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
31 CIC/DEPOL/A/2016/296804
(64.46 KB) pdf icon
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.
32 CIC/DEPOL/A/2016/304245
(64.37 KB) pdf icon
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.
33 CIC/SB/A/2016/000602/MP
(59.45 KB) pdf icon
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.
34 CIC/BS/A/2016/000209/MP
(32.93 KB) pdf icon
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.
35 CIC/BS/C/2015/000164
(57.55 KB) pdf icon
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.
36 CIC/BS/C/2015/000183
(56.95 KB) pdf icon
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.
37 CIC/SB/A/2016/000603/MP
(27.84 KB) pdf icon
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.
38 CIC/BS/C/2015/000163
(55.80 KB) pdf icon
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.
39 CIC/BS/A/2015/001964
(121.61 KB) pdf icon
24 Mar, 2017 Mr. Manas Govinda Das, Vs. Central Public Information Officer, DGM/NWOP/N, BSNL, West Bengal

The CPIO, Circle Office, Kolkata is custodian of the record. The CPIO, Circle Office is to show cause, why action should not be taken against him for transferring the RTI application to another CPIO.
40 CIC/BS/A/2015/901933
(57.56 KB) pdf icon
24 Mar, 2017 Col. V Ramulu, Kerala Vs. Central Public Information Officer Asstt. Dir. Genl. (SGP), M/o Communication & I.T., New Delhi.

The respondent referred to the CPIO’s reply dated 29.04.2015 and stated that they have informed the appellant that the information sought is not maintained in compiled form. Further, compiling the information will disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. CIC upheld the decision of CPIO.
41 CIC/BS/A/2015/002290
(47.66 KB) pdf icon
21 Mar, 2017 Chunnilal Gahlot Vs. Central Public Information Officer Sr. Supdt. Deptt. of Posts, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

CIC directed that, the respondent should search the record in the concerned office and if the record is available, provide the copy of the same to the appellant. If the record has been weeded out the respondent should provide a copy of the proof of weeding out of the record of the appellant.
42 CIC/YA/A/2016/901446
(150.55 KB) pdf icon
20 Mar, 2017 Shri Suresh Pankaj Vs. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare

In view of the facts of the case and upon perusal of the records of the case, the Commission finds that repeated queries of the appellant have been adequately responded by the Respondent. The Registry is directed not to list any further cases of the same appellant against the same public authorities, viz. NACO/MoH&FW; on same subject matter and treat them as Res Judicata henceforth. The appeal is dismissed.
43 CIC/SS/A/2013/002072-YA
(78.69 KB) pdf icon
21 Feb, 2017 Sumitra Sen Vs. Northern Coalfields Ltd.

Appellant sought information relating to gross/net salary, form – 16, and property acquired and sold etc.

After finding that the same appeal was heard by the Commission some time back, and applied the ratio of the full bench decision of CIC in respect of repeated RTI applications/appeals on the same subject as follows:

Though the RTI Act did not specifically provide this (repeating applications on the same subject) as a ground of refusing the information, it is implied from the various provisions of the Act that any citizen has right to information only once and not repeatedly.

Cases of disclosure of information to the repetitive applicants for their private purpose which promotes their private interest but not the public interest would cause substantial harm to the legitimate aim of the RTI Act. Once the information is given, applicant shall not seek the same once again. If the applicant seeks information again and again, the PIO, FAA, the Commission would be forced to spend their time on this repeated application....
44 CIC/CC/A/2015/002843
(106.02 KB) pdf icon
10 Feb, 2017 Prasant Kumar Pradhan vs Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, Odisha

Section 8(1)(g) Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. The Commission held that the disclosure of the information sought is in furtherance of the public policy and no blanket exemption under section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act would apply. It is clarified that only names of beneficiaries and corresponding amount paid shall be furnished. There is no legal impediment if the aforesaid detail/information is put in public domain through the website.
45 CIC/RK/A/2016/000636/SD
(61.42 KB) pdf icon
30 Jan, 2017 Bir Singh vs Garrison Engineer (AF), Palam

Section 8(1) (j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the CPIO has inappropriately denied information under section 8(I)(j) of the RTI Act claiming it to be that of a third party. The work orders for any government projects are paid for from the treasury of government exchequer. It is for this reason that there ought to be probity and transparency in such affairs. The information regarding approving samples or completion period for a particular work order issued by the public authority cannot be said to be a personal information as per section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The disclosure of this information will not cause any unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual concerned.
Total Case uploaded: 174