ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Thu, May 30, 2024
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Preamble
Supreme Court(Preamble)/ High Courts(Preamble)
1 24 Mar, 2021 Mr. CKR Tripathi Vs. CPIO, Ministry Of Communication,

Information sought
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points, as under:-Page 2 of 10 1. Kindly provide photo copies of answer sheets of all papers i.e. (paper 1 to 6) and obtained marks in each paper. 2. In the merit list serial No. 604 Aradhana Kumari Father name Ashok Kumar Suman DOB 15.08.1992 has been declared successful in this regard please inform me her date of entry in the service with initial cadre. 3. In serial 879 Shri Randhir Kumar Father name Shri Bijendra Choudahary DOB 05.08.1991 in this regard inform me date entry in the service with initial cadre. 4. In the serial No. 905 Nagendra Babu Jarapla father name Ramulu Jarapla DOB 05.02.1991 in this context please supply date of entry in the service with initial cadre.

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant, and in the light of the decisions cited above pertaining to the right of a candidate to seek his / her own answer sheet/ marks obtained by him/ her, the Commission directs the PIO, D/o Posts, to furnish a copy of his answer sheets to the Appellant as sought in the RTI Application under query no. 1, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation of this Commission. The Commission further directs the Respondent to furnish a revised- reply to the Appellant, with respect to query No. 2 to 4 as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

It is further observed that in relation to this particular exam i.e. LDCE- AAO, 2018, conducted by the Respondent, a series of Second Appeals have been heard by the Commission, wherein, great dissatisfaction is shown by the candidates with respect to the lack of transparency in the mode and method of conducting the examination and the assessment/evaluation of the candidates. The Candidates, in the other similar matters also produced evidences which clearly indicate that the Department’s attitude is not transparent as the Respondent had provided the information sought by the candidates in similar other exams conducted by them previously, but every effort has been made by the Respondent to withhold the flow of information in this particular exam by misrepresenting before the Commission and giving evasive replies. Due to repeated refusal by the CPIO to implement the Commission’s direction in the above stated matters, the Commission is compelled to bring it to the notice of the Secretary, Department of Posts and the Director General, Department of Posts that this is a fit case for their intervention in the larger interest of transparency and accountability which are the main objectives of the RTI Act, 2005. If this issue is not addressed transparently then it will lead to more such issues in future which is likely to challenge the credibility and good governance by the Department.

2 31 Jan, 2020 Mr. Shyam Manohar Harit Vs CPIO, United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Information sought: The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the company’s letter dated 09.01.2017 pertaining to transfer and posting on the post of Administrative Officer and the relaxation given to the employees on local posting along with the complete correspondence taken place with the Head Office in this regard.

Decision: Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under: “6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished.”

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.
3 05 Dec, 2019 Shri Raj Hans Tyagi Vs. PIO / Executive Engineer (Bldg), Nazafgarh SDMC, Nazafgarh,

Information Sought
The Complainant through RTI application dated 10.05.2018 sought the following information:

1. Copy of orders by whom directions were given not to demolish the Chajjas of Shri Raghunath Prasad which is 5-6 feet wide on main road.
2. The names of officers who visited the premises of Shri Raghunath Prasad to verify that Chajjas are authorised or unauthorised.
3. If any person extended Chajjas on Road even by one feet, it is authorised or unauthorised. Provide copy of the orders in this regard.

Upon hearing averments of the parties, it is evident that there is a dispute over jurisdiction of the area and as to who is the real custodian of information. Accordingly, it is found to be in the best interest that the matter is remanded to FAA/ADM- South West- Sh. M T Kom, alongwith a copy of the report submitted by the Appellant during the hearing to facilitate adjudication of the case, after deciding the territorial jurisdiction of the property in question. A copy of the FAA’s order shall be submitted before the Commission by 03.01.2020. In the event that records are not found, the FAA shall submit an actual status report to that effect, by 03.01.2020.

It is made clear that non-adherence of these directions shall attract penal action as per law.

The appeals are thus disposed off with the above observations.

4 27 Sep, 2019 Shri Jasjeet Singh Vs. PIO, Heavy Electrical Ltd., Ministry of Heavy Industries & PE, New Delhi

Information Sought
Disposal of re-presentation.

It is evident that the entire cause of action in all these cases is centred around employer-employee dispute on removal of the employee from service. The above discussion of the facts and submissions of the case at hand reveal that the issue raised by the Appellant is essentially is borne out of his grievance arising from an inter se dispute between parties which cannot be adjudicated under the RTI Act. The framework of the RTI Act, 2005 is clearly laid out to decide issues pertaining to access/right to information and thus the jurisdiction of this Commission cannot be expanded into the realm of grievance redressal. Since information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act has already been furnished, the Commission is not inclined to intervene any further in this matter. Appellant is at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse before the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance/s.

5 23 Aug, 2019 S.C. Garg & Sons Vs. CPIO, M/o Railways

Information Sought
The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o Railways, Rail Electrification, Amabala Cantt., Haryana seeking information on four points, including, inter-alia: (i) status and action taken on letter dated 13.07.2017; and (ii) action and daily progress report on letter dated 04.05.2017, etc.

In view of the above, the above complaint is not maintainable. No intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

6 16 Mar, 2017 Dr. Amritha Nair Vs. National Board of Examination

The Commission is in agreement with the Respondent that the medical profession requires highest degree of precision and professional competence since they deal with the sensitive and dynamic subject of public health. Disclosure of any information which diminishes the rigour of the Screening process of selection and/or training of the medical experts will naturally have a direct detrimental impact on the quality of doctors practising in the country. RTI Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy i.e. of transparency and accountability on one hand and public interest on the other hand Undoubtedly, the settled legal position of law on this issue is that the individual rights must be sacrificed at the altar of larger or societal good lest such private/individual interest run the risk of eclipsing the larger collective interest of the society.
if question papers are so disclosed, the possibility of the examination not resulting in the selection of the best candidate cannot be ruled out. It is pleaded that knowledge of the question papers of all the previous years with correct answers may lead to selection of a student with good memory rather than an analytical mind. CIC dismissed the appeal.
Total Case uploaded: 6