|S.No.||CIC CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||CIC/SA/A/2015/001790||31 Mar, 2016||Vijayanti vs University Grants Commission
The appellant through her RTI application is seeking certified copies of all medical documents submitted by Mr. and Mrs. X from the time of admission for delivery by Mrs. X till the date of discharge from the Kalinga Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar which was a recognized institution as part of deemed to be University KIIT, by the respondent/UGC.
The Commission held that a larger public interest is proved by the appellant to override non disclosure of personal information under section 8(1) (j) as she is alleging that her husband is living in a bigamous relationship during subsistence of a valid marriage with her. Practices of plural marriages during continuation of first marriage is considered a crime under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. A larger public interest will be served in disclosure of representation made by Mr and Mrs. X in the form of documents signed by them for admission for delivery of child at KIIMS hospital, Bhubneshwar.
The Commission directed the CPIO, UGC to coordinate with its affiliated University i.e., KIIT to provide to the appellant certified copy of patient admission form and related documents submitted by Mr. and Mrs. X at the time of admission for delivering a girl child at KIIMS Hospital.
|2||CIC/CC/A/2015/004038/SA||11 Mar, 2016||Mukesh Jain vs Central Board of Secondary Education
The appellant wanted under RTI, number of students appearing in 10th and 12th board examination to be conducted in year 2015, in form of list according to their School, subject and medium of instruction.
The Commission held that there is reasonable apprehension that appellant's demand for voluminous information is unreasonable, intended to serve his commercial interest, without a genuine purpose and might lead to wastage of public resources. CIC held that, the RTI Act cannot be allowed to be abused for serving commercial needs of the appellant publishers so that he uses the data of school children for reaching out to them or their parents as his customers and hence rejected the appeal.
|3||CIC/KY/A/2015/001155||25 Feb, 2016||P. C. Pande Vs. DDA, LIG Branch (Housing), New Delhi
Appellant sought information from the respondents on two issues relating to the allotment of flat to his neighbour.. CPIO denied the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act . Further, CPIO asked the appellant to submits his locus standee. FAA, uphold the views of CPIO. In response to this, the appellant vide his subsequent letter, explained the position regarding the full use of terrace by his neighbour. According to appellant, the allottee of the neighbouring Flat allegedly denying / restricting the legitimate free access of other allottees to the common terrace for maintaining essential service.
CIC directed the respondents to provide the complete and categorical information, issue-wise, to the appellant as per his RTI application, in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act 2005.
|4||CIC/SH/A/2015/000981||25 Jan, 2016||M. Padamanabha Reddy Vs. Vijaya Bank, Bangalore
Appellant,sought information regarding loan defaulters. The information sought at point No.1 was regarding the number of defaulters as on 1.4.2014, amount involved and remarks. At point No.2, the Appellant sought information regarding the names and address of defaulters (with more than Rs. 5.00 crores as the amount due for repayment), Regarding the information at point No.2, the CPIO stated that the public authority had a fiduciary relationship with its account holders and borrowers and there was no public interest warranting disclosure of the information sought by the Appellant. Therefore, he denied the information in response to point No. 2.
The Commission held that section 8(2) of the RTI Act mandates that even where disclosure of information is protected by the exemptions under section 8(1) of the RTI Act, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to such protected interests, the information must be disclosed under the RTI Act. The respondent could follow the same criteria/categories while providing the information sought by the Appellant regarding defaulters. The CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant the information sought by him.
|5||CIC/DS/A/2011/003245||28 Jun, 2012||Dr. Anshu Agrawal v United India Insurance Co. Ltd
Applicant submitted RTI application dated 31 May 2011 before the CPIO, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Aliganj,
Lucknow to obtain information broadly through 5 points pertaining to time gap between date of issue of policy bond and date of transfer of the policy bond to the TPA along with copy of the agreement between Company and the TPA. CPIO, with reference to points 1 and 2 denied the information under the provisions of section 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(d) of the Act.
The Commission held that it is necessary to strike a fine balance between disclosure of information in larger public interest and simultaneously ensure that the privacy of the policy holder is protected as per the provisions of section 8(I)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC recommended to the CMD Head Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai to give directions to all Branch Managers to put up on the Company's website the following information:
i). Number of the Mediclaim policy (no names are required to be given).
ii). Date of issue of Mediclaim Policy Bond.
iii). Date of transfer of the said policy bond to the TPA
|6||CIC/DS/A/2011/000841||21 Mar, 2012||Kulbhushan Jain Vs. SBI, Vijaywada, Hyderabad
Appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, SBI, Hyderabad seeking the details of the defaulting cases which were compromised by the public authority during the last three years. CPIO declined the information to the Appellant as the information sought, contains matters of commercial confidence and trade secrets, disclosure of which may harm the competitive position of the entity.
Further information sought is vast and also will disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority as per section 7 (9) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The commission held that there is a larger public interest involved in disclosing the year-wise aggregate settled amount by the banks with the defaulting parties as it will help in transparent functioning of the public authority which is the very objective of the RTI Act. Accordingly Commission directed the respondent to furnish information limited to the total number of entities who have defaulted and the total settled amount.