Institute of Secretariat Training & Management, Govt. of India

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
31	CIC/VS/A/2015/003344/SD (67.84 KB)	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.
32	CIC/BS/C/2014/000103/11052 (62.47 KB)	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.
33	CIC/BS/A/2015/901005 (62.10 KB)	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.
34	CIC/MP/A/2016/000472 (90.89 KB)	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.
35	CIC/MP/A/2016/000605 (86.46 KB)	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.
36	CIC/SH/A/2015/001982 CIC/SH/A/2016/000333 (319.65 KB)	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.
37	CIC/SS/C/2014/900112 (312.82 KB)	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."
38	CIC/MP/A/2016/000081 (405.21 KB)	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.
39	CIC/KY/A/2014/00066/SB (347.66 KB)	10 Jun, 2016	V. Stanley Paulus vs Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi Section 2(f) Information. The Commission held that the respondent has mentioned in his reply that the information sought is readily available on the website of the Department. Hence, the CPIO is directed to provide the link of the website, from where the information can be obtained, to the appellant.
40	CIC/BS/A/2015/000661/10353 (64.17 KB)	18 May, 2016	Tapan N Patel Vs. EPFO, Ahmedabad Section 2(f) — Information The Commission held that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
41	CIC/MP/A/2016/000452 (87.52 KB)	29 Apr, 2016	S. Venkatachalam vs State Bank of Hyderabad Section 2(f) Information The appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH), Nizamabad seeking information in respect of discretionary powers available to the Disciplinary Authority. The Commission held that the information sought by the appellant did not fall within the definition of 'information' as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision off the CPIO.
42	CIC/MP/A/2015/001937 (105.40 KB)	16 Apr, 2016	Desh Raj Dhiman vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Shimla Section 2(f) Information The Commission held that the queries made by the appellant in his RTI application were more in nature of seeking clarification and explanation of the respondents rather than information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
43	CIC/MP/A/2013/000061/SH (206.52 KB)	15 Jan, 2015	Om Prakash Gupta Vs. CPIO, UCO Bank The query was the basis of giving loan to the brother of appellant. CIC held that RTI application seeking explanation from the bank does not fall in the ambit of information as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act.
44	CIC/SS/A/2013/000383 (320.72 KB)	17 Oct, 2013	Shankarsan Dash vs Ministry of Home Affairs The appellant through his RTI application sought certain information (like had the request been put up to the authority addressed to for approval; copies of all the office noting/correspondence of the file etc.) regarding the action taken on his representation, which he had submitted to the Union Home Secretary about non-availability of post of IGP in Arunachal Pradesh - the CPIO informed the appellant that his queries are not covered under the RTI Act. Decision The Commission held that all that the Appellant wanted to know by way of his instant RTI application was the action taken on his representations submitted to the Union Home Secretary, and copies of file noting/correspondence relating to the same. This information is very much specific and well within the scope of the definition of information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act J as well as under the definition of "right to information" as defined in section 2(j) of the RTI Act. The information sought by the Appellant in his instant RTI application full meets the requirements of 'information means any material in any form' and information which is held or under the control of public authority/. Thus, the reasons of the then CPIO, as endorsed but the Appellate Authority is incorrect and in contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act.
45	CIC/SM/C/2011/001542 CIC/SM/C/2012/000609 CIC/SM/C/2011/001322 (80.00 KB)	10 Dec, 2012	Shri Subhash Chander Agrawal, Shri Ajitabh Sinha & Shri Mani Ram Sharma vs Attorney General for India Full Bench of the Commission consisting of Shri Satyananda Mishra, Chief Information Commissioner; Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner and Shri M.L. Sharma, Information Commissioner. Appellant Subhash Chandra Agrawal is present in person. Shri Ajitabh Sinha is represented by Shri Dheeraj. However, Shri Mani Ram Sharma is not present before the Commission. The office of Attorney General is sui generis. He is a standalone counsel of the Govt. of India. He renders legal advice to the Govt. of India which is not binding in nature. He is not a public authority u/s 2 (h) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the complaints referred to hereinabove have no merit and are dismissed.

31

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.

32

CIC/BS/C/2014/000103/11052
(62.47 KB) pdf icon

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.

33

CIC/BS/A/2015/901005
(62.10 KB) pdf icon

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.

34

CIC/MP/A/2016/000472
(90.89 KB) pdf icon

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.

35

CIC/MP/A/2016/000605
(86.46 KB) pdf icon

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.

36

CIC/SH/A/2015/001982 CIC/SH/A/2016/000333
(319.65 KB) pdf icon

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.

37

CIC/SS/C/2014/900112
(312.82 KB) pdf icon

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."

38

CIC/MP/A/2016/000081
(405.21 KB) pdf icon

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.

39

CIC/KY/A/2014/00066/SB
(347.66 KB) pdf icon

10 Jun, 2016

V. Stanley Paulus vs Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi

Section 2(f) Information. The Commission held that the respondent has mentioned in his reply that the information sought is readily available on the website of the Department. Hence, the CPIO is directed to provide the link of the website, from where the information can be obtained, to the appellant.

40

CIC/BS/A/2015/000661/10353
(64.17 KB) pdf icon

18 May, 2016

Tapan N Patel Vs. EPFO, Ahmedabad

Section 2(f) — Information

The Commission held that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions.

41

CIC/MP/A/2016/000452
(87.52 KB) pdf icon

29 Apr, 2016

S. Venkatachalam vs State Bank of Hyderabad

Section 2(f) Information

The appellant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH), Nizamabad seeking information in respect of discretionary powers available to the Disciplinary Authority.

The Commission held that the information sought by the appellant did not fall within the definition of 'information' as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision off the CPIO.

42

CIC/MP/A/2015/001937
(105.40 KB) pdf icon

16 Apr, 2016

Desh Raj Dhiman vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Shimla

Section 2(f) Information

The Commission held that the queries made by the appellant in his RTI application were more in nature of seeking clarification and explanation of the respondents rather than information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

43

CIC/MP/A/2013/000061/SH
(206.52 KB) pdf icon

15 Jan, 2015

Om Prakash Gupta Vs. CPIO, UCO Bank

The query was the basis of giving loan to the brother of appellant.

CIC held that RTI application seeking explanation from the bank does not fall in the ambit of information as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act.

44

CIC/SS/A/2013/000383
(320.72 KB) pdf icon

17 Oct, 2013

Shankarsan Dash vs Ministry of Home Affairs

The appellant through his RTI application sought certain information (like had the request been put up to the authority
addressed to for approval; copies of all the office noting/correspondence of the file etc.) regarding the action taken on his representation, which he had submitted to the Union Home Secretary about non-availability of post of IGP in Arunachal Pradesh - the CPIO informed the appellant that his queries are not covered under the RTI Act.
Decision
The Commission held that all that the Appellant wanted to know by way of his instant RTI application was the action taken on his representations submitted to the Union Home Secretary, and copies of file noting/correspondence relating to the same. This information is very much specific and well within the scope of the definition of information as defined in section 2(f) of the RTI Act J as well as under the definition of "right to information" as defined in section 2(j) of the RTI Act. The information sought by the Appellant in his instant RTI application full meets the requirements of 'information means any material in any form' and information which is held or under the control of public authority/. Thus, the reasons of the then CPIO, as endorsed but the Appellate Authority is incorrect and in contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act.

45

CIC/SM/C/2011/001542 CIC/SM/C/2012/000609 CIC/SM/C/2011/001322
(80.00 KB) pdf icon

10 Dec, 2012

Shri Subhash Chander Agrawal, Shri Ajitabh Sinha & Shri Mani Ram Sharma vs Attorney General for India

Full Bench of the Commission consisting of Shri Satyananda Mishra, Chief Information Commissioner; Smt. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner and Shri M.L. Sharma, Information Commissioner. Appellant Subhash Chandra Agrawal is present in person. Shri Ajitabh Sinha is represented by Shri Dheeraj. However, Shri Mani Ram Sharma is not present before the Commission.
The office of Attorney General is sui generis. He is a standalone counsel of the Govt. of India. He renders legal advice to the Govt. of India which is not binding in nature. He is not a public authority u/s 2 (h) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the complaints referred to hereinabove have no merit and are dismissed.