|S.No.||CIC CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||CIC/NIACL/A/2017/143946-BJ||11 Sep, 2018||Mr. Jagdish Prasad Garg Vs. CPIO & Regional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, Bhopal Regional Office, Paryavas Bhavan,
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the amount of compensation awarded to the victims of fire incident that occurred in R.V.S Cold Storage, Gwalior, list of victims along with the compensation awarded etc.
The CPIO, vide letter dated 21.11.2016 denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1) (d), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the CPIO’s response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 23.02.2017, while concurring with the response of the CPIO,
referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & Ors. Further, it was informed by Bhopal Regional Office that the insured had requested not to reveal the details of the payment due to his commercial compulsions.
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
|2||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.
|3||CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113751, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113752, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113754, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113755, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113756, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113757, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113758, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113759, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113760, CIC/CAGIN/A/2017/113761, CIC/C||26 Jul, 2017||Mrs. Byramma Vs. CPIO, Sr. Dy. A/c. Gen. (Admn.), O/o. The Principal Accountant General, (A & E) Karnataka, Indian Audit & Accounts, Park House Road, Bangalore-560001.
CIC directed the respondent to (a.) to make thorough search of their records with respect to the Pension Payment Order (PPO) number of Sh. Thimmaiah and give reply/information to the appellant as per the provisions enumerated under the RTI Act, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order; (b.) to transfer the RTI applications dated 05.10.2016 of the appellant (as enumerated in the table at para no. 34 above), within 5 days from the date of receipt of this order. The concerned Public Authority in turn are directed to give reply to the appellant, within 25 days from the date of receipt of RTI applications; and (c.) assistance should be made available to the appellant in getting information or filing RTI application/appeal as per provisions of the RTI Act.
|4||CIC/BS/A/2016/000116||30 Mar, 2017||Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Central Public Information Officer Dy. GM, BSNL, O/o DGM Telecom Distt. Mahanagar Swechha, Lucknow, UP
The Commission observed that presently there is no way of giving information as the record had been weeded out. However, the appellant can be compensated for loss and detriment suffered by him as the BSNL system has failed to give information to the appellant. The respondent public authority i.e. BSNL is directed to pay a token compensation of Rs. 2500/- to the appellant.
|5||CIC/SA/C/2016/000106||26 Dec, 2016||D Vijay Kumar vs PIO, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Telangana
Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. Section 11 Third Party. The Commission held that names of diseases of family members of around 10 claimants including the diseases of Mr. Sobhan Babu and his wife were given to the RTI applicant. The Commission directed Mr. Sobhan Babu to show cause why penalty should not be imposed against him for disclosing the disease related information of the appellant and his family members to Mr. Bhaskar without consulting Mr. Vijay Kumar as per section 11 (1) of RTI Act and causing invasion of privacy, and directed Mr. Sekhar Babu to explain why the public authority should not be ordered to pay compensation to the appellant for the detriment caused by invasion of privacy.
|6||CIC/BS/A/2015/901664/11873||08 Dec, 2016||Sumit Kumar Das vs Department of Posts, Kolkata
Section 19(8)(b) — Compensation to be awarded to the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered
The Commission held that the applicant is the nominee of the accounts of the deceased customers, hence, no information relating to the accounts can be withheld from him. The CPIO is directed to provide the information as requested by the applicant in his RTI application, free of cost. The Commission further awarded compensation to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 2500/- for the inconvenience and detriment caused under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act.
|7||CIC/MP/A/2016/000143||30 Jun, 2016||Satish Kumar Jha vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Delhi
Award of Compensation.
The Commission held that the respondents had failed to provide complete and satisfactory information to the appellant at the first instance, particularly in respect of reasons for delayed payment of gratuity to him and about penal interest payable on late payment of gratuity. Mere stating that due to non availability of commission record, the payment of gratuity was delayed is not sufficient. The CPIO should have provided more concrete reasons as available in material form to the appellant. Further, no response was given to the appellant regarding penal interest payable for late payment of gratuity. there does not seem to be any deliberate or malafide attempt on the part of the CPIO to provide incomplete information, warranting any penal action against him. Nonetheless, the fact which cannot be overlooked in this whole process is that the appellant had to suffer unwarranted detriment and mental agony on account of non supply of complete and satisfactory information in the first instance and he had to file first appeal and then second appeal for receiving the desired information.
The Commission by powers vested in it under section of the RTI Act, directed the respondent authority to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to the appellant as compensation.
|8||CIC/RM/A/2014/004572-SA CIC/RM/A/2014/004573-SA||21 Apr, 2016||Anil Kumar Gupta vs National Institute of Open Schooling
Section 19(8)(b) Award of Compensation.
The Commission held that the NIOS has breached the law and the settled principles of natural justice by allowing party like Joint Director, to hear appeal of the appellant as FAA resulting in unjustified and biased The principle is that one who has made the decision having a judicial flavor should not participate in arising from such a decision. There is a strong prima facie case that the concerned Joint Director might tampered with the documents to wrongfully to show that the appellant was not performing well. The Commission directed the CPIO and the concerned Joint Director to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them for misleading the Commission and making allegations that the appellant was misusing the Act. The Commission also directed the concerned Joint Director to show cause why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him for hearing first appeal being an interested party and directed the public authority to explain why compensation of Rs. 50,000/ should not be paid to the appellant.
|9||CIC/SH/A/2015/000235||30 Mar, 2016||Puspanjali Padhy vs Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai
Section 19(8)(b) Award of Compensation to the applicant. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Section 13 Inquiry Report. The Commission held that the CPIO advised the Appellant to follow section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 to get the information needed by her, he ignored section 13(1), which requires the employer to make the report available to the concerned parties, without requiring those parties to make a demarche in that regard. Because of the above approach adopted by the CPIO, endorsed by the FAA, the Appellant has had to pursue the matter through the RTI route all this while to get the information, thereby undergoing considerable harassment.
The Commission under section of the RTI Act, directed the Respondent to pay a token compensation of Rs. 2000/to the Appellant.
|10||CIC/SA/A/2015/001894||16 Mar, 2016||Anita Singh vs Directorate of Health Services, GNCTD
Section 19(8)(b) - Award of compensation to the applicant
The Commission held that it is clear that the patients and their relatives are entitled to know the treatment details including names and qualifications /experience of doctors. As per the law, this information had to be given within 72 hours, under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. This falls under the scope of definition of information as per the RTI Act. The lack of responsibility from the respondent authority reflects its utter disregard for the law. The Commission issued show cause notice to the PIO to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him for obstructing the process of giving information to the appellant whose son had died during the treatment in Sri Gangaram Hospital. The Commission also noted that the Public Authority did not care to respond to the hearing notice sent by the Commission.
The Commission also directed the PIO to show cause why compensation of Rs. 50,000/- should not be awarded to the appellant.
|11||CIC/SA/A/2015/001769||11 Mar, 2016||Nand Lal vs Department of Legal Affairs
The Commission held that the Public authority and the notary are under a legal duty to protect and preserve such records/registers. If records are truly eaten away the termite, they owe an explanation to the people why they failed to prevent it. They also have a duty to give (i) list of records damaged by termite; (ii) list of those survived termite attack; and (iii) partially damaged records. If termite attack is claimed by the notary public, the genuineness of same has to be verified by the regulatory. If it was found to be wrongful claim the public authority should have taken necessary action against persons responsible for same. Section 4(I)(a) and (b) of the RTI Act imposed an obligation on notary and legal affairs department (public authority) to publish three lists.
The Commission considered Smt. Meena Sharma as deemed PIQ and directed her to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against her for not facilitating inspection of records through public authority as ordered by First appellate The Commission also directed Smt. Meena Sharma to furnish the certified copies of extracts from the notary registers as sought under the public authority and to explain why Commission should not direct the Department of Legal Affairs and her to give suitable compensation to the appellant.
|12||CIC/SA/A/2015/002048||29 Feb, 2016||Jagdish Prasad Vs. Revenue Department
Section 19(8)(b) Award of Compensation to the applicant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty the Commission held that the public authority has a duty to inform the voter appellant why he could not get the voter card on their own. They did not choose to answer even after he legally sought under RTI Act. They failed to convince the Commission why should they transfer the request instead of answering it. It is clear that their inaction and non-response to RTI application is violation of both of his rights right to information and right to vote. The voter has right to information about action on his application for voter card and also RTI under RTI Act. Article 325 of Indian Constitution categorically mandates that there shall be no discrimination in inclusion into the electoral rolls. By negligence or inaction, the Election Office has not included the applicant's voter card in the electoral list and thus his constitutional right is breached. The Election Office to showcause why suitable compensation should not be ordered to be paid by them to the applicant.
|13||CIC/SA/A/2015/000371||01 Feb, 2016||Dr. Avinash Kumar vs Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital
Section 19(8)(b) Award of Compensation to the applicant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him. Opening of the envelope and disclosure of identity of whistle blower.
The Commission directed the public authority to conduct an enquiry into the alleged opening of the envelope and disclosure of identity of whistleblower and decide appropriate action against concerned medical superintendent besides considering him to provide the compensation. The Commission recommended the public authority to initiate necessary disciplinary action against Dr. Ashok Jaiswal as proposed by the P10. The compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded to the appellant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him.
|14||CIC/RM/A/2014/000014-SA||03 Dec, 2015||Vijay Kumar Mishra v. CBSE directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)
The applicant sought copies of answer sheets of his son for class 12 (Maths and Science) exams held in 2013.
The CIC held that CBSE created several unreasonable conditions to limit/delay and deny right to information of the students.
The CBSE has no authority to deny information sought by father/natural guardian on behalf of minor. Hence father of the student is entitled to copies of answer sheets.
The condition imposed by CBSE of signing an undertaking relinquishing right to re-evaluation is restricting the right to information but also insulating itself from accountability.
CIC directed CBSE to put in place such system with conducive practices by which the Right to information of the appellants is not limited but facilitated, by removing the obstacles.
CBSE was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/ to the appellant within 15 days.
|15||CIC/DS/A/2012/002447||11 Dec, 2013||Satish Kuma vs O/o Director, Public Instruction(S), Chandigarh
Appellant submitted RTI application to the CPIO, O/o Director¬ Public Instruction (S), Chandigarh seeking details regarding the selection of candidates in the PGT entrance Examination as conducted by the Education Department, Chandigarh through multiple points. CPIO provided point wise information to the Appellant. Appellant preferred first Appeal to the First Appellate Authority. FAA did not provide any reply to the Appellant. Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by
The above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission. — the Commission held that FAA failed to discharge his duties as laid down in the RTI Act. It is established that he did not pass any order after hearing the first appeal of the appellant. Further, FAA failed to even respond to the reminder of the appellant to 'issue such order thereby compounding the error. The Commission further awarded compensation of 1500/- to the appellant for the hardship and detriment suffered by him. The Commission further invited attention of the Adviser to the Administrator to take notice of the lapse on the part of the FAA while discharging his official duties under the RTI Act thereby causing financial loss to the Government and take suitable action to recover the same from the salary of the offending officer under intimation to the Commission.