ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Fri, Dec 13, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Miscellaneous (Law of Precedence, Compliant and Appeal, Freedom of Speech, Transparency in admission/selection)
Supreme Court(Miscellaneous (Law of Precedence, Compliant and Appeal, Freedom of Speech, Transparency in admission/selection))/ High Courts(Miscellaneous (Law of Precedence, Compliant and Appeal, Freedom of Speech, Transparency in admission/selection))
S.No. CIC CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
151 CIC/WB/A/2010/000033, 37 & 300-SM
(210.64 KB) pdf icon
29 Mar, 2011 Shri Ashok Golas, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat.

the Appellant had sought a number of information regarding the selection and appointment of the Member (Services) and Member (Technology) of the Telecom Commission and Chairman,TRAI. By and large, the CPIO had declined the information by claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
CIC held that, Selection and appointment to certain posts in the government are part of the administrative decision¬making process and must be placed in the public domain as soon as possible in order to ensure transparency. It is for this reason that even Section 8(1) (i) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act which ordinarily exempts Cabinet papers from disclosure provides that a number of information about the decision-making by the Council of Ministers would have to be disclosed after the decision is taken and the matter is complete and over. If the CIC/WB/A/2010/000033, 37 & 300¬SM information regarding selection and appointment to any public office is not disclosed by claiming it to be personal information, it would be nothing but a travesty of the exemption provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC directed the CPIO to invite the Appellant on any mutually convenient date within 20 working days from the receipt of this order and to show him the entire file, as available with the Cabinet Secretariat, regarding the selection to the post of the Chairman, TRAI in response to the advertisement dated 5 February 2009 but excluding all information in respect of the ACRs of all candidates other than the Appellant himself. If after inspecting the file, the Appellant would choose to get the photocopies of some of the records and documents, the CPIO shall provide the same to him free of charge.
152 CIC/WB/A/2010/000022-SM
(206.47 KB) pdf icon
29 Mar, 2011 Shri Harender Delhi. Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat.

CIC observed that, it is a fact that the public authority from which the information has been sought has been included in the second schedule. Ordinarily, the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act would not apply to it. However, in terms of the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, all information relating to the allegations of corruption and human rights violation will have to be provided. In this case, the Appellant, a member of the Schedule Caste alleged that the public authority had been extremely unfair to him in respect of his promotion and that it denied him promotion for a long period of time without explaining him the reasons thereby violating his human rights. In the special circumstances of this case wherein the information seeker is a member of the SC community alleging to have been deprived of his rights in a matter of promotion in the job place, we are inclined to treat this case as covered by the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and allow the information to be disclosed. We, therefore, direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the desired information.
153 CIC/WB/A/2010/000772-DS
(87.55 KB) pdf icon
29 Mar, 2011 Sh. Samir Bhatt, Mumbai Vs. Dept. of Administration Reforms & Public Grievance, N.Delhi.

The CPIO informed him vide order dated 6 April 2010 that the subject matter of letters referred to by the appellant in his RTI application pertained to the Government of Madhya Pradesh and provided the name and designation of the officer in the State government to whom the letters had been forwarded.
After hearing the averments of the respondent the Commission is satisfied that action had been taken as per the provisions of the RTI Act by the CPIO. The appellant is free to move the State Information Commission in exercise of his rights as given under the RTI Act. Appeal is dismissed.
154 CIC/AD/C/2010/000453
(206.49 KB) pdf icon
26 Mar, 2011 Mr. Asit Kumar Verma Advocate Jharkhand Vs. PIO Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi

The Commission upholds the direction of the Respondent and advises the Complainant to file a fresh RTI application and submit the same alongwith the fees in the appropriate form of DD/IPO/BC of Rs. 10/¬ drawn in favour of the Accounts Officer, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as prescribed under Rule 3 of the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005, in order to procure the information under the RTI Act 2005.
155 CIC/SG/A/2010/000823/11705
(46.79 KB) pdf icon
26 Mar, 2011 Dr. D V R Murthy Associate Professor and Chairman, Board of Studies, Dept. of Journalism and Mass Communication, Andhra University, Vishakapatnam. Vs. Public Information Officer Ministry of Human Resource Development The English and Foreign Languages University Campus, Tarnaka, Hyderabad

The Appellant had sought information on Minutes of the selection committee in order to know the selection process. CPIO informed that the Minutes of the Selection Committees are original and no office will supply the originals of any documents. CIC directed that, the photocopies duly attested by the PIO must be given to the Appellant.
156 CIC/AD/A/2010/0001590
(207.88 KB) pdf icon
31 Dec, 2010 Shri R S Saxena vs Ministry of Railways O/o the Jt.Secretary (G)  Railway Board Rail Bhawan New Delhi.

The applicant has sought the additional information not sought initially in the RTI application and the required information has already been furnished by the PIO. CIC advised the Appellantto file a fresh RTI application to obtain the additional information.
157 CIC/SG/C/2010/001281/10582
(47.91 KB) pdf icon
22 Dec, 2010 Ms. Geeta vs PIO & District Social Welfare Officer (North – East), Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi

The complainant sought certain information from the CPIO who stated to have sent it to the complainant but attached no postal receipt as a proof of having sent the information through speed post or regular mail. The PIO is directed to ensure that all responses to RTI application are sent through Speed Post in the future.
158 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.
159 CIC/SM/A/2010/000758
(205.69 KB) pdf icon
09 Dec, 2010 Shri Pankaj Kumar Jha vs CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, P.B.No.3765, 763, Anna Salai, Chennai

The appellant had wanted the details of the employees of the erstwhile Bharat Overseas Bank which had merged in the Indian Overseas Bank. The Commission held that the information should be provided to the applicant.
160 CIC/SM/A/2010/000766
(208.90 KB) pdf icon
06 Dec, 2010 Shri Taruna Suresh Manglani vs CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Customer Service Department Mumbai

The appellant had sought several information regarding fixation of the rate of interest on his home loan by the HSBC Bank. CIC held that it cannot compel the CPIO of the RBI to collect this information from the said Bank for providing it to the Appellant.
161 CIC/WB/C/2007/00943
(70.03 KB) pdf icon
30 Oct, 2009 Shri Subodh Jain and Shri K.K. Kishore vs Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and Institute of Company Secretaries of India

Complainant sought information as under:-
1. For the RTI application dated 9.10.2007—
i) DCP West vide letter dated 8.11.2007 directed the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.13, 949/-;
ii) DCP East on 16.11.2007 directed deposit of an amount of Rs.13.939;
2) For the RTI application dated 14.10.2007 —
i) DCP, IGI Airport directed deposit of Rs.90, 965;
3) For the RTI application dated 16.10.2007 —
i) DCP West on 8.11.2007 directed deposit of Rs.13,949;
ii) DCP East on 16.11.2007 directed deposit of Rs.13,939;
iii) DCP IGI Airport directed deposit of Rs.6,724;
4) For RTI Application dated 16.10.2007 —
i) DCP Traffic on 13.11.2007 directed deposit of Rs.5,146.

This then could constitute the substance of any decision on “payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing the information” to be taken u/s 7 (3). The objective of the Act is to provide “certain information to citizens who wish to have it”, which surely implies that this be provided in a cost effective manner. We, therefore, under the authority vested in us u/s 25 (5) recommend to the Department of Personnel and Training to provide in the Rules, the rules for a public authority to determine cost of disclosure of information under Section 7(3), including in “the cost” for which Rules are expected to be drawn up under Sec 27 (2) (a) by the appropriate govt. And under Sec. 28 (2) (i) by the competent authority such costs as may arise in a situation. The reasonableness of any further fee/cost shall as a matter of course be subject to scrutiny by the Commission under Section 18 as well as Sec 19 (3) and by the appellate authority u/s 19 (1). A copy of this order may be marked to Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training for further action.
162 CIC/MA/A/2008/01233/AD
(20.16 KB) pdf icon
03 Aug, 2009 Shri A.L. Motwani Vs. ITI Limited, Bengaluru

Mr. H.S. Mahesh, Chief Manager (PR) cum CPIO, Mr. Rajni K. Agarwal, General Manager (Mktg.) cum Appellate Authority, Mr. Anil Kumar, AGM(Vigilance-corporate) and Mr. D.S. Prince Raj, Manager, Corporate Vigilance represented the Public Authority.
The CPIO, CBI, Bangalore is also directed to comply with the Order of the CIC and to provide all the information available with them while relying on clause 10(1) of the RTI Act for severing information which is exempt from disclosure.
163 CIC/AT/C/2008/00025
(84.58 KB) pdf icon
27 Jul, 2009 Shri Milap Choraria Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes

The Complainant Shri Milap Choraria served a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure intending to file a civil suit against the Department of Revenue. Subsequently, he received a copy of the Caveat filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-VII, New Delhi. He thereafter submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) seeking to inspect the file in which the matter concerning the said notice served under Section 80 CPC and the caveat as aforesaid has been dealt with especially to verify whether the grievances referred by him in the aforesaid notice were at all fairly examined considered by the Public Authority. The complainant wanted to inspect the file from the date of receipt of the notice till filing of the caveat with all other documents including the respective legal advice, if any, received by the Ministry. It appears that the RTI request was received by the CPIO on 3.10.2007.

The appellant has failed to cite any public interest that would commend superseding the protected interest in the matter of disclosure of the requested information, within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.
164 CIC/WB/A/2006/00548 CIC/WB/A/2009/000668
(43.73 KB) pdf icon
26 Jun, 2009 Ms. Divya Raghunandan Vs. Deptt. of Biotechnology

In this case although the failure to provide the information will not qualify for penalty u/s 20(1), which prescribes penalty specifically for violation of Sec 7(1), there is a case for compensation u/s 19(8)(b) which has been demanded by appellant Ms. Divya Raghunandan in her rejoinder to the letter of 18.6.’07 from CPIO Dep’t. of Biotechnology. However, the details of the loss or other detriment suffered have not been supplied, and appellant Ms. Divya Raghunandan is directed to submit to us the details of such loss or other detriment suffered, also within ten working days of the date of issue of this Decision Notice, to enable us to take a decision on any compensation that will become payable.
165 CIC/OK/C/2007/00040
(24.90 KB) pdf icon
02 Jun, 2009 Mr. B. R. Manhas Vs. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund

The information pertaining to i) Year-wise Financial Grant received by the JNMF, Teen Murti House, New Delhi as well as the JNMF, Swaraj Bhawan, Allahabad, U.P. from the Ministry of Human Resource Development during the past 20 years; ii) Copies of yearly utilization certificates duly attested by Chartered Accountants of the Financial Grant received by the JNMF from the Ministry of Human Resource Development; iii) information regarding purpose of grant from the Ministry of HRD to JNMF; iv) list of Board of Trustees and other Members of the Executive Committee of the JNMF; v) information pertaining to the affiliation of the members of the Board of Trustees of JNMF to any of the political parties etc.

The Commission declares the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund a Public Authority under the Right to Information Act 2005. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Administrative Secretary, Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, Nehru is directed to appoint the Central Public Information Officer, Assistant Central Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority in the organization within 15 days of receipt of the instant order. The Commission further directs compliance of the other provisions of the RTI Act 2005, within 120 days of receipt of this order. The Commission also directs the Respondent to furnish the information as sought by the Appellant within 15 working days and submit a copy of the same before the Commission indicating compliance of the orders of the Commission.
Total Case uploaded: 174