ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Thu, Dec 08, 2022
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))
181 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.
182 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.
183 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.
184 CIC/AT/A/2007/00389
(66.18 KB) pdf icon
27 Dec, 2007 Shri Laxmi Chauhan Vs. Shri Ashok Kumar Mehta and Shri V.K. Thakral

The appellant seeking the following: --
(i) Copy of the certificate issued by the chartered accountant showing gross block of all fixed assets (without depreciation) of the Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) concerning financial year ending on 31st of March 2005.
(ii) Relevant documents concerning the total investment made by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India in the 540 MW captive power plant and in the smelter project.
(iii) If the Central Government ever decides to sell out its 49 % equity in the BALCO-- will such sale include the valuation of 540 MW captive power plant and the smelter project?

CPIO did not responded to any of the requests made by the applicant under the Right to Information Act. The information has thus been virtually denied. However, we do not find that the denial is either intentional or deliberate. At the time when the RTI application was submitted before the Ministry, the Ministry seems to have been under the impression that BALCO remained a public authority, and, as such, the applicant should seek information from BALCO u/s 6(3). Later, they have reconsidered the issue and decided that BALCO has ceased to be a Public Authority after disinvestments. The Ministry, therefore, has not had an opportunity to consider the matter and determine whether the information requested is already available with them. Now, since this is very clear that the requested information relates exclusively to the Ministry of Mines, the Ministry is directed to respond to the RTI request submitted to them within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. It is further clarified for the sake of convenience to all stakeholders that the Ministry shall provide the information available with them and, if they do not hold the information, appellant must be so informed. The appeal disposed of.
185 CIC/SCOTL/C/2017/176047
(521.84 KB) pdf icon
---- Amandeep Goyal Vs. Dipankar Haldar, The Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.,

Information Sought
The complainant vide RTI application dated 28.07.2016 sought information on five points; copy of the noting giving approval by the Shipping Corporation of India (SCI) to publish an advertisement in the March 2016 edition of the magazine “Bureau Times”- An International Magazine, copy of the order issued by the Shipping Corporation of India in favour of the said magazine for publication of the said advertisement and other related information. The CPIO returned the original RTI application as no ID proof was attached with the RTI application. Aggrieved with the reply received from the respondent authority, the complainant filed a complaint under the provision of Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission on 27.01.2017.

“A bare minimum requirement for a citizen who desires to obtain any information under this Act is that he shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or in Hindi or in the official language
of the area in which the application is being made. It is clear therefore, that asking the applicants to declare any form of allegiance is ultra vires. For this reason it is recommended that it is only in cases where there is a reasonable doubt as to the citizenship of the applicant that the public authority may seek proof of citizenship, which presumably is the objective of the above clause.”

In this particular case, his presence was required to prove to the Commission that the present case was a “rarest of rare” cases in which there was reasonable doubt about the citizenship status of the applicant.

Total Case uploaded: 185