ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Thu, Aug 22, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Disposal of Request
Supreme Court(Disposal of Request)/ High Courts(Disposal of Request)
31 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.
32 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.
33 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.
34 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’’.
35 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.
36 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.
37 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.
38 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.
39 CIC/SA/A/2015/001792
(360.29 kB) pdf icon
01 Apr, 2016 Asif Iqbal vs Sub Divisional Magistrate-III (HQ)

Section 7(1) Supply of Information

The Commission recommended that in pursuance to the landmark judgment, of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court which ruled that Aadhar card is not necessary for availing government scheme; the public authority and government should give widespread publicity through various media that Aadhar is not mandatory for the purpose of marriage registration scheme and also make necessary changes for online application for solemnization of marriage under Special Marriage Act.

The Commission directed the CPIO to provide information about action taken on Executive Order No. F. 1 (12)/DC /MC/2014 dated 21.4.2014 regarding appointment of additional marriage officers to the appellant within 21 days of this order under intimation to this Commission.
40 CIC/SA/A/2015/000947
(254.62 kB) pdf icon
30 Mar, 2016 Lokesh Kumar vs Navodqya Vidyalaya Samiti

Section 7 Supply of Information.

The Commission held that according to RTI Act the PIO cannot charge for manpower or for any other expenditure and charging of an exorbitant amount like this is treated as denial of information. The Commission further held that it is wrongful on the part of AIMA to demand Rs. 29,204/from the public authority to furnish question paper. Infact they have to hand over the question paper to public authority as it is their property as they have paid for it. Also, since Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti is the owner of such question paper, it should be disclosed under RTI Act. Section 9 of RTI Act says, if state owns a copyright, it cannot claim exception from disclosure as it may reject a request for information only where such a request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State.

The Commission directed the PIO to provide question paper to the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. If not, the Commission would be compelled to initiate penal proceeding to impose penalty against him.
41 CIC/SA/A/2015/001769
(262.30 kB) pdf icon
11 Mar, 2016 Nand Lal vs Department of Legal Affairs

Section 7(1) Supply of Information.

The Commission held that the Public authority and the notary are under a legal duty to protect and preserve such records/registers. If records are truly eaten away the termite, they owe an explanation to the people why they failed to prevent it. They also have a duty to give (i) list of records damaged by termite; (ii) list of those survived termite attack; and (iii) partially damaged records. If termite attack is claimed by the notary public, the genuineness of same has to be verified by the regulatory. If it was found to be wrongful claim the public authority should have taken necessary action against persons responsible for same. Section 4(I)(a) and (b) of the RTI Act imposed an obligation on notary and legal affairs department (public authority) to publish three lists.

The Commission considered Smt. Meena Sharma as deemed PIQ and directed her to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against her for not facilitating inspection of records through public authority as ordered by First appellate The Commission also directed Smt. Meena Sharma to furnish the certified copies of extracts from the notary registers as sought under the public authority and to explain why Commission should not direct the Department of Legal Affairs and her to give suitable compensation to the appellant.
42 CIC/RM/A/2014/003953/SA
(301.05 kB) pdf icon
10 Mar, 2016 Nirmal Kanta vs Laxmi Bai College

Section 7(1) Supply of Information.

The Commission held that the exemption under section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, sought to be applied by the Public Authority, is not applicable in this case and hence, directed the respondent authority/Principal to furnish the information free of cost to the appellant as sought by her. The Commission further directed the then Principal/FAA, Ms. Veena Gautam, deeming her to be the PIC), to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on her for obstructing the information, for missing the records pertaining to the appellant resulting in loss to the appellant. The Commission finds that the entire management of the college is denying the information which is supposed to have been disclosed voluntarily under section 4(l)(b) of the RTI Act, besides making wrong claims that records were not traceable.
43 CIC/RM/A/2014/004284
(354.46 kB) pdf icon
09 Mar, 2016 Aniket Aga vs Supreme Court of India

Section 7(1) Supply of Information.

The Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 11271 /2009 decided on 01.06.2012 in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors. v Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr., wherein, it was held that, if another statutory provision, created under any other law, vests the right to seek information and provides the mechanism for invoking the said right (which is also statutory, as in this case) that mechanism should be preserved and operated, and not destroyed merely because another general law created to empower the citizens to access information has subsequently been framed. The ratio of the aforesaid cited decisions is applicable in this case also. The action/ steps taken by the respondents in dealing with RTI application are satisfactory.
44 CIC/YA/A/2015/000816 CIC/YA/A/2015/001101
(239.71 kB) pdf icon
04 Mar, 2016 H.G.S. Pahwa vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi

Section 7(1) Supply of Information

The Commission held that the public authority cannot be obligated to furnish information in the manner as sought by the appellant.
45 CIC/CC/A/2015/002240/SA
(256.97 kB) pdf icon
02 Mar, 2016 Yogender Kumar vs Department of Higher Education

Section 7(1) Supply of Information. Claim of missing file by the public authority.

The Commission held that it cannot accept the claim for non-availability of file. The RTI Act does not provide any exemption from disclosure of information on the ground of missing files unless proved that record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by public authority. Claim of file missing or not traceable is not acceptable. By practice 'missing file' cannot be read into as exception in addition to exceptions prescribed by RTI Act. It also amounts to breach of Public Records Act, 1993 and punishable with imprisonment up to a term of five years or with fine or both. Public Authority has a duty to initiate action for this kind of loss of public record, in the form of 'not traceable' or 'missing'. The Public Authority also has a duty to designate an officer as Records Officer and protect the records.

The Commission would be compelled to initiate penal action under section 20 of RTI Act against the Incharge of the custody of the documents, dealing assistant, assistant and CPIO.
Total Case uploaded: 123