ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Sun, Dec 08, 2019
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
31 CIC/BS/A/2015/001331/11554
(111.38 KB) pdf icon
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.
32 CIC/YA/A/2015/002360 CIC/YA/A/2016/000922
(139.58 KB) pdf icon
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.
33 CIC/KY/C/2014/000080/SB
(398.17 KB) pdf icon
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.
34 CIC/RM/A/2014/003411/SD
(93.69 KB) pdf icon
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.
35 CIC/CC/A/2014/002246/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002778/SD CIC/CC/A/2014/002840/SD
(93.31 KB) pdf icon
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.
36 CIC/BS/A/2015/001081/10951-Penalty
(62.10 KB) pdf icon
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.
37 CIC/MP/A/2016/000143
(98.06 KB) pdf icon
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.
38 CIC/SA/A/2016/001176
(405.21 KB) pdf icon
28 Jun, 2016 Mahavir Singh vs Patiala House Court

Section 7(1) Supply of Information

The Commission held that it is the professional duty of the judicial officer/ court of law to give reasons for giving long next date. Lack of reasons raises several questions. First do not give reasons, then, deny the information under RTI because 'not existing'. This means taking undue advantage of deficiency. An order without reasons is not 'clean'. The Commission required the public authority, the Courts in Patiala House and every court to recognize the right of every client to know why hearing of his case is adjourned for a long date and provide reasons to the client in the relevant order as part of their voluntary disclosure duties both under Code of Civil Procedure and Right to Information Act. All the orders of the courts, number of them and reasons for adjournment in each case should be made available on website to fulfill the obligation under section 4 of the Act.

The Commission directed the respondent authority to facilitate inspection of the entire file pertaining to FIR 192/12 and provide copies of desired documents at Rs. 2/ per page.
39 CIC/YA/A/2015/001023
(615.31 KB) pdf icon
23 Jun, 2016 Dharambir Saini vs NDMC, Delhi

Section 7(1) — Supply of Information

The Commission held that simple queries of the citizen have not been addressed/ answered and information which should be readily available have been made virtually inaccessible by transfer of the applications from one officer to the other purposelessly and when a superior officer directs that information should be furnished such directions are completely ignored as if they were never passed. The AE who attended the hearing did not bother to inform either the PIO or the JE to ensure that the FAA's orders are complied with. Penalty imposed.
40 CIC/YA/A/2015/001253
(342.79 KB) pdf icon
21 Jun, 2016 S.R.K. Sehgal Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi

Section 7(1) Supply of Information

The Commission held that the officers entrusted with the job of collecting taxes are themselves not fully conversant with the rules and procedures in this regard. When queried as to what is the status of implementation of High Court order, the PIO stated that the MCD had gone in appeal against the High Court order to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court verdict and dismissed MCD's appeal. It is, therefore, a matter of public interest that when in one case the Unit Area Method has been used with retrospective effect, why it cannot be used in the other, which is the appellant's main focus of his queries. The appellant has been repeatedly approaching the MCD, requesting them for assessing his property for taxation purposes under the Unit Area Method. The Commission directed the PIO to give the present status on the consideration by the MCD of appellant's request for computation of tax for his property under the Unit Area Method.
41 CIC/MP/A/2015/002000
(48.90 KB) pdf icon
23 May, 2016 S.P. Parameswar Vs. State Bank of India

Section 7 (1) — Supply of Information

The Commission held that the CPIO had provided the information as held by him. As far as the information already placed in public domain, the CIC in its order in Appeal No. CIC/AT/ [A/ 2010/000384 dated 6.10.2010 has held that ‘’A matter already brought out into the public domain, either through website or through a publication, comes within the obligation cast on the public authority under section 4(1) of the RTI Act and it would be entirely in order for that public authority to direct a petitioner to the source from where information could be obtained’’.
42 CIC/RM/C/2014/000333-YA
(43.10 KB) pdf icon
25 Apr, 2016 R K. Sood vs NTPC, Delhi

Section 7(1) Supply of Information

The Commission held that it is well established law-and CIC in its past decisions have always held that minutes of the Board are not exempt from disclosure, though deliberations leading to the same maybe exempt from disclosure.

The Commission accordingly directed the PIC) to furnish the note sheet/approval of Board of Directors.
43 CIC/RM/A/2014/002087/SB CIC/RM/A/2014/002086/SB
(340.21 KB) pdf icon
25 Apr, 2016 Vipin Kumar vs Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi & Ann

Section 7(1) Supply of Information

The Commission directed the CPIO to provide a copy of the attendance sheet, attested copy of sheet plan and attested copy of the report of the invigilator, after severing the personal information of the invigilators so that the identity of the invigilators is not revealed to the appellant.
44 CIC/CC/A/2014/901173
(298.72 KB) pdf icon
25 Apr, 2016 Jitendra P Maru vs U. T. of Admn. of Daman and Diu

Section 7(1) Supply of Information

The Commission held that the file notings may be disclosed in the following manner:
(i) The copies of office notings recorded in the file shall be provided to the appellant after removing from the notings and correspondence, (a) the date of the noting and the letter, as the case may be; (b) the name and designation of the person recording the noting and writing the letter and; (c) any other indication in the noting and/or correspondence which may reveal or tend to reveal the identity of author of the noting/letter, as the case may be;
(ii) If the notings and/or correspondence referred in (i) above contains personal information relating to a third party, such information will be excluded while providing the information sought by the respondent.
45 CIC/RM/A/2014/001222
(303.12 KB) pdf icon
18 Apr, 2016 Naresh Prasad vs PIO, Central Board of Secondary Education, Patna

Section 7(1) Supply of Information

The Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005. Rule 4 fee to be charged for supply of copy of answer book.

The Commission directed the PIO to provide copy of his answer book at the cost of Rs. 2/- per page and directed him to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for charging unreasonable amount and violation of RTI Act & Rules by demanding fee of Rs. 700/- per answer script.
Total Case uploaded: 130