Whispers Forum

The PIO denied information sought by the appellant claiming that it relates to internal communication of the Bank and is confidential in nature. Further, no larger public interest is involved in the matter and the information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Before the CIC, it was submitted that the appellant has filed multiple RTI applications and First Appeals and the same have been disposed of within stipulated time frame. It was informed that RTI applications of the appellant are an offshoot of a family dispute between him and his relative (being one of their staff) and the respondent authority is being dragged to such a personal dispute, which is a clear abuse of the provisions of RTI Act. The respondent claimed that in addition to filing numerous RTI applications and complaints, the appellant had also been harassing the officials of our Zone by repeated calls and personal visits to the Branch/Zone. The Appellant has filed numerous complaints against the CPIO, First Appellate Authority of Ujjain Zone and even against the CPIO and First Appellate Authority of Head Office for exercising their functions under the RTI Act. The officials including the CPIOs are under threat of constant attack from the RTI Applicant for no fault of theirs. Malicious attacks are made on CPIOs through lengthy RTI Applications and Appeals. It was also submitted that the appellant's second appeal was dismissed by the CIC vide order dated 20.09.2024 in No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/128876 and order dated 28.11.2024 in No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/141282. The CIC noted that the reply given by the PIO is evasive and misleading. The CPIO, without applying his mind, has simply denied the information as it pertains to their internal communication and most importantly, the CPIO has not specified any of the exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the above-mentioned points and furnish a revised reply to the appellant, specifying the correct exemptions clauses or sub-clauses. Regarding the submission of the respondents of multiple RTI applications being filed by the appellant, the CIC observed that the said concern can be taken up in an appropriate matter in the future for want of any similar pattern of cases as well as in the absence of any specific reference of the number of RTI applications filed with the respondent.
Comments
A PIO must know the clauses of the RTI Act thoroughly and the denial of information should be only as per section 8 or section 9.
Citation: Premchand Bangaria v. Bank of India, Mumbai, CIC/BKOIN/A/2024/116770; Date of Decision: 05.03.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

US Reciprocal Tax Policy is a new challenge for India. Reciprocal tariff is imposed to maintain trade balance, protect local industries and prevent unfair business competition. As far as India is concerned, the US remains India's largest export market, accounting for 17.7 per cent of total exports in FY 2023-24. Global trade experts say that India is strategically reducing its dependence on any one country. This approach includes strengthening ties with regions like Europe and the Middle East. At the same time, optimizing the supply chain network is also included. Apart from this, India is focusing on export of finished goods and high-value products from export of raw materials. This is an effort that not only increases export revenue but also ensures competitiveness in the face of rising tariffs.
Raj Ahirwar

The appellant had filed an application in respect of rebate on House Building advance to him which was kept in abeyance since July 2017. He sought to know why the rebate was not granted by respected Regional Director of Education and the current status of his case. The PIO informed that the file regarding House Building Advance was returned to the Office of DDE (HQ). The CIC noted that information sought was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. The CIC observed that the custodian of information i.e. PIO, Directorate of Education (HQ), did not appear before the Commission despite knowing the fact that the matter pertained to them and notices were issued to them. Thus, prima facie it appears that the information sought was deliberately withhold by the PIO, Directorate of Education (HQ), New Delhi. The CIC issued show caused to Shri Rajesh Joshi (DDE), HQ, /present PIO and Shri Devender Mohan, PIO (Zone-18), District West -B, to explain as to why maximum penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the information to the appellant and also why compensation equal to the amount involved in the case should be awarded to the appellant. Both the PIOs were directed to submit their written explanations and also appear on the next date of hearing.
Comments
All PIO’s should keep a special track of files under submission if the information sought pertains to such files as it might be difficult to pinpoint as to who is the holder of information. Whenever a case is coming up for hearing, the PIO should invariably attend the hearing or seek specific exemption citing the reasons.
Citation: Yatendra Pal v. Directorate of Education, CIC/DIRED/A/2023/650684; Date of Decision: 20.02.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The unethical practice of cash-for-driving licences prevails across the country including the national capital. The applicants are forced to run from pillar to post by the “non-cooperative” officials. The touts have a free run. They can be spotted roaming around the Road transport offices (RTO) searching for hapless victims. They promise to get the job done in lieu of "facilitation charges". The touts are obviously, hand in glove with the RTO officials. The vigilance squads turn a Nelson’s eye to the collusive corruption! Will the transport authorities take the call? It will be useful to have CCTVs installed at every nook and corner of RTO offices for surveillance by vigilance personnel. The offenders must be arrested red-handed, then convicted by the fast-track courts for giving/ taking bribe.
A K Saxena (Former civil servant)