ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Wed, Apr 01, 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 Date of hearing
(248.06 KB) pdf icon
10 Feb, 2020 Ritunjay Kumar Sinha Vs. CPIO, Directorate General of Shipping DG(S), Kanjurmarg(East) Mumbai – 400042.

Information Sought
The present set of Appeals (193 in number) arise out of RTI Applications filed by the Appellant against the Respondent and it has been decided to adjudicate upon the Appeals by putting same subject matters under one head (which may or may not have the same date of RTI Application) and have been listed for hearings. This has been done after taking into consideration the fact that these RTI Applications are seeking the same information, yet the basic contentions and relief sought in Appeal would be suited for a composite listing of the matters in order to cut down on the time and resources invested in adjudicating on each Appeal separately.

Decision
Commission received the email from Jayanta Mukhopadhaya, DDG(Tech) & CPIO on 06.02.2020 and the same has been reproduced hereunder:

“In view of queries received at this directorate the following be implemented with immediate effect:

The answer sheets of MEO exam should not be sent to the directorate. They should be stored in local examination centers for a period of 6 months after the approval of results. Answer sheets should be forwarded to this directorate only on demand of the same. After the lapse of storing period (ie 6 months) they should be destroyed under supervision of a responsible officer nominated by the Examiner of Engineer of the district.

Form-15 should be issued to the candidate when he is appearing for the first time. The same form must be used till candidate passes the grade (ie Part ‘A’ & ‘B’). A new form may be issued only when the previous form is completely full or the candidate is appearing for new grade (i.e. Class IV, II, I). O candidate’s passing/or being exempted from Part ‘A’, the form need not be sent to directorate along with result, unless specifically requested. The form must be forwarded to the exam center of candidate’s choice on his written request.”

In light of the averments of both the parties, Commission directs the CPIO to provide certified copies of available and relevant information pertaining to the written copy and exam marks alongwith copy of re-evaluation written copy and marks in connection with MEO CL-1 examination held on 19.02.2018.

Further, upon perusal of the aforesaid Circular of the Director General of Shipping dated 27.11.2002, Commission directs the CPIO to file an appropriate affidavit stating that no documents/records are available/are maintained with regard to the MEO CL-1 examinations held during the period 23.07.2015 and 18.12.2017 in pursuance of the aforesaid Circular. The affidavit should be sent by the CPIO to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant within 15 days of receipt of this order.
2 CIC/NAVVS/A/2018/161244/02773
(208.75 KB) pdf icon
31 Jan, 2020 Dileshwar Prasad vs CPIO & Asst. Commissioner Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti

Information sought: Whether the directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 13/04/2018 were followed by NVS or not. If followed, provide details related to the same.

Observations: Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that prima facie the order dated 13.04.2018 of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) Nos 8941-8947/2018 was not complied with within 8 weeks and also the order dated 21.01.2019 in SLP (C) Nos 35765/2017 was also not complied with within 4 weeks. The Commission considers the appellant’s grievance genuine. The compliance of the above two orders were inordinately delayed by the respondents, However, in so far as the reply to the RTI application dated 01.08.2018 is concerned the same is treated as proper and on time.

Decision: Keeping in view the request of the appellant with regard to penalty, and disciplinary action to be imposed on the CPIO, the Commission finds no infirmity in the CPIO’s reply which would justify doing so.. It appears to be more of a grievance of the appellant and a casual approach of the respondent in complying with the Apex Court’s order. Thus, no direction is being given on the penalty and disciplinary proceedings matter.
3 CIC/PWDDL/A/2018/616587
(552.22 KB) pdf icon
31 Jan, 2020 Shri Sanjeev Kumar vs PIO/Dy. Director-(Monitoring), O/o. Engineer-in Chief, Public Works Department

Information sought:
1)Provide the name along with designation of the present care taker of the said under pass? 2) Provide the annual/monthly budget/fund allocated and is used towards maintenance of the said underpass from beginning to till reply to this RTI Application? 3) Provide the complete details as to when lastly the street lights were installed & white wash done at this underpass? 4) Provide the name along with the addresses of the contractor by whom the said lights were installed & white wash done with a copy of the relevant bills submitted by contractor for payment?

Decision:
Commission notes that a reply has been sent to the Appellant on 24.01.2020 by PIO/ Sh. Raj Singh, E.E. PWD, only after the service of hearing notice by the Commission on the Respondent. The reply thereof reveals that the information sought by the Appellant is available with either MCD or DSIIDC and not in the O/o PIO/E.E. PWD. It is further noted that the reply per se is unsatisfactory, because even after exceeding the stipulated timeline and causing inordinate delay in discharge of information, the reply was merely denial of information. Hence in view of the fact that response of the PIO/E.E. PWD is totally frivolous, the response can hardly be accepted as a PIO’s reply. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission hereby directs:
(i). PIO/ Sh. Raj Singh, E.E. PWD to submit a reasonable explanation, for a) providing a delayed and frivolous reply to the Appellant b) causing an obstruction in the flow of information c) absenting himself during the hearing despite receiving notice to attend the same from the Respondent and vitiating the Second Appeal proceedings and d) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. This explanation must reach the Commission within 4 weeks from the date of issue of this order, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law.

(ii). Respondent/PIO/Dy. Director-(Monitoring)/HQ to: A. Ascertain as to who is the actual custodian of information and ensure that a satisfactory reply is provided to the Appellant, answering each of the queries raised in the RTI application, under intimation to the Commission, within 4 weeks from the date of issue of this order. Page 3 of 3 B. Submit an explanation for a) not furnishing any reply to the RTI application, b) not transferring the RTI application timely to the actual custodian of information, c) vitiating the hearing of Second Appeal by remaining absent during hearing and deputing an official who remained absent despite notice. This explanation must reach the Commission within 4 weeks from the date of issue of this order, failing which necessary action shall be initiated by the Registry, in terms of law.
4 CIC/FSSAI/A/2018/144585-BJ
(209.57 KB) pdf icon
31 Jan, 2020 Mr. Goutham Raj vs CPIO / AD, FSSAI, SRO Food Safety and Standards Authority of India

Information sought:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding whether manufacturing of chewing tobacco required FSSAI license.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 14.05.2018, stated that license under the FSSAI Act is issued only for the items coming under the definition of ‘Food’ and as per the Regulation 2.3.4.5 of Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restriction on Sales) Regulations, Food Product shall not contain any substance which may be injurious to health; Tobacco and Nicotine shall not be used as ingredients in any food products. Dissatisfied with the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

Decision:
Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under: 6. “....Under the RTI Act “information” is defined under Section 2(f) which provides: Page 3 of 4 “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.” This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed.” 7. “....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the “public authority” under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him.” The Commission noted that there was lack of clarity with the Respondent regarding licensibility of manufacture of chewing Tobacco that required clarification.

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. However, considering the sensitivity and lack of clarity with regard to grant of license for manufacture of chewing tobacco, it was desired that the concerned Ministry / Department of Consumer Affairs, Food, Health & Family Welfare, Government of India, could clarify the subject matter within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of the decision taken in the matter should be endorsed to the Commission also. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
5 CIC/SDMCN/A/2018/128891
(556.06 KB) pdf icon
30 Jan, 2020 Shri Satyavir Yadav vs PIO/EE-(M)-I/Najafgarh Zone,SDMC

Information sought:
Provide the certified copy of the work order. 2. Provide the certified copy of MB of the said work order. 3. Provide the certified copy of bill passed. 4. Sample of RMC at different places may be lifted and sealed in his (Appellant) presence and send to third party quality control as the quality of this work is very poor and same is being deteriorated at many places.

Decision:
In view of the above, Commission observes that though an updated response has been provided to the Appellant, pursuant to the directions of the FAA, but the same amounts to only a partial compliance of FAO in as much as reply to only query no. 1 has been provided by the Respondent . In contravention of the directions thereof, the Appellant was asked to deposit the necessary charges for obtaining the desired information. Under the circumstances, the Commission hereby directs the PIO to: (i). Provide complete and adequate reply/information to the Appellant, against each of the queries raised in the RTI application, in compliance with the FAO thereof, together with the corresponding documents/enclosures, free of cost. As mutually agreed between the parties, Appellant shall visit the office of the Respondent PIO on 18.02.2020 at 11:00 am to obtain the desired information, free of cost. A compliance report in this regard shall be submitted by the PIO before the Commission by 28.02.2020, with a copy marked to the Appellant. (ii). Submit a detailed and satisfactory explanation for (a) not providing information to the Appellant, without any reasonable cause, (b) noncompliance with the FAO, thereby causing an obstruction in the flow of information and (c) violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. This explanation must reach the Commission within three weeks from the date of issue of this order, with a copy marked to the Appellant.
6 CIC/OOCSD/A/2018/122650
(530.15 KB) pdf icon
30 Jan, 2020 Mohd. Moazzam Arif vs Office of the Chief Secretary, Delhi

Information sought:
Appellant vide RTI application dated 18.01.2018 sought the details of Government projects awarded to Association for Rural and Urban Needy, Rainbow Foundation India and Rainbow Home Sweet Home; name of the departments that awarded the projects, copy of the MoU and project wise amount paid.

Decision:
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing: None appeared on behalf of the Appellant despite service of notice for the hearing in advance. Page 2 of 2 Submission dated 06.01.2020 is received from the Respondent whereby he has reiterated the facts and circumstances leading to the present Second Appeal. The Respondent is present and heard. He submits that Appellant has sought vague information regarding award of Government projects to three organisations namely Association for Rural and Urban Needy (A.R.U.N.), Rainbow Foundation India (RFI) and Rainbow Home Programme (RHP) during the period 2012 to January, 2018. In his defence, Respondent avers that neither does the RTI application specify those activities/projects in respect of which the information is sought nor does it disclose those departments /organisations of Govt. of NCT of Delhi which are related to the projects referred in RTI application. Therefore, the RTI application could not be transferred to the actual custodian of information. A timely reply to this effect has already been furnished to the Appellant. Decision: After hearing the submissions of the Respondent and upon perusing the available records, Commission concurs with the view taken by the PIO and FAA. Since neither Appellant nor any authorized representative is present to buttress his case or express the specific cause of his dissatisfaction, it is difficult to adjudicate the appeal solely on merits. Even in the Second Appeal Appellant has failed to eliminate the deficiencies pointed out by the PIO in the RTI application, resulting in non-disclosure of the information. Under the circumstances, no further adjudication seems essential in this case.
7 CIC/NAVVS/A/2018/165646/02770, CIC/NAVVS/A/2018/165646
(207.85 KB) pdf icon
30 Jan, 2020 Krishan Kumar vs Central Public Information Officer Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti

Information sought:
The appellant has sought the following information in respect of Smt. Jyoti, D/o Krishan Kumar: 1. Application form submitted by the Smt. Jyoti in Navodaya Vidyalaya, Khara Kheri, Fatehbad for appointment on contractual basis. Whether the said application was considered at the time of preparing merit list or not? 2. Rank of Smt. Jyoti in the merit list. 3. Criteria followed for the preparation of merit list. 4. And other related information.

Decision:
Observations: The appellant did not appear to attend the hearing. Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that a delay of 3 months occurred unnecessarily due to the callousness of Shri Ramjeet, Assistant Commissioner and PIO, Jaipur. The reply could have been given on time without transferring the RTI application to another CPIO. The delay could have been avoided. However, in so far as the reply dated 12.10.2018 is concerned, the same appears proper. Decision: The reply given on 12.10.2018 is point wise and appropriate. Since the appellant was not present for the hearing his grievance with regard to the final reply could not be obtained.Thus no further action is warranted. The CPIO is issued a strict warning to be careful with regard to the timelines prescribed under the Act and refrain from providing delayed replies which may attract penal action u/s 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act.
8 CIC/UTDNH/A/2018/145073
(178.18 KB) pdf icon
06 Jan, 2020 Jigishaben H Patel Vs. CPIO, Directorate of Health & Medical Officer, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa – 396230.

Information Sought
The Appellant sought information with respect to making proper planning regarding awareness among poor and illiterate people about health-hygiene, cleanliness and also for making available all the primary treatment in times of illness and accident in all villages of various Panchayat in UT of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. She specifically sought for numbers of doctors, status of the staff position number of ambulances available; total budget received in UT of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and details of its utilization for the period of five years etc. through 9 points.

Decision
Commission has gone through the case records and expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the Dr. Sanjay Verma, APIO in denying receipt of RTI Application/First Appeal in their office because the Appellant has submitted copy of RTI Application and First Appeal with her Second Appeal which clearly bears signature and seal of receiving of their office.

In view of the proceedings during hearing, Commission directs Dr. Sanjay Verma, APIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect relevant and available records as sought in the present RTI Application on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and in writing. Copy of documents, if desired, should be provided to the Appellant free of cost. Commission’s direction should be complied within 15 days of receipt of this order and a compliance report should be sent to the Commission by CPIO enumerating the details of documents inspected and copy of documents provided to the Appellant.
9 CIC/OFBKO/A/2018/141814
(152.33 KB) pdf icon
02 Jan, 2020 Vinod Pal Singh Vs. CPIO, Central Ordnance Factory, Chheoki, Allahabad – 212105

Information Sought
The Appellant sought certified copy of attendance at workplace of Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Kailashnarayan for the period 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 October 2001 etc. through 5 points

Decision
Appellant stated that he is not sure about place of work of the two individuals regarding whom he has sought information in the RTI Application from the Respondent. He further stated that information sought is required in connection with family related dispute.

CPIO submitted that the Appellant has been informed that in absence of identifying particulars of the individual(s), information sought cannot be provided.

Commission has gone through the case records and based on the proceeding during hearing, the case is dismissed.
10 CIC/MOCIT/A/2018/139914
(503.24 KB) pdf icon
02 Jan, 2020 Devesh Kumar Vs. CPIO, CSC e-Governance Services India Ltd., Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003

Information Sought
The appellant has sought the following information in respect Sh. Chetany Gautam, District Manager Etah:
1. Copy of his appointment letter.
2. Copy of his monthly salary slip.
3. Copy of the appreciation letters given by the department to him.
4. Copy of the letters related to his removal from service.

Decision
The CPIO’s conduct in denying the information without ensuring that Sec 11 procedure is followed, asking the appellant to give reasons for seeking the information amounts to gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Moreover, the respondent CSC was absent during the hearing without providing any reasons thereof or taking prior permission to be absent. In view of this, the Commission directs the CPIO/PIO to appear before the bench on 02.01.2020 at 01.20 pm to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act. The CPIO is also directed to send a copy of all supporting documents which he chooses to rely upon during the hearing. The said documents should be sent to the Commission at least two days prior to the hearing via linkpaper. If any other persons are responsible for the said omission, the CPIO shall serve a copy of this order on such persons to direct their presence before the bench as well.

11 CIC/AICTE/A/2018/150143/02496
(205.54 KB) pdf icon
31 Dec, 2019 K C Tiwari Vs. CPIO, All India Council For Technical Education Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi

Information Sought
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. College of Military Engineering, Pune has AICTE approval. Provide documents to establish equivalency of a Colonel with Professor/Associate/Asst. Professor which has been used to grant approval to the College.
2. Remote Sensing / Geoinformatics is a multidisciplinary subject. Provide documents to establish its equivalency with CSE/IT or any other subject/discipline.
3. Provide documents to determine eligibility of a Professor with qualification B.Tech (Civil) and PhD in Remote Sensing/Geo-informatics for the post of Principal/Director at an Institute with only CSE/IT disciplines.
4. And other related information

Decision
Based on a perusal of the record, it is noted that a revised categorical reply should be provided stating that they do not maintain or provide any document or certificate relating to equivalence

The CPIO is accordingly directed to provide a revised reply in respect of points no. 2 and 5 of the RTI application as per the discussion during the hearing, within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.
12 CIC/CGDAC/A/2018/140463
(159.32 KB) pdf icon
26 Dec, 2019 Madan Gopal Vs. CPIO, Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pension), Draupadi Ghat, Allahabad – 211014.

Information Sought
The Appellant sought information through 3 points pertaining to probable action taken on his application dated 13.10.2017 regarding fixation of pay as per 6th CPC; whether the officers retired in 1996 with Basic Pay of Rs. 8,000, Rs. 11,850 and Rs. 13,500 in Pay Scale of Rs. 8,000-275-13,500 would get the same pension w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and whether it is possible to arrive at pension without arriving at notional pay as on 01.01.2006.

Decision
Commission has gone through the case records and observes that in the RTI Application, Appellant is trying to settle his pension related grievance and seeking CPIO’s clarification i.e., if the officers who retired in 1996 and were drawing different pay in the same pay scale would receive the same pension w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and can the revised pension amount be arrived at without fixing notional pay. RTI Act does not provide for clarification and interpretation of information by the CPIO on different queries of the Appellant. CPIO is required to provide information as available with him in form of records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advises, press releases, circulars, orders, log books, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force. CPIO is not supposed to create information or interpret information in respect of queries/clarifications.

Keeping in line with the spirit of RTI Act, CPIO is directed to write to the concerned Bank for sending a copy of due and drawn statement of the Appellant and post fixation of his pension in accordance with recommendations of 7th CPC.
13 CIC/AIRIN/A/2018/138180
(152.79 KB) pdf icon
13 Dec, 2019 Arup Ratan Sit Vs. CPIO, Air India Ltd, Airlines House, 113, Gurudwara Rakabganj Road, New Delhi – 110001.

Information Sought
The Appellant sought to know the seat availability in 20:45pm flight AI540 on 12.02.2017 from Delhi to Chennai at 5:50pm or beyond on the same day; last fare of the Economy class in the aforesaid flight and at what time etc.

Decision
Appellant stated that he wanted a certificate from Air India regarding non availability of seat on the averred Flight. He further stated that he is mandated by his parent Department to fly by Air India only and in case Air India did not have seat availability, he could have taken journey by other Air Lines.

Rep. of CPIO submitted that appropriate reply has been provided to the Appellant.

Commission has gone through the case records and observes that CPIO has provided appropriate reply to the Appellant in response to his RTI Application. Appellant’s statement regarding certificate from Air India does not find any mention in the RTI Application. In view of the foregoing, Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO. No further action lies.

14 CIC/CICOM/A/2018/135290
(152.71 KB) pdf icon
05 Dec, 2019 Vijay Pal Singh Vs. CPIO, CIC

Information Sought
The Appellant sought copy of order of the Commission vide File No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00566 dated 19.04.2007 alongwith certified copy of the documents etc. through 9 points.

Decision
Commission is not in a position to order any relief in the matter because the records sought are not available. No further action lies in the matter.
15 CIC/MOIAB/A/2018/136555
(156.08 KB) pdf icon
05 Dec, 2019 Vikki Choudhry Vs. CPIO, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting

Information Sought
The Appellant sought information about vertical integration in Broadcasting sector in India and clear violations of DTH guidelines by M/s Tata Sky Ltd and action taken on it.

Decision
Commission has gone through the case records and observes that Appellant is alleging corruption and desires appropriate inquiry into the functioning of the Respondent authority. Commission counseled him that the relief he desires cannot be provided under the RTI Act.

Based on proceedings during hearing, Commission directs the CPIO to provide relevant note sheet/correspondence available in their records in connection with dealing and processing of 5 relevant representations of different dates of the Appellant addressed to Secretary, M/o Information & Broadcasting till the date of filing of the instant RTI Application. Commission’s order should be complied within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and no cost should be charged. A compliance report to this effect shall be duly sent by the CPIO to the Commission.
Total Case uploaded: 154