ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Tue, May 26, 2020
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Timely Response
Supreme Court(Timely Response)/ High Courts(Timely Response)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
16 CIC/POSTS/A/2016/311158
(55.66 KB) pdf icon
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.
17 CIC/RK/A/2016/001124-AB
(104.89 KB) pdf icon
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.
18 CIC/RK/A/2016/001021-AB
(238.77 KB) pdf icon
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.
19 CIC/RK/A/2016/000975-AB
(228.97 KB) pdf icon
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.
20 CIC/RK/A/2016/000862-AB
(100.96 KB) pdf icon
19 Jul, 2017 Charan Dass Vs CPIO, Northern Railway, RPF, Ambala Cantt. & CPIO Northern Railway, DRM’s Office, Unnamed Road

The appellant vide his RTI application dated 02.07.2015 sought information on 3 points; competency of Sr DSC/UMB RPF to handle the case and sending it to DRM/UMB for disciplinary action against the applicant vide letter no-14B/SIB/UMB/2013 dated 15.07.2013, duty list of RPF in such cases, divisional inspector’s report as mentioned by Sr DSC/UMB in letter no-14B/SIB/UMB/2013 dated 15.07.2013. CIC directed CPIO to provide revised point wise reply (subject to invoking of section 8 of the RTI Act) complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record including certified true copies of the documents 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.
21 CIC/SA/A/2015/002146/MP
(20.17 KB) pdf icon
30 Mar, 2017 Shri Naveen Kumar Yadav, Bhiwani Vs. National Council of Teachers Education, New Delhi

Shri Naveen Kumar Yadav, the appellant, sought clarification whether the candidate having History in B.Ed could teach Social Studies with a copy of the relevant rules along with the rules regarding the subjects required to have been studied in B.Ed for becoming a teacher of Social Studies. CIC held that, CPIO had not complied with the order of the FAA and had not supplied the information within the stipulated period of seven days, therefore, directs the CPIO to (i) send a reply to the appellant with a copy to the Commission, (ii) submit his explanation for not responding to the RTI application and not complying with the order of the FAA, within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission.
22 CIC/BS/C/2014/000302
(46.43 KB) pdf icon
28 Mar, 2017 Surender Kumar Singh vs Central Public Information Officer Astt. Dir.I, Deptt. of Posts, O/o Postmaster General , Northern Area, Muzaffarpur Bihar

The complainant filed RTI application seeking information regarding reasons for not giving him MACP benefits etc. The respondent stated that the complainant had been given interim reply vide letter dated 03.07.2014 and final reply was given on 16.07.2014. The CIC upheld the decision of the CPIO.
23 CIC/BS/C/2014/000320
(56.67 KB) pdf icon
28 Mar, 2017 Mr. Naveen Kumar Srivastav, Patna, Bihar Vs. Central Public Information Officer CGM, BSNL, Patna

The complainant filed RTI application on 30.07.2014. The respondent on 06.09.2014, informed the complainant that he has not deposited requisite fees along with his RTI application. The Commission is of the view that there is a delay in asking the requisite fees from the complainant. The respondent is directed to furnish reply/information to the complainant on his RTI application dated 30.07.2014, free of cost.
24 CIC/BS/C/2015/900215
(49.34 KB) pdf icon
27 Mar, 2017 Sushila Devi Vs. Central Public Information Officer Chief Accounts Officer (CFA), BSNL, Jaipur

CIC , on perusal of the reply given by the respondent, found that the reply is not adequate. CIC held that, the respondent shall inform the complainant (i) Ground of refusal of the information (ii) name and address of the first appellate authority (iii) name and designation (CPIO) etc. The respondent is directed to give revised reply to the complainant.
25 CIC/CC/A/2015/002352-AB
(463.70 KB) pdf icon
22 Nov, 2016 Waheed Shareef vs Central Public information Officer EME Records & CPIO-MCEME

The CPIO has directed to provide the information free of cost.
26 CIC/VS/A/2015/002051+2052+2053-AB
(348.30 KB) pdf icon
19 Oct, 2016 Sh. Vishesh Abrol vs Central Public information Officer M/o Railways Office of the Controller of Stores, Integral Coach Factory, Chennai

The CPIO has directed to provide the information free of cost.
27 CIC/SM/A/2012/000028, 000868 & 001523
(212.83 KB) pdf icon
05 Oct, 2012 Dr. Prashan Ramesh Chakkarwar, Shri Ajit Kumar & Shri Ashish Gupta vs CPIO, Union Public Service Commission

Retention period of Records – UPSC - the CIC observed that the public authority must follow a uniform policy in regard to both the retention and disclosure of records.
28 CIC/SG/A/2012/000667/18564
(58.51 KB) pdf icon
24 Apr, 2012 Mr. Harish Kumar vs Mr. Dilip Ramnani PIO & SE-I Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Mr. V. K. Bhatia PIO & SE-II Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Information to be supplied free of cost if not provided within stipulated period. Imposed penalty.
29 CIC/SM/C/2011/901255
(207.26 KB) pdf icon
11 Apr, 2012 Shri Vilakshan Singh vs CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

The Complainant had requested for the certified copy of the judgement passed in a particular case and had enclosed Rs.50/- through banker’s cheque by way of application fee. CIC held that, the rules framed by the DOPT, clearly prescribes the banker’s cheque as a valid mode of payment of application fee and directed the CPIO eitherto send the information or a reasoned order if she does not want to disclose the information for any other reason.
30 CIC/SG/A/2012/000555/18267
(57.36 KB) pdf icon
04 Apr, 2012 Ms. Sushila vs Public Information Officer Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. & PIO & Chief Administrative Officer Atomic Energy Education Society

Information to be supplied free of cost as it was not provided within stipulated period.
Total Case uploaded: 44