ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Fri, Dec 13, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Disposal of Request
Supreme Court(Disposal of Request)/ High Courts(Disposal of Request)
106 CIC/LS/A/2011/003818
(38.09 KB) pdf icon
28 May, 2012 Ram Shankar Sharma Vs Cantonment Board, Mathura

Right to Information Act 2005 — Section 7(l) — Supply of information —
The appellant had sought information regarding all kind of tenders floated by the Board during last five years. Besides, he had also sought to know the generator sets and vehicles purchased by the Board without prescribing any time frame for such purchases. Furthermore, he had sought information about the residential premises available in the Cantonment area and the matters related therewith
The Commission held that from the nature of information sought by the appellant, it appears to me that this information is of no consequence to him. Importantly, it cannot be forgotten that collection, coalition and transmission of information to the appellant would cost considerable time, resources and money to the public authority.
107 CIC/AD/A/2012/001270
(212.03 KB) pdf icon
25 May, 2012 Pradeep Kumar Jain Vs. Department of Revenue, New Delhi

Right to Information Act 2005 — Section 7(1) — Supply of information — Priced book or publication
The Appellant sought a copy of Law book
The Commission held that it is a priced book and is available in the market, the Appellant is advised to purchase the same.
108 CIC/SG/A/2012/000880/18723 Penalty
(36.90 KB) pdf icon
24 May, 2012 Harish Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Section 7(1) — Supply of information
The PIO had sought the assistance of Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawan, EE(B) under section 5(4) of the RTI Act – Mr. Nihhawan forwarded the RTI application to Mr. Gulshan Kumar, JE who failed to submit the correct and complete information within the prescribed time limit
The Commission held that in such circumstances, notwithstanding the default on the part of Mr. Gulshan Kumar, JE and Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawan, EE would be the deemed PIO for the purposes of Section 20 of the RTI Act and therefore, would be liable to be penalised. Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawa, EE(B) & Deemed PIO for the delay in providing the information and the delay is much in excess of 100 days the Commission imposed the maximum penalty of 25000/- under section 20(1) of the RTI Act on him.
109 CIC/AD/C/2012/000614
(310.50 KB) pdf icon
20 Apr, 2012 Sunita VS. New Delhi Municipal Council, New Delhi

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of third days –

The appellant sought the details of GPF of her husband from the PIO of the Public Authority – the Commission held that the Appellant in this case is the legally married wife of the third party and in view of the submission of the appellant that her husband has been refusing to pay her any maintenance allowance although she still remains his wife, directed the PIO to provide the required information to the appellant by 20 May, 2012.
110 CIC/SG/A/2012/000471/18467
(57.77 KB) pdf icon
18 Apr, 2012 Mr. Sandeep Godika vs Mr. J. K. Sahasmal, PIO & AGM, UCO Bank

The appellant sought certain information from the PIO about the name and addresses of NPA borrowers. The CIC held that a fiduciary relationship exists, since all customers of the respondent public authority come to it because of the implicit trust they have and they provide information to the bank for their own benefit Unless a larger public interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure. Section 8(1)(e).
111 CIC/AD/A/2012/000759
(211.85 KB) pdf icon
11 Apr, 2012 K.P. Singh Vs. Northern Railway, New Delhi

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days –
The Commission held that the appellant is not the passenger in this case and that he is seeking details of passengers who had travelled against a certain PNR No. which is information related to third party. The Commission denied disclosure of information to the appellant since it is of the opinion that the disclosure has no relation with any public activity or interest and since the disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the third party.
112 CIC/SS/A/2011/001757
(194.32 KB) pdf icon
04 Apr, 2012 Shri Prafulla Jojo vs Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs

The appellant had filed an application under the RTI Act seeking information pertaining to appointment of Assistant Solicitor General of India and Government Standing Counsels in the High Court of Jharkhand. The CIC held that the information requested by the appellant, cannot be held to be personal information, since the information sought is regarding appointments made by the respondent. Providing such information regarding the appointments by the public authorities cannot be said to be personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of any person. The respondent CPIO is therefore directed to provide complete information as requested for by the appellant, free of cost. Section 7(1) Section 8(1)(j)
113 CIC/LS/A/2011/003580
(36.95 KB) pdf icon
03 Apr, 2012 V.D. Sharma Vs. MES, Bhopal

Section 7(1) – Supply of information
The Commission held that the view taken by the CPIO regarding paras (i) & (ii) (two letters of other office) of the RTI application is not sustainable in law. As long as the CPIO is holding/maintaining the requisite information, he has to decide whether it is disclosure to the appellant or not. He simply cannot evade his responsibility by advising the appellant to obtain the requisite information from the originator. The CPIO’s decision is set-aside and he is hereby directed to disclose this information. Departmental enquiry has since been completed, section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act cannot be invoked at this stage.
114 CIC/DS/A/2011/000501
(206.55 KB) pdf icon
02 Apr, 2012 Rajpal Vs. LIC of India, Bareilly

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days –
The PIO submitted that he joined as CPIO in August 2010 and hence, was not having the knowledge of the RTI Act at the time of the receipt of the RTI application – Whether sufficient cause for not imposing the penalty – the Commission held that the CPIO has furnished reply to the Appellant stating that the information cannot be provided u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act clearly shows the basic understanding of RTI Act prevailing with the CPIO. Thus, the submissions made by the CPIO are not credible in nature and attracts penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Penalty of Rs 25000/- imposed.
115 CIC/SG/A/2011/003705/17381
(62.65 KB) pdf icon
28 Mar, 2012 Pappu Gautam Vs. PIO & AGM, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office Lakhimpur – Kheri Radhey Complex, Lakhimpur – Kheri, UP

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days
The Commission held that the PIO had raised an extortionist demand of Rs. 15000/- without giving any calculations as per the requirement of the RTI Act. The FAA had also not passed any order within the time frame provided in the Act. The PIO stated that that he through he could charge the fees of the cost of salary of officers who would be involved in getting the information. The Commission further held that fee has to be calculated as per the central rules and the PIO cannot arbitrarily demand any fee to discourage the applicants from getting the information. Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed upon to the CPIO.
116 CIC/SG/A/2011/003750/17452
(53.71 KB) pdf icon
26 Mar, 2012 Syed Waqar Ali Vs. Deemed PIO & AZI Municipal Corporation of India, Delhi

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of 30 days
The Commission held that the PIO has provided false information to the Appellant. The appellant has received the information only on 06/01/2012 after a delay of 50 days. In view of this the commission imposed a penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act on the Deemed PIO at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day of delay for 50 days i.e. Rs. 250 X 50 days = 12500/-.
117 CIC/AD/A/2012/900701
(212.99 KB) pdf icon
23 Mar, 2012 Kirpal Kumar Gambhir Vs. D/o Revenue, O/o the Sub Registrar V, New Delhi

Section 7(1) – Supply to information
The commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the GPA to the appellant. The Commission further directed the public authority that a copy of the order related to registration of GPA/SPA be put on the website under section 4(2) of the RTI Act in the interest of the general public.
118 CIC/DS/A/2011/001580
(209.89 KB) pdf icon
21 Mar, 2012 Santosh Kumar Kaushal Vs. SBI, Shimla/Chandigarh

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within specified period of thirty days
The Commission held that the appellant is an employee of the bank and was available to provide clarification to the CPIO / First Appellant Authority did not understand the nature of information sought by the appellant. The Commission is not at all satisfied with the explanation provided by the former CPIO for having denied information to the appellant in response to the RTI application. Accordingly as per the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act, penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the former CPIO is imposed.
119 CIC/AD/A/2012/000697
(317.67 KB) pdf icon
21 Mar, 2012 Birbal Vs. Land & Building Department, New Delhi

Section 7(1) – Supply of information
The Commission recommended to the Appellant Authority (Land & Building Department) / Appellant Authority, Chief Minister’s Office enquire into the matter of so called “Institutional organized racket” and take a appropriate action in this matter and further directed the PIO/AA to restructure the file as per existing provisions. (Which the Respondent too admitted that they do exist) and provide a copy of the file to the Appellant definitely by end of May 2012. Simultaneously, the appellant authority, Land & Building department is also directed u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act, to enquire into the matter of the missing file and fix the responsibility and take appropriate action on the officials found guilty of having misplaced the file.
120 CIC/SM/A/2011/000627
(303.63 KB) pdf icon
19 Mar, 2012 Laxmi Narain Sharma Vs. PNB, Rohtak

Section 7(1) – Supply of Information
The Commission held that for mechanically transferring the RTI application to another CPIO and not providing the information about the action taken in the head office on the letter of 16 March 2010, the CPIO of the head office of the bank has rendered himself liable for penalty in terms of the provisions of sub section 1 of section 20 of the RTI Act.
Total Case uploaded: 132