ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Mon, Sep 23, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exemption >> Miscellaneous (Exemption)
Supreme Court(Miscellaneous (Exemption))/ High Courts(Miscellaneous (Exemption))
1 CIC/KVSAN/A/2018/615125/00988
(225.40 KB) pdf icon
03 Jul, 2019 Ranjana Devi Vs. CPIO, Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan, 18, Institutional Area, New Delhi – 110 016

Information Sought
Number of KVS employees who have booked hotels through online portals for official tours during 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18. Provide details as per the following information:
i. Name and Designation of the employee
ii. Name of Scholl and Section
iii. Online portal through which hotel was Booked (MMT, IRCTC, Trivago, etc.)
iv. Place of Staying and duration
v. Amount paid
vi. Whether bill was passed, if not passed, provide reasons

Based on a perusal of the reply dated 10.01.2018 it was noted that an appropriate reply was provided. The information sought by the appellant is not covered u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act. Hence no relief can be granted.

In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission finds no scope for any intervention in the matter. The Commission accordingly upholds the submissions of the CPIO. No further action lies.

2 CIC/BS/C/2015/000013
(48.31 KB) pdf icon
27 Mar, 2017 Kailash Chandra Panda Vs. Central Public Information Officer Dy. GM, BSNL, Koraput, Odisha

The complainant filed RTI application seeking information regarding prepaid mobile data entry payment particulars of Koraput Telecom District for the month of 02/2012 to 10/2012 etc. The respondent stated that the complainant is seeking voluminous information in the format designed by him. The respondent stated that the collation and collection of the voluminous information and arranging it in the given format would divert substantial resources of the organization to this work. Hence, they have denied the information. CIC upheld the decision.
3 CIC/BS/A/2015/001861/12244
(103.85 KB) pdf icon
14 Feb, 2017 Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy, Jharkhand Vs. CPIO / JCIT Range 3, Department of Income Tax, Jharkhand.

Information sought (3 nos.) by the Applicant:
1. Number of assesses who declared their income from interest on bank deposits pertaining
to Range-3 of Bokaro during the period from 01/04/2006 to 31/03/2015.
2. Out of Sl. 1 above, number of assesses/persons who were the second account holder of
bank accounts/FDR deposits.
3. Number of cases re-opened on the ground of having joint account as second account
holder out of Sl. 2 above for the period as at Sl. No 1 above.
The CPIO has submitted that the information is not maintained and if directed to compile the same from the various files would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Further, a direction to compile the information in the form sought by the applicant can be issued only if occasioned by considerations of public interest. CIC dismissed the appeal.
4 CIC/SB/A/2016/000083
(60.86 KB) pdf icon
18 Jan, 2017 Ashok Khemka vs Department of Personnel and Training

Section 8(1)(i) — Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers. The Commission held that the appellant is not seeking information regarding the ACC note and that he had only sought information regarding an agenda item which was placed before the CSB.

The Commission further observed that the CSB, which is headed by the Cabinet Secretary and consists of Secretaries to the Government of India, is distinct from the ACC. Exemption under section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act does not apply to the present case. The Commission, therefore, directed the respondent to provide a copy of the agenda item, pertaining to the appellant, along with the minutes of the meeting of the CSB, after severing personal information relating to third party(ies).
5 CIC/CC/A/2015/004515
(516.56 KB) pdf icon
11 Jan, 2017 Commodore Lokesh K. Batra vs CPIO, P.M. Office, New Delhi & Ann

Section 8(1)(a) Information disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India. The appellant filed RTI application seeking information on 4 points viz (a) laid down instructions, process/procedure/ steps involved in Chartering Flights for PM's foreign visits and later filing 'Flight Returns' and raising bills/invoices and clearing bills on completion of the visit; (b) list of file(s)/records with reference number(s) on which bills for the charted Flights for the Hon'ble Prime Ministers are processed since 01.092013; (c) certified copies of 'Flight Return', Air Travel Bill(s) and Receipt(s) of an Amount of Rs. 2,45,27,465/- paid/cleared in respect of the Hon'ble PM's visit to Bhutan; and (d) to inspect all the file/files/records in respect of his above RTI queries — the Commission held that the sought for information are of a nature which is exempted under section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
6 CIC/CC/A/2016/000532/SD
(84.92 KB) pdf icon
03 Jan, 2017 Dr Mundiyara vs Directorate of Personal Services, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(a) — Information disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India —Section 8(1)(j) — Personal Information.

The Commission held that the CPIO has denied information on point Nos. 1 to 5 of the RTI application under sections 8(1)(a) and (j) of the RTI Act without any substantial reasoning and the same is also untenable. The Appellant has sought list of names of promotions and b"' no stretch of imagination will the disclosure of such information will have a bearing on the security or strategy of the state or invade the privacy of any third party.
7 CIC/AB/A/2016/000315-AB
(362.45 KB) pdf icon
26 Dec, 2016 Buddhi Ram Sahani vs Northern Railway, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(a) Information disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India. Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission observed that providing answer key related to any examination is not covered u/s 8(1) (a) to 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act. Answer key of a public examination is eminently disclosable under the provisions of the RTI Act to ensure more transparency and to inspire more faith of common public in the process adopted by public authorities while recruiting candidates for jobs in the government & semi government organisations. The CPIO is directed to provide the requisite information complete in all respects to the appellant free of charge u/ s 7 (6) of the RTI Act.
8 CIC/MP/A/2016/000821
(41.95 KB) pdf icon
21 Dec, 2016 Nalin Tayal vs State Bank of India, Chandigarh

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(1)(g). Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person.

The Commission held that that copies of file notings pertaining to de-panelment of M/S. GATS Financial Reconstructors Ltd. cannot be provided under the provisions of sections 8(1)(e) and (g) which is held by the respondent authority in its fiduciary relationship and disclosure of which would identify the authorities, who might have opined/made recommendations etc. and would endanger their life and physical safety. Moreover, no larger public interest warrants disclosure of this information to the appellant. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.
9 CIC/MP/A/2016/901346
(37.75 KB) pdf icon
05 Dec, 2016 Rachit Garg vs Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(a) — Information disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India — the Commission held that some of the information as sought by the appellant was not maintained by the respondent authority in material form. As regards information i.e. copy of the manual that AFI team of RBI need to follow while doing the AFI of any scheduled banks, which cannot be provided to the appellant under the provisions of sections 8(1)(a) and (d) of the RTI Act, disclosure of which may affect the economic interest of the country. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondent authority.
10 CIC/VS/A/2015/003438/SD
(79.24 KB) pdf icon
01 Dec, 2016 Matior Rahman vs O/o Commanding Officer, 21 Mtn Signal Regiment

Section 8(1)(a) — Information disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India — the Commission held that even if hypothetically Red Horns Public School is not a public authority, the fact remains that the RTI Application was filed with a public authority that is statutorily responsible for furnishing the information if he holds it in his official capacity or can access it. Notwithstanding, the information sought pertains to "Operation Sadhbhavna" of the Indian Army, which is an omnibus project undertaken across sensitive border areas of the country. Disclosure of its details and expenditure in a particular area of operation will have a larger bearing on other areas of its operation, all of which appears to be prejudicial to national interests. The Commission invokes section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act to deny the disclosure of the information sought.
11 CIC/RK/A/2016/000817-AB
(363.58 KB) pdf icon
24 Nov, 2016 Kush Kalra vs M/o IHQ (Army), New Delhi

Section 8(1)(a) Information disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India. The Commission held that it is appropriate to examine the case record on merit & did not want to dismiss it on a mere technicality especially as the issue involved matter of great national importance. However, on close scrutiny of the file, it was found that the CPIO was factually correct as the copy of the RTI application, copy of the first appeal as well the copy of the second appeal were not signed by the appellant. There was no contact number or valid email ID also available in the record. Despite the above fact of technical irregularity, the present CPIO's reply cannot be overlooked. The Commission observed that the CPIO by replying on 22.12.14 had waived his right to reject the RTI application. The FAA had not raised the issue while passing the order.

The Commission is of the view that the present CPIO's plea is genuine but not admissible at this stage. The CPIO had also not explained the applicability of section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act in the case of the instant RTI application, hence, the Commission is constrained to come to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to receive all information sought for in the said RTI application and as available on record.
12 CIC/DS/A/2011/003989/RM
(28.58 KB) pdf icon
12 Nov, 2012 Shri R.B. Singh Rohela, Solan, H.P vs IGNOU, Regional Centre, Shimla and New Delhi

The Appellant had sought the names and other details of candidates admitted in B.Ed courses of IGNOU from 1.1.2007 till date — huge information sought by the appellant. CPIO rejected the request. The Commission upholds the decision of the PIO.
13 CIC/SS/A/2012/0001470
(207.56 KB) pdf icon
17 Oct, 2012 Shri Arun Dixit vs Ministry of Law & Justice Legislative Department

The Appellant sought information about the number of Acts in force in whole of India upto the date of supplying the information; name of the above cited Acts and extent of their application; and purpose of the Acts and the date of their commencement. The Commission held that the respondent have no obligation to provide such information to the appellant, as the same is already available in the public domain. Neither are the respondent expected to create information as per provisions of the RTI Act.
14 CIC/DS/A/2011/001126/RM
(77.80 KB) pdf icon
11 Jul, 2012 Mr. Yatinder Babu Sharma, Mathura vs Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh

The appellant sought:
1. Details of candidates admitted in MCA courses from 2001 to 2010 along with a format containing four columns.
2. Details of candidates issued chance memo for MCA courses but were not given admission for the period 2001-2010 along with a format containing five columns.
As it amounts to disproportionate diversion of information CPIO denied the information. CIC agreed with CPIO.
15 CIC/AT/A/2010/000708, CIC/AT/A/2010/000709, CIC/AT/A/2010/000710
(129.20 KB) pdf icon
27 Sep, 2011 Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

The Appellant had asked for information regarding labourer dismissed from service i.e. grounds for such dismissal, disbursement of CMPF and gratuity to such dismissed labourer, if not disbursed the reasons for non-disbursement CMPF and gratuity etc. The information is requested for the past 20 years.The Commission held that the appellant instead of making specific request has reiterated his request for information spanning a period of 20 years. Under the circumstances, the Commission finds no reason to interfere in the reply of the Respondent.
Total Case uploaded: 18