ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Fri, Feb 21, 2020
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
166 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.
167 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.
168 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.
169 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.
170 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.
171 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.
172 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.
173 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.
174 CIC/WB/A/2008/00426
(38.94 KB) pdf icon
01 Jun, 2009 Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Supreme Court of India

The CPIO of Supreme Court of India to provide him a copy of the Resolution dated 7.5.2007 passed by all the judges of the Supreme Court which required every judge to make a declaration of assets in form of real estate or investments held in their names or in the name of their spouses and any person dependent on them to the Chief Justice. The appellant also requested the CPIO to provide him information on any such declaration of assets etc ever filed by the Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court.

The CPIO of the Supreme Court is directed to provide the information asked for by the appellant in his RTI application as to whether such declaration of assets etc. has been filed by the Hon’ble judges of the Supreme Court or not within ten working days from the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
175 CIC/WB/A/2007/00422
(52.56 KB) pdf icon
19 Feb, 2009 Shri P.K. Sarin vs Directorate General of Works Central Public Works Department (CPWD) Delhi

The appellant submitted an RTI application on 7th September, 2006 under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking the following information:-
1) Please state the C.R. pertaining to which years considered for clearing Efficiency Bar;
2) Please state the C.R. pertaining to which years considered for the ad hoc promotion from the post of A.E. to the post of EE issued vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I dated 21.4.2006 and also vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I (Voll-II) dated 12.5.2006;
3) What is the minimum criteria (i.e. minimum number of C.R. with grading good) fixed for ad hoc promotion from the post of A.E. to the post of EE issued videNo.28/10/2006-EC-I dated 21.4.2006 and also vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I (Voll-II) dated 12.5.2006;
4) Vacancies of the ad hoc promotion from the post of A.E. to the post of EE issued vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I dated 21.4.2006 and also vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I (Voll-II) dated 12.5.2006 pertains to which period.
5) Certified copy of the C.R. of P.K. Sarin from 1st April 2003 to 31srt March, 2004.
The respondent Public Authority is directed to communicate the entries in the ACRs to the appellant for the period asked for by him in his RTI application within a period of 10 working days from the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
176 CIC/AT/A/2008/00027 & 33
(36.46 KB) pdf icon
06 Feb, 2009 Ms. J.D. Sahay Vs. Ministry of Finance

The appellant applied for empanelment/appointment to the post of Member, CBDT twice on 10.5.2006 and 21.11.2006 but was not selected. Aggrieved by non-selection, the appellant by her two RTI Applications, submitted on 10.8.2007 and 17.8.2007 sought certain information which could throw light on the reason for her non-selection.
The Public Authority is directed to make available information in terms of request of the appellant but there shall be no obligation to disclose details concerning 3rd parties. The respondent Public Authority may suitably use the severability clause in Section 10(1) of the Right to Information Act.
177 CIC/PB/A/2008/00399 & 00626
(26.85 KB) pdf icon
27 Nov, 2008 Shri Rajinder Prasad Vs. Directorate of Health Services

Appellant, Shri Rajinder Prasad submitted two RTI applications to Director, Health Services GNCT Delhi and requested for information on the result of an examination conducted for Group `D’ posts in Health Services as per Notification dated 9.5.1999 and merit list of successful candidates and appointments made.

There is, in fact, no request for supply of details of marks by the appellant in any of his RTI application. The respondents have already sent an elaborate list of candidates recommended for appointment to Group `D’ post along with their letter dated 7.11.2007 and if the appellant wants further information as to details of marks obtained in the said examination, he is free to submit a fresh RTI application to concerned PIO. For this reason the appeals are unsustainable and are hereby dismissed.
178 CIC/PB/C/2008/00723
(21.59 KB) pdf icon
26 Nov, 2008 Ms Suman Bakshi Vs. Directorate of Health Services

Complainant is an ex-employee of the Family Planning Association (FPA) of India as Extension Educator submitted an RTI application dated 7.1.2008 to Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karol Bagh Zone. The Office of Commissioner, MCD informed the complainant that the information sought therein, to the best of their knowledge, pertains to the PIO, Directorate of Family Welfare and, therefore, the matter should be pursued with them.
The Commission feels that there may be similar such cases where an NGOI which is being substantially financed by the Government has not set up a mechanism and have thereby evaded compliance with provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission, therefore, recommends that Ministries and Departments of the Central Government should make an assessment as to whether the NGOs who are being financed by them have set up a mechanism to provide information to the citizens who wish to obtain information under the RTI Act. If such a mechanism has not been set up by any of the NGOs receiving funds from the Central Government, it is recommended that the Government should not release any fund till the time such mechanism is set up and other obligations as contemplated under the Act are complied with. A copy of this order should be sent to all Ministries and Departments of the Government of India for taking further necessary action in regard to this matter.
179 CIC/PB/A/2008/01011
(21.59 KB) pdf icon
26 Nov, 2008 Shri Upender Vs. Directorate of Health Services

The appellant submitted an RTI application to PIO Directorate of Health Services, GNCT Delhi and asked for supply of all papers pertaining to his son’s selection and appointment for the post of Radiographer and present status. He also asked for basis of selection of all six candidates and copies of all letters pertaining thereto. He stated in his RTI application that although his son’s selection has been made on the basis of certificates which are all recognized by Central as well as Delhi Government, he asked why, nevertheless so much time is being taken in his appointment.

From the facts above, it appears that this is a case of malafide denial of Information by the PIO. However since it is the responsibility of the First Appellate Authority to ensure that the orders passed by it are duly complied with by the PIO, the Commission, therefore, has decided to remand the case back to the Director Health Services, first Appellate Authority to ensure that its orders under section 19(1) are duly complied with and the requested information furnished in terms of the order so passed, with the qualification that now, in accordance with Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005, no fees will be charged.
180 CIC/PB/C/2008/00304, 00310, 00868 & 00866-7
(45.44 KB) pdf icon
24 Nov, 2008 Mrs. Pushpa, Mrs. Chandrakala, Mr. Mudassar Ali & Mr. R.P. Tiwari vs Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital

The complainants have a common grievance that they were asked to purchase medicines/consumables from outside the hospital even though they are poor people and the hospital authorities are obliged to provide them medicines free of cost. Under the RTI Act, they wanted to inspect the Stock Register or have information regarding stock position of the medicines that they were asked to buy from outside the hospital. The complainants also wanted to know the name of the doctors who have dealt with their cases and action, if any, taken/proposed to be taken by the respondent Public Authority against these doctors.
The Commission is satisfied on perusal of the records that the response to each and every RTI applicant was sent although it may not have been received by the RTI applicants. This could also be due to wrong address given by the complainants. Under the circumstances, there is no case for imposition of any penalty.
Total Case uploaded: 182