished to the appellant and if the appellant submits the medical bills provided by the doctor in Kanpur to the ESIC the medical expenses incurred by him would be reimbursed. The Commission directs earlier CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not furnishing the information sought by the appellant within 30 days.
|12||CIC/POSTS/A/2016/311158||25 Jul, 2017||Bala Vs. PIO, Department of Posts
The appellant sought information regarding the number of employees in MTS from scheduled caste; name of the employees from scheduled caste along with their contact details and work allocation, details of any inquiry constituted against them under rule 14, rule 15 or rule 16; name of employees whose salary has been blocked; name of female employees against whom inquiry has been constituted by Shri P.K Singh. CPIO replied 25.07.2016 furnishing point wise information. FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision and stated that information provided is sufficient. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the complete information sought about the punishment imposed on officials.
|13||CIC/RK/A/2016/001124-AB||25 Jul, 2017||Saurabh Kumar Dixit Vs DPG & CPIO, Railway Board, New Delhi
The appellant has sought information regarding measurement of land belonging to railways on both sides of the track from Bareilly railway station to Roza Railway Station, numbers of reserved and unreserved tickets issued at the railway station at Shahajapur, reason for closing of services of train nos. 54251, 54252 & 54356, renewal of M.S.T facility etc. The CPIO provided reply & enclosures on point nos. 3 & 4 only. Being aggrieved with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant filed first appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that information had been provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 02.11.2016. Being aggrieved with the FAA’s Order, the appellant filed Second Appeal on 15.02.2016 before this Commission.
CIC issued warning to the CPIO for the inordinate delay in providing information to the appellant.
|14||CIC/RK/A/2016/001021-AB||24 Jul, 2017||Dolamani Namdeo Vs. CPIO, Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur, Jharkhand – 833102
The appellant has sought information regarding his old selection grade Rs 530-630/- wef. 12.08.1982 as the selection grade post was vacant due to promotion of one Shri J.Sethi, TGT (O/M)/MMS/JSG. The appellant sought Xerox copy of note sheet & other related documents and reason for the delayed action on the letter submitted on July 2014 by the appellant etc. The CPIO provided some information. Being aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed First appeal. The First appellate authority upheld the decision of the CPIO. CIC noticed that the replies of both the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) were deficient in nature. Since no final reply was provided to the appellant the present respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects, to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
|15||CIC/RK/A/2016/000975-AB||20 Jul, 2017||Hemant Gaur Vs. CPIO, Railway Recruitment Board, Ajmer, 2010
Since the requisite information was not provided to the appellant, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in regard to the number of MST passes issued from 01.08.2011 to 31.10.2011 and 01.09.2012 to 30.11.2012 and such other details, free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
In regard to the delay in providing the final reply on 13.07.2017 i.e. after a period of 2 years of the receipt of the said RTI application, the PIO is issued warning conveying displeasure of the Commission.