ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Sun, Dec 08, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Definition of Information
Supreme Court(Definition of Information)/ High Courts(Definition of Information)
61 CIC/SM/A/2011/000759
(208.66 KB) pdf icon
22 Mar, 2012 Raaj Managal Prasad Vs. Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi

Section 2 (f) – Information –
The Commission did not agree with the views of the Appellate Authority. No request for information can be rejected only on the ground that application fee has not been paid separately for each item.
62 CIC/DS/A/2011/001011
(208.16 KB) pdf icon
19 Mar, 2012 Mukender Singh Vs. All India Council for Technical Education, Chandigarh/ New Delhi

Section 2(f) – Information
The Commission held that a perusal of the RTI application reflects beyond doubt that the appellant has raised a matter of larger public interest pertaining to maintenance of the highest standards of education by the Guru Teg Bahadur Polytechnic College. The RTI Act is undoubtedly a welfare legislation and is intended to be a tool for securing the larger public interest and must necessarily be interpreted in a liberal manner. Therefore it was for the CPIO to provide all the rules governing the appointment of faculty to the appellant without wrongly taking shelter under the definition of information as provided under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Show cause notice issued to CPIO why penalty should not be imposed upon him.
63 CIC/SM/A/2011/001460
(206.21 KB) pdf icon
12 Mar, 2012 Omprakash Kashiram Vs. Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi

Section 2 (f) – Information
The Commission held that the right to information cannot be used to seek either confirmation or rebuttal of one’s personal assumptions, as in this case. Information has been defined in section 2(f) to mean any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars etc. Whenever a citizen seeks any information, it must be contained in some record or file or document in the possession of the public authority concerned. Therefore, the response of the CPIO of the CVC and other CPIOs as well as that of the Appellant Authority appears to be absolutely in order.
64 CIC/SG/A/2012/000043/17571
(45.14 KB) pdf icon
06 Mar, 2012 B.M. Tulasi Vs. MR. Seturaman, PIO & AGM, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Kuvempunagar, Mysore

Section 2(f) – Information
The Commission held that the Appellant should file the RTI application asking for information by name rather than asking the PIO to furnish his personal information directly.
65 CIC/SG/A/2011/000299/12229
(53.63 KB) pdf icon
02 May, 2011 Mr. HS Achyutha Vs. Public Information Officer, Employer’s Provident Fund Organisation, Mumbai.

The Appellant is seeking information which is not with EPFO but is with exempted organization TCS with whom the Appellant was working. The Respondent has stated that the information is not available with them nor is it required to be filed in any monthly or annual return.
CIC held that, the information sought is not held by the Public Authority. The Appeal is disposed.
66 CIC/SG/A/2010/001213/11928
(44.74 KB) pdf icon
09 Apr, 2011 Mr. Yogender Kumar Vivekananda College, Delhi Vs. Mr. Jay Chanda CPIO University of Delhi.

CIC held that, The PIO has given all the information available as per records. The Appellant is seeking answer to hypothetical situations. The PIO is expected to give information that is available on the records and not expected to give decision and opinions on his own. Decision: The Appeal is disposed.
67 CIC/SG/A/2011/000196/11644
(46.12 KB) pdf icon
24 Mar, 2011 Mr. Raj Kumar Anand vs Mr. R. N. Sharma Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (NE), Deputy Director of Education, Distt. North East, RTI Cell, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi

The appellant filed RTl application and sought the opinion of the PIO on pay revision — the PIO gave his interpretation of how the pay revision should occur — the Commission held that this is an error on the part of the PIO since he is not expected to create a record. The term opinions and advises used in section 2(f) of the RTI Act in the definition of information means opinions and advises available on the record. The PIO should not have given his own opinion but should have given what is the matter of record and is warned to provide information which is available on the records and not giving his own opinion.
68 CIC/AD/C/2010/000662
(307.18 KB) pdf icon
01 Mar, 2011 Shri K.V. Praveena vs East Central Railway Office of General Manager

The Commission held that the word ‘work’ appearing in section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act has to be construed as work which has been performed about which information is available in material form i.e. in Documents, file notings, as samples etc. the Section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act cannot be read in isolation but should be read along with section 2(f) which clearly stipulate that the information under RTI Act should be in material form. Hence, no individual can claim right to inspect ongoing work such as driving an engine, under RTI Act. The appellant’s demand cannot be acceded to as it falls beyond the definition of the information as given in section 2(f) read with section 2(j) of the RTI Act. Section 2(j)
69 CIC/SG/A/2010/002382/10257
(57.33 KB) pdf icon
01 Dec, 2010 CH. Srinivasa Rao vs Central Public Information Officer & RPFC-II Employees Provident Fund Organization

The Appellant sought information on large number of queries which otherwise would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. CIC held that, there is no provision in the RTI rules for charging any money on account of man power for collating information. Section 2 (f)
70 CIC/AT/C/2007/0216, 365,462,498,540,511
(81.73 KB) pdf icon
28 Oct, 2009 Shri Nisar Ahmed Shaikh, Thane, Shri Avinash Sharma, Ludhiana and Shri M. Anthony Raj, Chennai

The Commission has received 10 Complaint Petitions and 4 Appeal Petitions seeking information from three organizations, namely, LIC Housing Finance Limited, LIC Mutual Fund Asset Management Co. Ltd. And GIC Housing Finance Limited. The nature of information sought was almost similar as the appellants and complainants in all these cases sought certain information, which information was denied by these organizations on the ground that they were not Public Authorities under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and hence the Right to Information Act is not applicable to them.

The Commission directs the respondents to provide the requested information to the concerned applicants within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
71 CIC/OK/C/2007/00040
(24.90 KB) pdf icon
02 Jun, 2009 Mr. B. R. Manhas Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund

The information pertaining to i) Year-wise Financial Grant received by the JNMF, Teen Murti House, New Delhi as well as the JNMF, Swaraj Bhawan, Allahabad, U.P. from the Ministry of Human Resource Development during the past 20 years; ii) Copies of yearly utilization certificates duly attested by Chartered Accountants of the Financial Grant received by the JNMF from the Ministry of Human Resource Development; iii) information regarding purpose of grant from the Ministry of HRD to JNMF; iv) list of Board of Trustees and other Members of the Executive Committee of the JNMF; v) information pertaining to the affiliation of the members of the Board of Trustees of JNMF to any of the political parties etc.

The Commission declares the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund a Public Authority under the Right to Information Act 2005. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Administrative Secretary, Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, Nehru is directed to appoint the Central Public Information Officer, Assistant Central Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority in the organization within 15 days of receipt of the instant order. The Commission further directs compliance of the other provisions of the RTI Act 2005, within 120 days of receipt of this order. The Commission also directs the Respondent to furnish the information as sought by the Appellant within 15 working days and submit a copy of the same before the Commission indicating compliance of the orders of the Commission.
72 CIC/AT/A/2008/00365
(44.68 KB) pdf icon
14 Nov, 2008 Shri C.L. Saraiya, Mumbai, Smt. Namita Kumar, New Delhi, Shri Jugal Kumar Ekka, Kolkata and Shri Bal Krishan Gupta, Nazibabad Vs. Official Liquidators, Mumbai/Kolkata/Delhi

The issue as to whether the office of the Official Liquidator is a “Public Authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act came up before this Commission in Complaint Case No.CIC/AT/C/2007/00077, filed by Smt. Namita Kumar. The applicant Smt. Kumar had asked for certain information pertaining to the office of the Official Liquidator, from the PIO of the Department of Company Affairs, Government of India.

The Commission directed the respective Official Liquidators to provide information to the respective applicants within ten days from the date of receipt of this order. The matter concerning imposition of penalty in Complaint Case No.CIC/AT/C/2007/00077 will be decided by the concerned Bench. With these directions, the complaint and appeal petitions are disposed of.
Total Case uploaded: 72