|S.No.||CIC CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||CIC/MOENF/C/2017/178184||30 Jul, 2018||Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs CPIO, MOEF and Climate Change
ISSUE :The appellant sought information relating to “conflicting rules of environment – Ministry aand MIDC puts entrepreneurs in problem” on fourteen points. The appellant was not satisfied by the reply of the CPIO and the FAA on grounds of the same being improper/incomplete. The appellant also sought for compensation for the detriment caused to him for the delay in supply of information to him.
DECISION : The CPIO is directed to affirm on affidavit and submit to the Commission, duly endorsed to the appellant that in respect of para 7 of the stated RTI application complete reply was provided vide replies dated 27/6/18 and 17/4/18. Otherwise he should furnish a revised consolidated reply within 10 days from the receipt of this order to the appellant on this point.
The Commission is of the opinion that a token amount of Rs 1000/- should be paid as compensation to the appellant u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the detriment caused to him. This amount is to be paid by the Public Authority, MOEF and Climate Change.
|2||CIC/POSTS/A/2018/102584||25 Jun, 2018||BK Porwal Vs PIO, Deptt of Posts
ISSUE :The applicant, facing an inquiry for sexual harassment, requested for documents relating to the inquiry. The CPIO rejected the request under sections 8(1)(d) and (g).
DECISION : By denying the information the appellant was not only harassed by the public authority but also by the CPIO. While the public authority denied him the documents which he was entitled under SHW Act of 2013, the CPIO denied them under RTI Act.
…..the Commission concludes that denial of information to the appellant was without any reasonable cause and hence liable for maximum penalty of Rs 25,000/-
The Commission also finds it a fit case to recommend the public authority to initiate disciplinary action against the CPIO.
|3||CIC/PAROI/A/2017/607198||18 Jun, 2018||Neeraj Sharma Vs CPIO, Rajya Sabha Sectt
ISSUE : The appellant sought information relating to cyber frauds with reference to house panel news report viz name of house panel/committee; chairperson of house panel/committee, date of constitution and other related issues.
DECISION : The Commission observed from the reply of the respondent “that the subject matter of the of entire application concerns the Lok Sabha Sectt. Accordingly a copy of the application has been transferred to the Lok Sabha Sectt on 28/8/17. So far as this Sectt is concerned the information desired may be treated as nil “
The Commission observed that reply was given to the appellant vide which he was intimated about transfer of his application. Therefore the contention of the applicant that he was not informed about the transfer of his application is not sustainable. The delay in transfer has been duly explained by the respondent. Hence the Commission do not find any reasons to impose penalty upon the CPIO.
|4||CIC/PMOIN/A/2017/124760||19 Feb, 2018||Soni Eramath Vs CPIO, PMO
ISSUE : The applicant sought information as to whether Hon’ble President of India has administered the oath of office to the Prime Minister of India in the name of ‘Mr Narendra Modi”.
The respondent stated that they had given a reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 6/1/17 indicating that the oath was administered to the Hon’ble Prime minister of India as per the provisions of the Constitution of India. The respondent further stated that Aadhar card/voter card of the Hon’ble PM cannot be revealed as per exemption under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005
DECISION : The action/steps taken by the respondents in giving response to the RTI application is satisfactory.
|5||CIC/SH/C/2016/000310||19 Jan, 2018||A Gopi Krishna Vs CPIO, Syndicate Bank, Visakhapatnam
ISSUE :The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO did not respond to his RTI application.
The respondent submitted that the CPIO did not receive the complainant’s RTI application and therefore information could not be provided to him within the stipulated time.
DECISION : As per the submission of the complainant the RTI application was handed over to the bank ‘by hand’ by the brother of the appellant. The bank did not accept it, thereafter the appellant sent it by post to the respondent.
The Commission directed the FAA, Syndicate Bank, Visakhapatnam, to inquire into the matter as to whether the RTI application was received in the branch and if so, what action was taken on the RTI application. The FAA shall also, if required, take appropriate departmental action against the officers responsible for the misplacement of the RTI application. A copy of the inquiry report along with the action taken report may be provided to the Commission as well as to the appellant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
|6||CIC/SA/A/2016/001710/MP, CIC/SA/A/2016/001715/MP||05 Dec, 2017||Ajay Kumar Vs N I T Patna
ISSUE : The appellant had sought for details of medical bills and LTC availed by Dr Ashok , Director NIT as per proforma provided by the appellant. Not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the FAA. The FAA did not seem to have adjudicated on the appeal.
DECISION : The Commission directed the CPIO to provide to the applicant only the total amount of LTC claimed by Dr Ashok, Director NIT as per available record, excluding the names of family members and complying with the provisions of the RTI Act within 7 days.
|7||CIC/DSESJ/A/2016/305423||16 Oct, 2017||Y N Prasad Vs PIO, Ahlmad Evening Court
ISSUE : The applicant sought information relating to the judicial proceedings regarding the complaint filed against the ‘management of Redeemed Christian Church of God’, Janakpuri before the MM Karkarduma Court. The appellant is not a party to the judicial proceedings under reference.
DECISION : Judicial proceedings and records thereof are public records and the appellant has a right to secure the desired information..……the respondent PIO to offer inspection of the judicial file to the appellant on a mutual convenient day and time. The appellant shall be entitled to avail copies from the record upon payment of usual charges.
|8||CIC/BS/A/2015/901664/11873||08 Dec, 2016||Sumit Kumar Das vs Department of Posts, Kolkata
Section 7(1) — Supply of Information
The Commission held that the applicant is the nominee of the accounts of the deceased customers, hence, no information relating to the accounts can be withheld from him. The CPIO is directed to provide the information as requested by the applicant in his RTI application, free of cost. The Commission further awarded compensation to the appellant for a sum of Rs. 2500/- for the inconvenience and detriment caused under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act.
|9||CIC/BS/A/2015/001331/11554||20 Oct, 2016||Sheoji Mishra Vs. Department of Income Tax, New Delhi
Section 7(1) Supply of Information the Commission held that the RTI Act does not require the public authority to retain records for indefinite period. The information needs to be retained as per the record retention schedule applicable to the concerned public authority. The CPIO is directed to provide the relevant extract of the record retention policy to the applicant.
|10||CIC/YA/A/2015/002360 CIC/YA/A/2016/000922||22 Sep, 2016||Shri Atul Kumar Jhunjhunwala vs CPIO, N T P C Limited, Delhi
CIC/YA/A/2015/002360 Copy of declared Result sheet for the year 1993 to 2006 with respect to OBC Category containing Name & Domicile State of the Candidate, Category & Discipline. CIC/YA/A/2016/000922 Based on the Master Roll of the company as on dated, Detail containing Name of Candidate, Domicile State i.e. permanent address of the candidate & Date of joining of the candidates Recruited under OBC Category ONLY.
|11||CIC/KY/C/2014/000080/SB||06 Aug, 2016||R.K. Jain Vs. Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai
Section 7(1) — Supply of Information — Section 20(1) — Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information — the Commission held that the information should have been provided since the complainant had sought a certified copy of the FAA's order passed in his own first appeal which he has a right to know about. Also, the respondent has admitted that an order had been passed and was available in his Mumbai office, however, it was not provided to the complainant. The Commission, thus, finds that information has not been provided by the respondent to the complainant, therefore, the CPIO is liable for imposition of penalty in terms of provision under section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission imposes penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the respondents.
|12||CIC/RM/A/2014/003411/SD||04 Aug, 2016||K. Saravanan Vs. Ordinance Factory, Board, Kolkata
Section 7(1) Supply of Information the Commission held that the basic premise of the RTI Act is to ensure greater transparency and accountability in functioning of the public authorities. Commission makes it clear that when exemptions are claimed under any of the provisions of Section 8, the issue of larger public interest should be kept in mind by the CPIO. The information sought to be exempted from disclosure in this case pertains to corruption in the organisation. The disclosure of such information warrants public interest. The Anti-Corruption Bureau in CBI itself has been set up to look into cases of corruption of Public Servants. The CPIO is directed to procure a copy of the report from the CVO, OFB and make available to the Appellant.
|13||CIC/CC/A/2014/002246/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002778/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002840/SD||02 Aug, 2016||Col. syed Vs. CHO, Addle DGAE, - 6, Sena Bhawan, New Delhi
Section 7 (1) Supply of Information the Commission held that he is seeking redressal of his promotion related grievance which is based on several correspondences with the department. The said correspondences have arisen out of the subject matter of Appellant's present RTI Application. Appellant is asking for additional information which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Commission in the present Second Appeal. The CPIO has appropriately dealt with the RTI application which is the subject matter of Second Appeal. The Commission upheld the decision of the CPIO.
|14||CIC/BS/A/2015/001081/10951-Penalty||29 Jul, 2016||Dev Raj Sharma vs MTNL, Delhi & Ann.
Section 7(1) Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days.
The Commission held that that no adequate reason has been cited for not furnishing any timely response to the RTI application. The inaction on the part of the then CPIO is clearly a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and since no reasonable cause has been offered by him for the delay he has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty @ Rs. 250 per day in terms of the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
|15||CIC/MP/A/2016/000143||30 Jun, 2016||Satish Kumar Jha vs Life Insurance Corporation of India, Delhi
Section 7 (1) Supply of Information.
The Commission held that the respondents had failed to provide complete and satisfactory information to the appellant at the first instance, particularly in respect of reasons for delayed payment of gratuity to him and about penal interest payable on late payment of gratuity. Mere stating that due to non availability of commission record, the payment of gratuity was delayed is not sufficient. The CPIO should have provided more concrete reasons as available in material form to the appellant. Further, no response was given to the appellant regarding penal interest payable for late payment of gratuity. there does not seem to be any deliberate or malafide attempt on the part of the CPIO to provide incomplete information, warranting any penal action against him. Nonetheless, the fact which cannot be overlooked in this whole process is that the appellant had to suffer unwarranted detriment and mental agony on account of non supply of complete and satisfactory information in the first instance and he had to file first appeal and then second appeal for receiving the desired information.
The Commission by powers vested in it under section of the RTI Act, directed the respondent authority to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to the appellant as compensation.