|S.No.||CIC CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||CIC/OFBKO/A/2017/174982/SD, CIC/MESER/A/2017/158987/OFBKO/SD, CIC/OFBKO/A/2017/182416/SD, CIC/OFBKO/A/2017/176666/SD, CIC/OFBKO/A/2017/174979/SD, CIC/OFBKO/A/2017/167761/SD, CIC/OFBKO/A/2017/164309/SD, CIC/OFBKO/A/2017/163933/SD, CIC/OFBKO/A/2017/145932/S||05 Sep, 2018||RP Verma Vs Indian Ordinance Factories, Dehradun
ISSUE : Misuse of RTI Act. Repeated applications/appeals submitted by the applicant regarding his promotion.
DECISION : a speaking order on his grievance be issued by the competent authority within 30 days. Applicant warned against the misuse of RTI Act in future and is advised to make judicious use of his right to information.
|2||CIC/VS/C/2015/900167||31 May, 2018||Hitender Vs M E A
ISSUE : Whether a Australian citizen holding a Overseas Citizen of India Card eligible for Right to Information under RTI Act, 2005.
DECISION : This Commission is of the opinion that the complainant who is an Australian citizen with the OCI card cannot be treated as Indian citizen for the purpose of seeking information u/s 3 of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover the RTI Act, 2005 does not have any provision for furnishing information to overseas citizen of India. It is applicable to Indian citizens only.
|3||CIC/MP/A/2016/000961||26 Dec, 2017||Vikas Jain vs State Bank of India, Ludhiana
Section 3 — Citizen's right to seek information — the Commission held that the submissions of the respondents and holds that as per section 3 of the RTI Act that only citizens shall have the right to seek information. The appellant had not submitted any authorization from the Board of Directors of Company to seek information on behalf of the Company. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.
|4||CIC/RBIND/C/2017/123750||20 Nov, 2017||Shailesh Gandhi Vs CPIO, RBI, Central Office, Mumbai
ISSUE : The appellant submitted a complaint u/s 18(1)(f) of RTI Act, 2005 to the Commission against the ‘Disclosure Policy’ issued by the RBI on its website containing a list of information which shall not be given.
DECISION : The instant complaint under section 18(1)(f) of the Act which was based on assumptions and apprehensions of complainant without any conclusive attempt at exercising the right to information was not maintainable. ……..moreover the complainant could not substantiate the reasons for not filing an RTI application with the Public Authority before filing a complaint with the Commission.
The complaint is accordingly dismissed.
|5||CIC/POSTS/A/2017/310909||31 Jul, 2017||Ashok Singh Vs. PIO, Department of Posts
The appellant sought information on two articles/consignments booked through speed post on 26.02.2011 and 28.02.2011. CPIO stated that the information sought is more than six months old and as per the departmental guidelines, records pertaining to speed post will be weeded out / destroyed after an efflux of six months from the date of booking and also highlighted the fact that earlier also the same information was intimated and the same was upheld by the FAA. Being dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Commission. The officer stated that the records of the articles/consignments sought by the appellant were weeded out as per the preservation policy as the period is only six months. The Commission directs the respondent authority to publicise the rule of the Department Manual which prescribes for the period of making complaint in cases of non-delivery or loss of articles/consignment and the limitation on preservation of records on notice boards and send compliance report to the Commission, within 21 days from date of receipt of this order. Disposed of.
|6||CIC/SB/A/2016/001267||28 Jul, 2017||Munna Ahmad Vs PIO, Dargah Committee
ISSUE : The appellant is an Editor of magazine ‘Alfaz Today’ alleged that many irregularities were noticed by him against management of Dargah and hence he was filing RTI applications. The appellant sought copies of orders that have been passed in relation to the inquiry rent charged from the restaurant by the Dargah Committee, copies of proposals and agenda etc. The CPIO offered inspection of files with the required information. FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO. Dissatisfied the appellant filed appeal before the CIC.
The CPIO complained that as the Dargah management could not give advt to his magazine, the appellant started filing RTI applications to bring pressure on the authorities.
…..The appellant agreed to file a comprehensive complaint on all alleged irregularities.
Decision: The Commission directed the respondent to provide action taken report on the appellant’s representation, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the representation from the appellant.
….the appellant is warned that if he files any RTI application on the same subject matter it could be rejected by the public authority.
|7||CIC/POSTS/A/2016/308590||25 Jul, 2017||Poonam Kumari vs PIO, Department of Posts
The appellant sought information regarding the names, addresses and contact information of all officers in the post office in Sirsi Biya in the district of Sitamadi; copy of orders related to district post master general; copy of counselling register reservation roster; copy of all orders related to the roster; a appointment and merit list of officials along with documents based on which the officials were appointed. The officer stated that the files related to appointment was under custody of Headquarter, Patna Office, hence, the RTI application was forwarded. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the complete information sought about the punishment imposed on officials.
|8||CIC/DEPOL/A/2016/296804||20 Jul, 2017||Shri Inderjeet Bhatia Vs. CPIO, Delhi Police, O/o the ADCP and PIO, North West District, Ashok Vihar, Delhi- 110052
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi Police, seeking information on three points pertaining to an incident whereby his three cars were towed away from the parking area by the police officials on 11.12.2015, including, inter alia, (i) the provision under which the said cars were towed away from the parking area by the police officials and subsequently seized, and (ii) the details of the place where the said cars were kept after being towed away by the police officials.
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that due information has been furnished to the appellant by the respondent. Hence, no further action is warranted in the matter. The Commission further observes that the appellant is seeking a redressal of his grievances. The Commission, in this regard, observes that the RTI Act is not the proper law for the redressal of grievances and there are other appropriate fora for resolving such matters.
|9||CIC/DEPOL/A/2016/304245||19 Jul, 2017||Shri B. C. Parchha Vs. CPIO, Delhi Police, O/o the Deputy Commissioner of Police, East District, Fazalpur, Delhi
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Delhi Police, seeking information on three points relating to an incident of a property dispute, including, inter alia, (i) the provisions relating to the furnishing of a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) to the complainant, and (ii) a copy of the document on the basis of which one Shri Rajender Prasad and his son had been allowed to put a lock on the appellant’s property
The Commission further observes that the information sought by the appellant are in the nature of seeking clarifications for pursuing the course of redressal of his grievances in the property dispute between him and one Shri Rajendra Prasad. The Commission observes that the RTI Act is not the proper law for the redressal of grievances and there are other appropriate fora for resolving such matters.
|10||CIC/SB/A/2016/000602/MP||31 Mar, 2017||Shri A.K. Goel, New Delhi Vs. Shri K.P. Choudhari, Jt. Director, Shri Gurmit Singh, Jt. Registrar, Shri C. Ganesh Kumar, Under secretary, Shri Y.R. Balotia, Asstt. And Shri Jasbir Singh, Dy. Director(Admn.)
The Commission observed that the information available on record has been provided to the appellant. Under the provisions of the RTI Act the CPIO is not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The appeal is disposed of.
|11||CIC/BS/A/2016/000209/MP||30 Mar, 2017||Shri K S Reddy, West Godavari (A.P.) Vs. NPCCL, Faridabad
Shri K S Reddy, the appellant, sought the certified copies of the documents relating to the date of receipt of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 5111/1993, decision dated 08.04.2013; copy of petition received by NPCC along with the replies/counter replies filed by it in the petition, etc.; The Commission observed that the CPIO and the FAA had provided the information that was existing and available with them to the appellant. The public authority is not under any obligation to create or collate non-available information for the appellant’s satisfaction u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, as decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay.
|12||CIC/BS/C/2015/000164||28 Mar, 2017||Mr. M.L. Banga, Vs. Central Public Information Officer, DE(BSS), MTNL,New Delhi
The respondent is directed to ascertain the names of CPIOs who held the charge during the relevant period and serve a copy of this order on them. Each of these CPIOs are directed to show-cause: (a) the reasons for delay in sending the reply during the period they held the charge (b) why penalty should not be imposed on them.
|13||CIC/BS/C/2015/000183||28 Mar, 2017||Mr. Raj Narayan Rai Vs. Central Public Information Officer TDM BSNL, U.P.
The respondent is directed to show cause within 30 days why action should not be taken against him for not participating in the hearing before the Commission.
|14||CIC/SB/A/2016/000603/MP||27 Mar, 2017||Ms. Niharika Dixit, Jaipur Vs. Union Public Service Commission
Ms. Niharika Dixit, the appellant, sought certified copy of the rules, press note relating to cancellation of candidature; date of cancellation of the appellant’s candidature; etc., of her appointment for the post of Medical Officer in Central Health Services. The Commission observes that whatever information was available with the respondent was provided to the appellant. The public authority is not supposed to create information which does not exist or is not available with the authority under the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission also observes that under the Act, the applicant cannot seek clarifications/ reasons on any action taken by the respondent.
|15||CIC/BS/C/2015/000163||27 Mar, 2017||Mr. Harikrishna, Karnataka Vs. Central Public Information Officer Sr. Supdt., Deptt. of Posts, Karnataka.
CPIO stated that thorough search was made in their office and it has come to their notice that the note-sheets, etc. pertaining to the year 2007 has been weeded out as the retention period of the documents is of 18 months to 2 years. CIC upheld the Order of the CPIO.