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)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
106 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.
107 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/-.
108 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.
109 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.
110 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.
111 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.
112 CIC/SG/A/2011/003539/17278 Adjunct
(79.40 kB) pdf icon
15 Mar, 2012 K.K. Swami Vs. PIO, Food Safety and Standards, Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Pragati Vihar, Delhi

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within specified period of thirty days
The Commission held that the appellant was pursuing this matter and hence sought information whether anything concrete had been done by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India. It is unfortunate that the PIO has not provided simple information sought by the Appellant. If the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India has taken no steps about specifying the safe level trans fats percentages in Ghee and Edible Oil they should atleast admit this. The Appellant has been unnecessarily harassed in pursuing this matter. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. The Commission under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI act awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursuing the appeal. The penalty proceeding however is dropped giving benefit of doubt to the respondents and accepting their plea that they have not been able to understand the queries properly.
113 CIC/SG/A/2011/003558/17224
(36.02 kB) pdf icon
09 Mar, 2012 Khageswar Pardhan Vs. Mr. Ram Dev, Accounts Officer & the then PIO, National Institute of Malaria and Research, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within specified period of thirty days
The Commission held that it is very clear that Mr. Ram Dev was responsible as the then PIO. The commission held that it is fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Ram Dev, the then PIO of Rs. 25,000/- which is maximum penalty under the RTI Act.
114 CIC/SM/C/2011/000818 & 1565
(300.60 kB) pdf icon
29 Feb, 2012 Subhash Chandra Agrawal v Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan

Section 7(1) — Supply of Information

The Commission held that the order of the CIC in second appeal is final and must be carried out unless specifically stayed by the High Court or the Supreme Court of India. Even after four months of the decision, the government has not gone before the Supreme Court of India or the High Court and obtained any stay. They cannot defy the directions merely because they are contemplating challenging our order before the High Court. Show cause notice under section 20(1) of the RTI Act issued to the respondent for levy of penalty.
115 CIC/SM/A/2010/001131
(208.70 kB) pdf icon
28 Sep, 2011 Shri Yogesh Mahajan vs CPIO, Punjab National Bank South Circle, 4th Floor, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi

The appellant sought certain information. CPIO denied the information. However, before the CIC, it was admitted that it was on account of a complete misunderstanding of the provisions of the RTI Act that they had taken such a view. CIC imposed maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- the information having been denied for nearly one year.
116 CIC/LS/A/2011/000644
(29.56 kB) pdf icon
06 Sep, 2011 Smt T Madhvi vs Department of Posts, Tenali

The appellant had appeared in Postman examination held in February, 2010. She had requested for evaluated answer scripts for Paper-A, Paper-B & Paper-C — this information was, denied to her both by the CPIO and AA u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. CIC held that, the exemption under section 18(1)(e) of the RTI Act is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer-books. The CPIO is directed to provide the copies of the evaluated answer scripts to the appellant.
117 CIC/SG/A/2011/000095/11518
(56.34 kB) pdf icon
17 Mar, 2011 Mr. Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar Asstt. Commissioner & PIO Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o Asstt. Commissioner, Shahdara (North Zone), Keshav Chowk, Near Shyam Lal College, Shahdara, Delhi-110093

The Appellant sought certain information from the CPIO regarding details of balance tehabazari dues. The Commission held that the First Appellate Authority appears to be guilty of dereliction of duty since he does not appear to have passed any order in the matter. Showcause notice issued to PIO for levy of penalty for not furnishing information within specified period.
118 CIC/AT/A/2010/000785DS
(87.56 kB) pdf icon
11 Mar, 2011 Shri Anand Vardhan vs State Bank of India

The applicant filed the RTI application before the CPIO, State Bank of India, New Delhi, vide which he sought opportunity of inspection of the accounts of his late father and submitted documents to prove that he was the legal heir. The matter was adjudicated upon vide FAA vide which the appellant was informed that the bank was under no obligation to disclose information pertaining to any third party and information was denied under section 8(1)(d)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act – the Respondent also presented a copy of the order of the High Court of Delhi in which the will of late father of the appellant is the matter of dispute – the Commission upholds the order of the FAA. Section 6(1)
119 CIC/AD/A/2010/001654
(211.30 kB) pdf icon
30 Dec, 2010 Mrs. Kavita vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences

The applicant filed RTI application with the PIO, AIIMS, New Delhi seeking information with regard to her husband - complete history of treatment of patient and documents thereof and provide the intimation in writing regarding the nature and name of the diseases of which her husband is suffering from. The PIO denied the information u/s 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act. The Commission also denied the information u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act since the information is being held by the doctor in fiduciary relationship. The Appellant is advised either to get a court order declaring the wife as the legal guardian. Section 7(1)
120 CIC/SM/A/2010/000768
(206.77 kB) pdf icon
09 Dec, 2010 Smt. Sheela vs CPIO, Punjab National Bank

The appellant sought information from the CPIO including photocopies of the relevant records relating to the allotment of flat by the NOIDA to the Appellant. For wrongfully denying the information at the beginning and then providing it much after the stipulated period, the CPIO has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty in terms of section20(1) of the RTI Act. Section 6(1)
Total Case uploaded: 123