ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Sun, Jan 19, 2020
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Disposal of Request
Supreme Court(Disposal of Request)/ High Courts(Disposal of Request)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
1 CIC/ECRHJ/A/2018/119255
(132.91 KB) pdf icon
21 Nov, 2019 Shivaji Prasad Choudhary Vs. CPIO, M/O. Railways, East Central Railway, Patna, Bihar.

Information Sought
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, East Central Railway, Patna, Bihar seeking following information pertaining to ticket no.05303214 and 05303063:
1. On above mentioned tickets who travelled.
2. Till which station they travelled.
3. At what time train no. 12295 on date 16.05.2017 reached Danapur, Patna junction.”

Decision
This Commission after submission of the respondent and perusal of records is of the view that appellant should given opportunity to deposit the requisite sum with the CPIO as per RTI Act and the CPIO is categorically directed to provide available and relevant information as sought in the RTI application to the appellant. Further it was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India judgment dated 20th March, 2018 vide Writ Petition (Civil) No.194 of 2012 titled Common Cause v. High Court of Allahabad & Anr. as follows:

“We are of the view that, as a normal rule, the charge for the application should not be more than Rs.50/- and for per page information should not be more than Rs.5/-.”

In view of above, the Commission directs CPIO to meticulously adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act for charging requisite fees.

2 CIC/NDMCR/A/2018/114872
(643.53 KB) pdf icon
19 Nov, 2019 Shri Arvind Sharma Vs. PIO/Exe. Engineer (M-I), NDMC, Rohini Zone, PitamPura, Delhi

Information Sought
The Appellant filed RTI application dated 21.12.2017 seeking information on 7 points;
1. Provide a certified copy of complaint received from Naresh Gupta R/o F-2/93-94 Sector-16, Rohini, and Delhi.
2. Provide a certified copy of the survey report prepared by your area JE Rohit Sharma on 16.05.2017.
3. Provide a certified copy of the Dept. order issued for removal of the so-called encroachment in front of F-2/95, Ground Floor, Sec-16, Rohini, Delhi. (Appellant’s address)
4. Provide information whether the house owner was served with a prior notice or not? Etc.

Decision
In expressing its displeasure over the conduct of the PIO, the Commission sets aside the reply provided by the PIO vide letter dated 17.01.2018 for being mechanical and unfounded. After hearing the submissions of the Appellant it is an established fact that he is not a third party but instead is an interested party to the case. If pursuant to a complaint, the Respondent public authority decides to demolish any unauthorised construction, then it is imperative, both in law and practice that a show cause notice be issued to the owner of the property to afford him an opportunity of showing cause why such order shall not be made.

In view of these circumstances, Commission hereby directs the concerned PIO to:
(i). Provide a revised reply to the Appellant against each of the queries raised in the RTI application including the copy of complaint for unauthorized construction, copy of survey report, departmental order issued for demolition etc., under intimation to the Commission, within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order.
(ii). Submit a satisfactory and detailed explanation for a) providing a vague and evasive response to the Appellant, b) non-compliance of the FAA’s order, thereby causing an obstruction in the flow of information, c) vitiating the hearing of Second Appeal by remaining absent during hearing despite service of notice for the hearing in advance and d) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. This explanation must reach the Commission within 3 weeks from the date of issue of this order.

A copy of this order shall also be marked to the FAA to ensure timely compliance of this order. It is made clear that non-compliance of the stipulated timeline shall attract penal action against the concerned PIO.

3 CIC/EIPCR/A/2018/613682
(625.23 KB) pdf icon
18 Nov, 2019 Ravinder Kamboj Vs. CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs, J.N. Bhawan, New Delhi

Information Sought
The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Embassy of India, Prague, Czech Republic, seeking information on two points pertaining to grant of Tourist VISA, inter-alia (i) number of Czech Republic citizens who applied Indian Tourist VISA to the Indian Embassy, Prague between 01.11.2016 to 01.11.2017, and (ii) how many applications were accepted and how many were rejected.

Decision
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that due information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent though with a considerable delay. However, the delay was due to misinterpretation of the RTI application. The Commission also observes that misinterpretation of the RTI application cannot be taken as malafide or deliberate intent on the part of the CPIO to deny the information sought. Hence, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO.

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

4 CIC/KVSAN/A/2018/165942/02104
(497.85 KB) pdf icon
08 Nov, 2019 Neetesh Warade Vs. CPIO, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dist. - Dantewada, Chitalanka, Chhattisgarh

Information Sought
The appellant has sought a copy of the answer sheet for Summative Assessment – II for the subject – Mathematics of Himani Thakur who was studying in class 9th in the session 2016-17 in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dantewada. Even, if the candidate has given retest/supplementary exam in lieu of Summative Assessment – II, provide the copy of the same.

Decision
Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that the reply dated 17.10.2018 by the CPIO was not on time. The CPIO did not provide any cogent reason for the delay that occurred. The Commission observes that the CPIO has failed to carry out his statutory responsibility under the RTI Act in not providing any reply to the appellant within the stipulated time frame. The Commission issues a strict warning to the CPIO Dantewada to remain careful in future and ensure that proper procedure is followed as per the provisions of the Act.

In respect of the destruction of information by termites, it is relevant to note that the CPIO cannot provide information which is not available. However, the CPIO can affirm on oath that the information sought was destroyed.

In view of the above observations, the Commission is of the opinion that the CPIO should affirm on affidavit and submit to the Commission stating that the information sought is destroyed due to termites attack and a copy should be duly endorsed to the appellant. The CPIO is also directed to provide the details of other documents which were also destroyed in the termite attack and a copy of the enquiry report through which the destruction of documents were enquired into to the appellant within 7 days from the date of the receipt of the order. The said documents should be endorsed to the Commission in compliance with this order.
5 CIC/NRAIL/A/2018/110191
(131.82 KB) pdf icon
11 Oct, 2019 Mukesh Kumar Vs. CPIO, M/o. Railways, Northern Railway, New Delhi.

Information Sought
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/O. Railways, Northern Railway, New Delhi seeking action taken on his complaint dated 18-10-2017.

Decision
This Commission observed that Mr. Guru Pal Singh, Sr. DMM/Nodal CPIO, NR/New Delhi has not applied his mind in transferring the RTI application and the hearing notice of the Commission to the office of the ADSO/NDLS. He did not appreciate the fact that the transfer was done to the head of the ADSO/NDLS against whom the allegations were made in the complaint dated 18-10-2017. Hence, Mr. Guru Pal Singh, Sr. DMM/Nodal CPIO, NR/New Delhi is hereby issued a warning for future to be careful and not to contravene the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

Further, the respondent is directed to provide the information to the appellant on the action taken on his complaint dated 18-10-2017, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

6 CIC/IGMUM/A/2018/610004
(130.27 KB) pdf icon
04 Oct, 2019 Ravindra Kisan Selare Vs. CPIO, India Govt. Mint, Mumbai.

Information sought
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), India Govt. Mint, Mumbai seeking information as follows:-
1. “Provide the zerox copy of pay fixation sheet prepared by Establishment Section w.e.f. 01.01.2016 till date as per the implementation of 7th Pay Commission along with file noting
and signature of the officers.
2. Provide the zerox copy of Pay Arrears sheet prepared by Establishment Section w.e.f. 01.01.2016 as per the implementation of 7th Pay Commission along with file noting and signature of the officers.”

Decision
This Commission directs the respondent to provide the point-wise information to the appellant with reference to the RTI application as per the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.


7 CIC/RBIND/A/2018/102730
(148.09 KB) pdf icon
01 Oct, 2019 Venkatesh Nayak Vs. CPIO-I: Department Of Economic Affairs, North Block, New Delhi.

Information Sought
The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 09.01.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 07.07.2017 and first appeal dated 17.08.2017:-
(i) The total number of representations or petitions or communications, by whatever name called, received by the Government of India, till date, from donors regarding the need for maintaining confidentiality of their identity while making donations to political parties;
(ii) A clear photocopy of all representations or petitions or communication by whatever name called, described at para 1 above;
(iii) A clear photocopy of the Draft Electoral Bond Scheme prepared by your Department for consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and the Election Commission of India.

Decision
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing all the parties and perusal of records, feels that the RTI application has not been properly addressed by the respondent. The Department of Economic Affairs being the respondent to whom the RTI application was originally addressed, is expected to identify the public authority which has the possession of the information sought by the appellant. In view of this, the Department of Economic Affairs is directed to co-ordinate with the Department of Financial Services, Election Commission of India and provide consolidated reply to the appellant within four weeks from date of receipt of this order. Meanwhile, it is noted that the Department of Financial Services has not given any reply to the RTI application after the same was forwarded by the Department of Economic Affairs. Therefore, the Registry of this Bench is directed to issue hearing notice to Department of Financial Services along with the other parties in the next hearing and the matter is adjourned.
8 CIC/DHEDU/A/2018/121152/01721
(498.10 KB) pdf icon
24 Sep, 2019 Patel Jigneshkumar K Vs. CPIO, Department of Higher Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi

Information Sought
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. List of top 174 Colleges / Universities / institutions that were shortlisted for SWACHHTA Ranking 2017.
2. Details of Criteria (Subjective / Objective / Other) for shortlisting 174 Colleges / Universities / Institutions out of 3500 Higher Educational institutions.
3. Details of visit schedule of officials from UGC and AICTE to inspect the premises of shortlisted 174 Colleges / Universities / Institutions.
4. Details of Colleges / Universities / Institutions from Gujarat State who applied for online invitation for SWACHHTA Ranking 2017 of Higher Educational Institutions during the application period from 20th July, 2017 to 31st July, 2017.

Decision
Based on a perusal of the record submitted by the parties it is noted that the CPIO MHRD grossly erred in providing an irrelevant reply to the appellant vide letter dated 27.12.2017. The CPIO MHRD’s conduct in having provided an irrelevant reply amounts to violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Moreover, after the receipt of the hearing notice he should have provided a point wise reply.

It appears to be more of a lack of understanding of the provisions of the RTI Act and a casual approach in replying by the CPIO MHRD. Accordingly, the CPIO MHRD is issued a strict warning to be careful in providing timely and appropriate replies to the RTI applications and refrain from providing incorrect and irrelevant replies which may attract penal action u/s 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act.

The CPIO MHRD is given a last opportunity to provide a point wise reply to all the 4 points as per the discussions during the hearing to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. In respect of point no. (4), the CPIO shall take assistance of the concerned section u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.

9 CIC/MEDCI/A/2019/603241-BJ
(207.63 KB) pdf icon
19 Sep, 2019 Dr. Rohit Jain Vs. CPIO, Medical Council of India, MCI Building, Pocket – 14, Sector – 8, Phase – 1, Dwarka, New Delhi – 110077

Information Sought
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the minimum qualification to sign Laboratory Reports as per the Board of Governors in Supersession of Medical Council of India.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 06.02.2019 stated that no decision had been taken by the BOG. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 15.02.2019, concurred with the response of the CPIO.

Decision
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. Vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:

“6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished.”

Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP © 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:

6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.

7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.

A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission’s jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. © 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. © No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission instructs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and provide an updated response to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, as agreed. Moreover, as elaborated in the aforementioned paragraphs, the Respondent Public Authority is also advised to develop / update their website to answer such queries as raised in the instant RTI application in the FAQ Section with appropriate clarifications / interpretations, if any, for the ease and convenience of the citizens at large.

10 CIC/DODEF/A/2018/132739
(155.34 KB) pdf icon
17 Sep, 2019 Joys P Thomas Vs. CPIO, M/o Defence,

Information sought:
The Appellant sought information pertaining to letter no. 584/D/Vig.II/2012 dated 31.01.2014 for issue of prosecution sanction against the Appellant in CBI case no. 37/2013 filed in Pune, CBI and disposed of. He specifically sought for copy of the covering letter under which copies of FIR, attachment of witnesses and copy of charge sheet of the aforementioned case.

Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and observes that information sought in the RTI Application has been denied by the CPIO without invoking any exemption Section of the RTI Act and CPIO has acted solely on an advise given by the CBI.

In view of the proceedings during hearing, CPIO is directed to provide copy of relevant covering letter along with list of enclosures of CBI sent to MoD pertaining to issue of prosecution sanction against him in CBI case No. 37/2013 filed in Pune CBI Court to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days of receipt of this order. A compliance report to this effect shall be sent by the CPIO to the Commission.
11 CIC/DDATY/A/2018/612467-BJ
(191.58 KB) pdf icon
17 Sep, 2019 Mr. Shubham Jaiswal Vs. CPIO and Delhi Development Authority Assistant Director (LA)

Information Sought:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the sanctioned map of Hardev Puri, Gautam Nagar, Delhi; sanctioned area and map of House no. 489, and whether any property bearing H. No.489A, Hardev Puri, Gautam Nagar, Delhi, had been sanctioned by the Respondent Public Authority and issues related thereto.

Decision:
The Commission also observed that the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates time limits in its various provisions relating to responding to RTI Applications, transfer of applications, filing and disposing of first appeal to ensure that a culture of information dissemination is strengthened so that a robust functioning of the democracy gets established. This was recognised by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as under:

“14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an “openness culture” among state agencies, and a wider section of “public authorities” whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy.”
12 CIC/UCOBK/A/2018/629525
(156.76 KB) pdf icon
09 Sep, 2019 Vipin Jain Vs. CPIO, UCO Bank, Saket Nagar, Indore.

Information Sought
The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 24.08.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 21.06.2018 and first appeal dated 22.07.2018:-
(i) Provide us with details and certified copies of action taken by your office/department and the attached letter (e-mail)/complaint dated 12.06.2018 filed by the applicant via register letter No. EI102275076IN delivered on 14.06.2018.

Decision
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that there had been two elements in appellant’s complaint dated 12.06.2018 with respect to which he sought information. First issue was non - release of appellant’s security deposit in spite of having completed the work and the lapse of requisite lock in period. The second issue which was raised by the appellant included alleged malpractices and irregularities which were going on in the Nagda city branch of the bank. It is evident that only after the complaint, security deposit was released to the appellant. Thus, prima facie it is established that the things were not in order. It is also evident from the evasive reply given by the CPIO as well as by the FAA who sought exemptions under section 8(1) (d) and 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. If the respondent were so confident as during the course of hearing and were arguing on irregularities and malfeasance, then why such a reply was not given to the appellant and why the same was denied. The objective of the RTI Act is to bring
Transparency and accountability in the functioning of the public authorities. The Commission is of the view that the reply given by the respondent is incomplete and evasive when allegations of corruption or irregularities have been made. Public interest demands that the information should be made available to the appellant. In view of the above, the respondent is directed to provide the complete action taken and findings of the officers with respect to allegations made by the appellant in his complaint dated 12.06.2018 within 10 days of receipt of this order. With these observations the appeal is partly allowed.

13 CIC/DOURD/A/2017/171233/MOHUA/00972
(97.99 KB) pdf icon
02 Jul, 2019 Prashant Kumar Vs. CPIO, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011

Information Sought
The appellant has sought the following Information in regard to his complaint forwarded by Vice-President's Secretariat vide its letter No. VPS 23/02/2017 (P) dated 23/02/2017 to the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi:
1. Date wise details of action taken in respect of the said letter.
2. Certified copies of all file notings related to the said file, issued orders, incoming letters and updated status of compliance with orders.
3. Certified copy of representation and action taken thereon.
4. Name, Designation & Address of the dealing officer.

Decision
Based on a perusal of the record, the Commission in the absence of the requisite despatch details, is constrained to consider the reply as no reply. The claim of photocopying charges at this juncture is not admissible as per rule.

In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide the relevant documents consisting of 14 pages free of cost to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. As discussed during the hearing, this is to be also sent by email immediately.

14 CIC/SBIND/A/2017/175368
(951.03 KB) pdf icon
02 Jul, 2019 Anil Prasad Vs. CPIO: State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Purnea, Bihar.

Information Sought
The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 26.10.2017 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 20.06.2017 and first appeal dated 24.07.2017.

Decision
The appellant submitted that he sought information regarding the appointment of his father but has not received any information so far.

The respondent submitted that they could not ascertain the relationship of the appellant with Mr. Rajendra Prasad, hence, the information could not be furnished to him. The respondent further submitted that as per the revelation made during the hearing the relationship had been ascertained and they would provide the information to the appellant promptly.


15 CIC/DOREV/C/2018/104481-BJ
(180.21 KB) pdf icon
10 Jun, 2019 Ms. Manisha Muley Vs. CPIO, Department of Revenue, New Delhi – 110001

Information Sought
The Complainant vide her RTI application sought information on 05 points in respect of Writ Petition No. 18501 of 2004 filed by the Board before Hon’ble A.P. High Court and affidavit filed by the CCE, Mumbai before Hon’ble CAT, Mumbai in OA No. 454/2006, whether the information mentioned at Serial No. 01 (as mentioned in the RTI application) for filing of Writ Petition No. 18501 of 2004 by the Board before Hon’ble A.P. High Court was correct or not, etc.

Decision
The Commission felt that correct and timely response is the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007) (Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:

“14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy.”

Furthermore, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court decision in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 it has held that:

“The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure.”

A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held as under:

7.“it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken”. The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act.”

Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:

“3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi-judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.

Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:

“9………………………….. That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only.

The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.

The Complainant / Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate her claims further.

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, it is evident that cogent and precise reply had not been furnished to the Complainant / Appellant explaining the factual position. The Commission therefore directs Member (Admn.), CBIC to depute a responsible and senior official of appropriate seniority to examine the RTI application and furnish a consolidated response reflecting the correct and factual status to the Complainant / Appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.

The Complaint / Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.

Total Case uploaded: 135