ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Tue, May 26, 2020
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Definition of Information
Supreme Court(Definition of Information)/ High Courts(Definition of Information)
16 CIC/MORLY/A/2017/156476/SD
(142.12 KB) pdf icon
10 Jan, 2019 M K Mondol Vs. CPIO, Deputy CPO(W), Administrative Building, PO – Chittaranjan

Information requested
The Appellant sought information regarding breakup of production of 292 three phase locos i.e WAP5, WAG9H, WAP7 in the production year 2016-2017 in Chittaranjan; Date of dispatch of loco from CLW, Date of withdrawal of three phase transformer from Store Department, Date of receiving of supplied transformer from supplier to store Department, Gate pass number and Name of Division to which Loco were sent.

Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that information sought by the Appellant in the form of columns indeed appears to be pertaining to scattered records which the CPIO will have to deduce and collate. Commission finds no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO on paras 5 and 6 of the RTI Application. The offer of inspection provided on para 5 of the RTI Application can be extended to the remaining columns if records for the same is available.

Commission directs the CPIO to provide an adequate opportunity of inspection of relevant records corresponding to Columns 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the RTI Application to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time intimated to him telephonically and in writing. Copy of documents, if desired should be provided free of cost upto 25 pages and for pages beyond this limit prescribed fees shall be charged. The said directions should be complied within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and a compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent to the Commission by the CPIO. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
17 CIC/UIICL/A/2017/167414-BJ
(202.20 KB) pdf icon
08 Jan, 2019 Mr. T. C. Sadhwani Vs. CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited

Information requested
There appellant sought redressal of his grievances through RTI application.

The CIC is of the opinion that the RTI act 2005 is not a redress of grievance mechanism. The CIC quoted various judgements in this regard.
18 CIC/LICOI/A/2017/167220-BJ
(185.47 KB) pdf icon
08 Jan, 2019 Mr. Ghanshyam Tarachand Parikh Vs. CPIO, Manager (CRM), LIC of India

Information requested
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the action taken on his complaint letter dated 30.08.2016 addressed to the Chairman with a copy to ZM and Sr.DM regarding the short payment of Rs. 16936.51 along with noting of the respective department on his representation.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 14.07.2017 stated that interim relief payment of 40% was made as per the program given by the central office. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 28.08.17, stated that the RTI application/ First appeal did not fall within the purview of the definition of information u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and was treated as grievance hence the concerned department was instructed to resolve his grievance.

While agreeing with the public authority that the RTI Act 2005 was not redress of grievance mechanism, CIC directed the public authority to intimate the appellant the detailed facts of case within 15 days.
19 CIC/ERAIL/A/2017/110107/SD
(156.21 KB) pdf icon
08 Jan, 2019 Janardan Prasad Pandey Vs. CPIO, Chief Communication Engineer, Eastern Railway, Kolkata

Information requested
The Appellant sought information regarding order of Dy CSTE/W/HWH which was alleged to be not complied by him.

Commission observes from the perusal of facts on record that in the grounds of Second Appeal, Appellant has expressed grievance against his senior officers who have allegedly given adverse remarks in his APAR. In this context, he wants the Commission to intervene and settle his promotion related service matter.

Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter, as grievance redressal is not within the ambit of the RTI Act.
20 CIC/NRAIL/C/2017/174228/SD
(155.80 KB) pdf icon
07 Jan, 2019 S C Khanna Vs. CPIO, APIO cum ADEN/Safety, Divisional Office, Ferozepur, Punjab

Information requested
The Complainant sought information regarding return of some letter and alleged tampering of records.

Commission deems the CPIO reply appropriate based on perusal of facts on record as it has been observed that the information sought is speculative in nature and amounts to seeking interpretation of the CPIO which is outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, the Complaint is dismissed.
21 CIC/MSTCH/A/2018/632228
(626.25 KB) pdf icon
04 Jan, 2019 Gagan Kumar Sharma Vs. CPIO, Deptt. of Science and Technology, New Delhi

Information requested
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi seeking information on four points pertaining to the INSPIRE Fellowship awarded by the Department of Science and Technology, including, inter alia, (i) marks distribution of all candidates selected for final offer letter under INSPIRE Fellowship in response to the Advertisement published in August 2017 pertaining to 1) Academic Merit, 2) Host Institute and Supervisor and 3) Research Proposal of School of Physics, University of Hyderabad including, inter-alia, (i) statement of marks of all selected candidates for INSPIRE Fellowship offer letter and (ii) names of all the faculty members in expert committee/panel of INSPIRE Fellowship scheme, Department of Science & Technology, India.

The Commission accepts the stand of the respondent that the RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances and that there are other appropriate fora for resolving such matters. Hence, no further action is required in the matter. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
22 CIC/IDBIL/A/2017/157369
(128.75 KB) pdf icon
21 Dec, 2018 C.D. Sounder Rajan Vs. CPIO: IDBI Bank Limited, Regd. Office, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai

Information Sought
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), IDBI Bank Limited, Regd. Office, WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, seeking information on seven points, including, inter-alia (i) the reason why the net loss of IDBI Bank Ltd. in the fourth quarter widened to 3200 crores as on 31 March, 2017 against 1736 crores a year ago and the action taken in this regard, and (ii) the reason why the operating profit fell to Rs. 1389 crores from Rs. 1595 crore for the full year and the action taken in this regard.

The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that the respondent no. 2 has denied the information sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the RTI application on the grounds that the information sought is in the nature of queries, and hence, does not fall within the definition of ‘information’ as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission, however, observes that perhaps, the IDBI Management must have recorded the reasons for Net Loss of IDBI Bank for FYs 2016 and 2017, rise in Gross NPA of the Bank and the action taken by the Bank to increase its profits. In case it is so,IDBI Bank Ltd. is obliged to provide the same to the appellant.

The Commission, however, notes that the Notice for Hearing served upon the appellant was returned undelivered to the Commission with the remark “Deceased”. In view of the death of the appellant and the Commission’s Circular F.No. 2/Management regulation2007/CIC-MR dated 18.06.2018, the Commission directs the respondent to publish the information sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the RTI application, as per the available records, suo-motu on their website, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

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

23 CIC/RBIND/C/2017/123750
(969.41 KB) pdf icon
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.
24 CIC/POSTS/A/2017/308521
(52.38 KB) pdf icon
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.
25 CIC/DEPOL/A/2016/305523
(68.63 KB) pdf icon
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.
26 CIC/BS/A/2016/000209/MP
(32.93 KB) pdf icon
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.
27 CIC/BS/A/2014/001817/12161
(101.19 KB) pdf icon
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.
28 CIC/VS/A/2015/903308
(163.37 KB) pdf icon
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.
29 CIC/VS/A/2015/000501
(80.41 KB) pdf icon
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.
30 CIC/VS/A/2015/003344/SD
(67.84 KB) pdf icon
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.
Total Case uploaded: 77