|S.No.||CIC CASE||DATE OF JUDGMENT||JUDGMENT|
|1||CIC/SBIND/A/2017/103744||19 Apr, 2018||Ashok Pandit Vs CPIO, SBI, Khagaria, Bihar
ISSUE : The applicant sought the total number of KCC loans sanctioned from 5/8/16 till date along with the certified copy of the Land Possession Certificate and land receipts. No information was provided by the CPIO.
DECISION : Total number of KCC loans sanctioned for the period requested for to be given. However, LPC and land receipts are personal information of the third parties i.e the borrowers which is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity the disclosure of which is exempted under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act,2005.
|2||CIC/PMOIN/A/2017/124760||19 Feb, 2018||Soni Eramath Vs CPIO, PMO
ISSUE : The applicant sought information as to whether Hon’ble President of India has administered the oath of office to the Prime Minister of India in the name of 'Mr Narendra Modi'.
The respondent stated that they had given a reply to the appellant vide their letter dated 6/1/17 indicating that the oath was administered to the Hon’ble Prime minister of India as per the provisions of the Constitution of India. The respondent further stated that Aadhar card/voter card of the Hon’ble PM cannot be revealed as per exemption under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005
DECISION : The action/steps taken by the respondents in giving response to the RTI application is satisfactory.
|3||CIC/SA/A/2016/001710/MP, CIC/SA/A/2016/001715/MP||05 Dec, 2017||Ajay Kumar Vs N I T Patna
ISSUE : The appellant had sought for details of medical bills and LTC availed by Dr Ashok , Director NIT as per proforma provided by the appellant. Not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal before the FAA. The FAA did not seem to have adjudicated on the appeal.
DECISION : The Commission directed the CPIO to provide to the applicant only the total amount of LTC claimed by Dr Ashok, Director NIT as per available record, excluding the names of family members and complying with the provisions of the RTI Act within 7 days.
|4||CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299248/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299253/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299257/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299258/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/300147/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/300149/BJ CIC/CBODT/C/2016/300150/BJ CIC/DITIN/C/2016/299250/BJ||31 Jul, 2017||Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy Vs CPIO, Income Tax Department, Jharkhand
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding total number of CAs and Advocates against whom cases had been filed before their disciplinary authorities for cancellation of practicing licenses, list of such cases, etc. The Commission observed that the responses provided by the CPIO were in total contradiction and disregard to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the Commission, directs the CCIT, Ranchi to conduct an enquiry either by himself or through a nominee officer of senior rank and send an enquiry report to the Commission. It was observed that the action taken by the CPIO in relation to the information sought needs to be examined carefully by the CCIT, Ranchi so that the fundamental right of the information seeker is fully respected and protected.
|5||CIC/POSTS/A/2017/312558||31 Jul, 2017||N J Patil vs PIO, Department of Posts
The appellant sought information on copies of documents indicating delivery of register letters to the addressee of Chorwad, Tal, Parola, Dist. Jalgaon by post of Chorwad or of Parola. CPIO denied information under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 and the same was upheld by the FAA. Being dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Commission. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide complete information to the appellant and warns the CPIO not to further misuse the exemption clause Section 8 of RTI Act, within 15 days from this date. The Commission directs the CPIO, Superintendent of Post Office, Jalgaon Postal Division, to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for illegally denying the information to the appellant.
|6||CIC/VS/A/2015/003304/SD||31 Jul, 2017||Md Matior Rahman Vs. CPIO, HQ 21 Mtn Div, PIN – 908421 C/O 56 APO
The Appellant sought various information through 27 points regarding the management, functioning, curriculum, teaching, non-teaching staff etc of Red Horns Pubic School.
CPIO is directed to provide information which is available with him/her or which he/she can access from management of the School as per the queries of the RTI Application subject to the exemptions of Section 8 of the RTI Act. CPIO shall particularly invoke Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act for denying personal details of third parties like academic qualifications, permanent address etc. sought vide query no. 7 and 15 of the RTI Application. Since as per above observations, RTI queries are largely unspecific, CPIO is not obligated to provide clarifications or opinions or such information which is not available in material form. In such cases, CPIO shall state categorically that information cannot be provided.
|7||CIC/DDATY/A/2017/108688||31 Jul, 2017||Shri Rajinder Kumar Mahajan Vs. PIO, DDA
Vide RTI application dated 22.03.2016 addressed to CPIO, Dy. Director (CS), the appellant sought information regarding complaint filed by the Member of NPSC Coop Group Housing Society Ltd. Dwarka with Chief Engineer, DDA, Dwarka for taking action against the Management Committee/Society for carrying out repair and rehabilitation of society building structure.
The Commission held that the issue involved requires due attention of the civic authorities as it is a complaint regarding act of endangering the security and safety of the residents of the society in question. The respondent public authority shall take appropriate steps to conduct inspection of the site and furnish an action taken report clearly bringing out the extent of damage of building under reference. Needful be done within 5 weeks of receipt of this order.
|8||CIC/AB/A/2016/000890-AB||25 Jul, 2017||Rekha Rani Vs CPIO, North Central Railway, DRM’s Office
The appellant sought information on 3 points, relating to her husband’s salary and allowances, name of the wife noted in the PF account of the husband and in the railway Pass and her entitlement for maintenance from the husband’s salary. The CPIO did not provide reply to the applicant.
CIC upheld the decision of CPIO under section 8 (1)(j).
|9||CIC/RK/C/2016/000011||20 Jul, 2017||Shri Blair Rodrigues Vs. CPIO, Goa Shipyard Limited, Vasco-De-Gama, Goa-403802.
The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Goa Shipyard Limited, Goa seeking information on six points including, inter-alia, (i) copies of various Parliamentary questions received from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 and (ii) copies of replies furnished to these Parliamentary questions.
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observed that information sought has been incorrectly denied by invoking exemptions under Sections 8(1)(c), 8(1)(i) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which are not applicable to the facts of the present case since the information sought in point nos. (a) and (b) of the RTI application, pertains to Parliamentary questions and their replies, and this cannot be said to be exempted under the RTI Act as once the questions are laid on the table of the Parliament, the same can be published and therefore, are available in public domain. The Commission with regard to point nos. (c) to (f) of the RTI application observes that information pertaining to grievance redressal, number of grievances received and copy of the promotion letter issued does not relate to personal information of a third party. Hence, the same has been incorrectly denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
|10||CIC/YA/C/2016/900088||20 Jul, 2017||Shri Arani Guha Vs. CPIO, Geological Survey of India, Western Region, 15-16, Institutional Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Geological Survey of India (GSI), seeking certified copies of the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) of all the Group-A officials of the GSI, Western Region from 01.04.2014 till 31.03.2015.
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, notes that the information sought by the appellant relates to the furnishing of certified copies of the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) of all the Group- A officials of the GSI, Western Region, Jaipur. Pertinently, in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and others [(2013) 1 SCC 212]. In view of it the Commission observes that the information sought by the appellant pertaining to the APARS of Group- A officials of GSI, Western Region, Jaipur, relates to the personal information of a third party, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, and would cause an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individuals concerned. Hence, its disclosure is exempted under Section 8 (1) (j).
|11||CIC/BS/A/2016/000133||30 Mar, 2017||Hubblal vs Central Public Information Officer Dy.GM (Admn), BSNL, RTI Cell, O/o General Manager Telephone Distt., CTO Compound, Shahzad Mandi, Agra.
The appellant filed RTI application dated 18.09.2015, seeking information on 8 points regarding leave record, disciplinary action taken for absence without notice etc. CIC held that, the leave record is not personal information.
|12||CIC/BS/A/2016/900115||30 Mar, 2017||Mr. Yugandhar Reddy Kadiveti Vs. Central Public Information Officer Asstt. GM (Admn./Mktg.) BSNL, Kadapa.
The appellant filed RTI application dated 09.03.2015 seeking information on 5 points regarding LTC availed by Sri M Eswara Reddy, DE (Rtd.) BSNL. CPIO stated that “information sought by him is related to third party information, the disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of third person and it is also not associated with any public activity or interest. The same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005”. CIC upheld the decision of CPIO.
|13||CIC/BS/A/2016/001713 CIC/BS/A/2016/000503||30 Mar, 2017||Shri P Raghvendra Rao Vs. Central Public Information Officer, Joint GM, BSNL, West Godavari, A.P.
The appellant filed RTI application dated 7.7.2015 seeking information regarding status of compassionate appointment in case of Shri P. Venkata Subbacharyulu (Late) Line-Man, BSNL. Sriparru. The respondent stated that vide letter dated 13.7.2015 they had denied the information to the appellant u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the matter relates to a third party. CIC upheld the decision.
|14||CIC/SA/A/2015/001712/MP||29 Mar, 2017||Shri Dharamveer, Vs. Sikkim Manipal University
Shri Dharamveer, the appellant, sought authentic copy of BCA degree certificate in case of his wife Smt. Preeti as she had lost her original degree certificate. The Commission holds that the appellant was trying to seek personal information of a third party and the information is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. No larger public interest is involved in the matter.
|15||CIC/BS/A/2016/001535||29 Mar, 2017||Shri Naresh Pal vs Central Public Information Officer, General Manager(HR), BSNL
The appellant filed RTI application dated 19.2.2016 seeking: “1) copy of question letter issued by the DGM(vig.), O/o CGM, BSNL, Haryana Circle, Ambala regarding complaint against the work of “provision of Aluminium partition for AO(TR) & staff room at TE Building Palwal” ; 2) copy of reply submitted by Shri S.K. Batra, the then EE(Civil), Faridabad who was the Engineer-in-charge of the work against the questions issued by the /DGM(Vig) O/o CGM, BSNL, Haryana Circle, Ambala,; etc. The respondent stated that they have denied the information u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission is of the view that since the investigation has already been completed, the respondent should provide to the appellant information/ documents to the applicant.