|S.No.||CIC CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||CIC/RBIND/C/2017/123750||20 Nov, 2017||Shailesh Gandhi Vs CPIO, RBI, Central Office, Mumbai.
ISSUE : The appellant submitted a complaint u/s 18(1)(f) of RTI Act, 2005 to the Commission against the ‘Disclosure Policy’ issued by the RBI on its website containing a list of information which shall not be given.
DECISION : The instant complaint under section 18(1)(f) of the Act which was based on assumptions and apprehensions of complainant without any conclusive attempt at exercising the right to information was not maintainable. ……..moreover the complainant could not substantiate the reasons for not filing an RTI application with the Public Authority before filing a complaint with the Commission.
The complaint is accordingly dismissed.
|2||CIC/POSTS/A/2017/308521||31 Jul, 2017||Vinayak Ganpatrao Ingle Vs. PIO, Department of Posts
The appellant sought information on copies of the order of the official relieved for the purpose of training at Postal Training Center, Vadodara along with office note and actual relief of the official; copies of all correspondence received and made with PMG, Nagpur and the CPMG, Maharashtra Circle. CPIO demanded a sum of Rs. 96/- in order to provide all the information sought. First appeal was filed that incomplete information was provided. FAA disposed the appeal with a direction to the CPIO to provide all available information/records within 30 days. Being dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Commission. The Commission direct the respondent authority to facilitate inspection of the files concerning training at Postal Training Center, Vadodara and provide the certified copies of the rulings to the appellant. Any rejection of informat directs the respondent authority to publicise the rule of the Dept. of Posts regarding preservation period of records and period within which an applicant can complain about non-delivery about an article/registered post etc. and send the compliance report to the Commission.
|3||CIC/DEPOL/A/2016/305523||20 Jul, 2017||Shri Jitendra Kumar Vs. CPIO, Delhi Police, O/o DCP, West District, P.S. Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-110 027
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o the DCP, Rajouri Garden, Delhi Police seeking information pertaining to the action taken on his complaint dated 10.03.2016.
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant has alleged that copies of complete documents in connection with the inquiry conducted on his complaint have not been provided to him by the respondent. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent to allow the appellant to inspect all relevant records pertaining to his complaint dated 10.03.2016 on a mutually decided date and time and to provide photocopies of the requisite documents, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The above directions shall be complied with, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
|4||CIC/BS/A/2016/000209/MP||30 Mar, 2017||Shri K S Reddy, West Godavari (A.P.) Vs. NPCCL, Faridabad
Shri K S Reddy, the appellant, sought the certified copies of the documents relating to the date of receipt of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 5111/1993, decision dated 08.04.2013; copy of petition received by NPCC along with the replies/counter replies filed by it in the petition, etc.; The Commission observed that the CPIO and the FAA had provided the information that was existing and available with them to the appellant. The public authority is not under any obligation to create or collate non-available information for the appellant’s satisfaction u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay.
|5||CIC/BS/A/2014/001817/12161||13 Feb, 2017||Mr. Ram Kumar Pandey Vs. D/o Telecom.
CIC observed that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 07/10/2013 in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others V/S State of Kerala and others ( Civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013 ) has held as under:- "40. The burden to show that a body is owned controlled or substantially financed or that a non - government organization is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government is on the applicant who seeks information". In the present case, the applicant has not discharged the above burden or made any submissions to enable the Commission to examine the applicability or otherwise of the provisions of section 2 (h) of the RTI Act 2005. In view of the foregoing the complaint cannot be considered any further and the matter is being treated as closed.
|6||CIC/VS/A/2015/903308||13 Jan, 2017||Ms Santosh Devi Vs CPIO, North East Frontier Rly, Bihar
The appellant filed RTI application seeking information: is medical board which comprises four specialist doctors is more authentic or screening committee in terms of medical ground which orders for absorption on same post; if screening committee has more powers than why medical board is required; provide Railway Board’s guideline wherein it is mentioned that medically decategorised staff can be utilized against those posts from where one was medically decategorised etc. The respondent should provide to the appellant the rules/guidelines/ policy related to medical decategorisation of staff within 7 days.
|7||CIC/VS/A/2015/000501||11 Nov, 2016||Mr. Bhushan Sharma Vs CPIO, South Central Railway
The appellant filed RTI application seeking photo copy of his answer booklet, photo copy of the question booklet of the candidate who has secured 33.35% marks, copy of final merit list. The respondent is directed to provide the complete merit list along with marks of all candidates. The respondent should also provide to the appellant his question booklet in Hindi, along with copy of key answer sheet.
|8||CIC/VS/A/2015/003344/SD||31 Oct, 2016||Amar Kumar Jha vs CPIO Station Headquarter Agartala
The Commission directed the CPIO to provide the inspection, if the Appellant while appearing for this purpose show his identity proof to fully establish that he is the same person with respect to whom the information is being sought.
|9||CIC/BS/C/2014/000103/11052||11 Aug, 2016||N. Syamasundaran Vs. TRAI, New Delhi
Section 2(f) — Information — the Commission held that certain information is placed in public domain accessible to the citizen either freely or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control of ' the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. This case does not meet the requirement of section 20(1) of the RTI Act regarding the CPIO not furnishing information within the stipulated time without any reasonable cause". There is also nothing to establish that the CPIO acted in a malafide manner.
|10||CIC/BS/A/2015/901005||02 Aug, 2016||Gansham Ramchandani Vs. Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi
Section 2(f) Information the Commission held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the matter of CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. has held that where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.
|11||CIC/MP/A/2016/000472||01 Aug, 2016||N C S M Prasad Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad
Section 2(f) — Information — the Commission upheld the contention of the respondents that the appellant's queries were hypothetical and imagnary in nature as the same were about an incident, which the appellant has described as "cold storage scam", which had not taken place. In other words, the appellant had not sought any materials and existing information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
|12||CIC/MP/A/2016/000605||01 Aug, 2016||Milind Dhanaji Unawane Vs. Currency Note Press, Nashik
Section 2(f) — Information — the Commission held that the queries made by the appellant in the RTI application are more in the nature of eliciting explanation or clarification from the respondents rather than information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The appellant appears to be having certain grievances against the public authority regarding withholding of his increment which cannot be considered here as it lies beyond the purview of the RTI Act.
|13||CIC/SH/A/2015/001982 CIC/SH/A/2016/000333||28 Jul, 2016||Inderjit Singh Suri vs Dena Bank, New Delhi
Section 2(f) Information
The Commission held that the CPIO was wrong in stating that the queries of the Appellant did not come under the purview of the RTI Act. Further, just because the Appellant is a dismissed employee, he is not debarred from seeking information under the RTI Act to defend his rights, including to use such information in courts. The CPIO is directed to respond to the two queries of the Appellant mentioned above, based on the relevant rules and regulations of the bank. In case the said rules do not cover the specific issues raised by the Appellant, the CPIO should state so and provide him a certified copy of the bank's rules applicable in respect of admissibility of terminal benefits in the case of dismissed employees / employees who have undergone prosecution. Legal opinion, copies of which have been sought by the Appellant, is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act because of the fiduciary relationship between the bank and its lawyers. However, since the fee paid to the lawyers comes from public funds, there is no ground not to disclose the information concerning the same. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to provide to the Appellant the information concerning the lawyers' fee sought by him in the RTI application.
|14||CIC/SS/C/2014/900112||25 Jul, 2016||Vansh Sharad Gupta vs High Court of Gujarat
Section 2(f) Information Appropriate Commission
The Commission held that in its earlier decision bearing No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01137 dated 13th March, 2009 titled as Shri DN. Loharuka v High Court of Judicature at Mumbai, has held that "The constitution and organization of the High Courts is within the legislative ambit of the Parliament under Entry 78 to the Schedule VII of the Constitution. Article 231 of the Constitution provides that the Parliament may by law establish a common High Court for two or more states or two or more states and Union Territories.
Thus, all the High Courts as Public Authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005 will come within the jurisdiction of the Central Information Commission and not State Information Commission."
|15||CIC/MP/A/2016/000081||29 Jun, 2016||K C. Jalgaonkar vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai
Section 2(f) Information
The Commission held that the respondent authority has placed disclosable information on their website which is available in public domain and therefore not under the control of the public authority. It can be accessed by anybody desiring to seek this information. Therefore, there is no need to provide a hard copy. The Commission upheld the decisions of the FAA.