ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Tue, Sep 22, 2020
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Penalty
Supreme Court(Penalty)/ High Courts(Penalty)
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
61 CIC/DS/A/2010/001673
(89.04 KB) pdf icon
28 Mar, 2011 Shri Ashok Kumar Saxena, Moradabad Vs. LIC of India, Allahabad

The applicant preferred RTI application dated 22 October 2009 before the CPIO, LIC of India, Allahabad seeking information regarding release of payment under G I S in the name of his late wife. The CPIO vide his order dated 11 November 2009 informed him that payments are released district wise which accounts for some delay and that the particular claim would be released at an early date.
Commission issued notice to the CPIO (holder of information) to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him for providing vague, incomplete and misleading information to the appellant and also why compensation should not be awarded to the appellant for the loss course to him on account of this action of the CPIO.
62 CIC/DS/C/2010/000165/LS
(36.22 KB) pdf icon
15 Dec, 2010 Vikram Singh Vs Department of Posts, Aligarh

The applicant filed an RTI application along with postal order of Rs.10/-. The applicant stated that the CPIO did not accept the postal order and returned to him which amount to denial of information. The FAA has provided the information and therefore CIC disposed of the appeal. Section 6(1) Section 20(1)
63 CIC/SG/A/2010/002810/10280
(344.92 KB) pdf icon
02 Dec, 2010 Mr. J.N. Kapur vs Mr. V. R. Bansal Public Information Officer & SE-I Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, West Zone

The Appellant had sought information about demolition of “Mansarovar Club”- No information was supplied to the Appellant and he approached the FAA who directed that, the information should be given to the Appellant within 10 days. The PIO is guilty of not furnishing information. Show cause notice issued for levying penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
64 CIC/SG/A/2010/002951/11427
(54.81 KB) pdf icon
18 Oct, 2010 Mr. P C Ramakrishnayya vs Central Public Information Officer, Regional Commissioner, Office of The Coal Mines, Provident fund Commissioner , Near Police Line, Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad - 826014, Jharkhand

The appellant sought certain information from the CPIO vide his RTI application.The CIC held that the PIO has denied the information without giving any reason or justification for the denial under any of the clauses of section 8(1) of the RTI Act – the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. Show cause notice under section 20(1) of the RTI Act issued.
65 CIC/MA/A/2009/000154
(47.81 KB) pdf icon
30 Jul, 2009 Shri Franklin Caesar Thomas Vs. Ministry of Minority Affairs

The appellant seeking the following information:
(1) Did National Commission for Scheduled Castes get the two volumes of National Commission for Religious and Linquistic Report from Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment before taking a decision for giving recommendations to Government, regarding the extension of reservations to Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians. Please offer me the information.
(2) If National Commission for Scheduled Castes did not get the two volumes of National Commission for Religious and Linquistic Report from Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment before taking a decision for giving recommendations to Government, regarding the extension of reservations to Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians, from which source did NCSC get the NCRLM Report for giving comment regarding the extension of reservations to Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims.
(3) If these two volumes of National Commission for Religious and Linquistic Minorities Reports available in NCSC, please provide me the two volumes’ Report copies. After getting information from you regarding the availability of the two volumes report documents, I can remit the required fee for getting the material.
CPIO is accordingly directed to provide a copy of the NCRLM Report free of costs to the appellant within 10 working days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act would be initiated. All the appeals and the Review application submitted by the Union of India stands disposed of accordingly.
66 CIC/AT/A/2008/00365
(44.68 KB) pdf icon
14 Nov, 2008 Shri C.L. Saraiya, Mumbai, Smt. Namita Kumar, New Delhi, Shri Jugal Kumar Ekka, Kolkata and Shri Bal Krishan Gupta, Nazibabad Vs. Official Liquidators, Mumbai/Kolkata/Delhi

The issue as to whether the office of the Official Liquidator is a “Public Authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act came up before this Commission in Complaint Case No.CIC/AT/C/2007/00077, filed by Smt. Namita Kumar. The applicant Smt. Kumar had asked for certain information pertaining to the office of the Official Liquidator, from the PIO of the Department of Company Affairs, Government of India.

The Commission directed the respective Official Liquidators to provide information to the respective applicants within ten days from the date of receipt of this order. The matter concerning imposition of penalty in Complaint Case No.CIC/AT/C/2007/00077 will be decided by the concerned Bench. With these directions, the complaint and appeal petitions are disposed of.
Total Case uploaded: 66