Whispers Forum

The appellant sought for the certified true copy of the rules and guidelines governing the matters connected to the compassionate appointment in the MES. The appellant asked for the eligibility criteria for a person to be considered a "dependent" of the deceased employee of the MES. Further, the appellant sought to know if "multiple dependents" of the deceased employee of the MES are eligible for the compassionate appointment, how is the "priority” created for them? He sought for the priority list in "chronological order.” The CIC observed that no reply was given to the Appellant on his RTI application which shows mala fide intent of the PIO in obstructing the information under the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act and for disregarding the CIC’s notice of hearing by not appearing before it.
Comments
The guidelines regarding deciding the order of preference of taking up cases of multiple dependents should be made available on the website of the organization.
Citation: Marge Lombi v. Military Engineer Services, CIC/MESER/A/2024/600673; Date of Decision: 30.04.2025.
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

Statement of Account and other related information was sought by the appellant. The PIO replied that the Query was not clear and seeking confirmation does not fall under the purview of ‘information’ as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Further, you are filing continuous RTI Applications one after another which is clear misuse of provisions of RTI Act. A Recovery Suit has been filed against you by the bank, and the information being sought is to mislead the undersigned. Such action shall disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority under Section 7(9) of RTI Act. Moreover, it is also observed that seeking information on behalf of Company without Resolution passed by the company is not as per the Provisions of RTI Act. In the second appeal, the CIC observed that even if the infirmities contained in the RTI queries under reference is accepted, it is irksome to note that some of the arguments of the Respondent are in excess of the mandate of the RTI Act, particularly in the context of over emphasizing on the pending recovery suit or that the Appellant could access records through a different channel etc. The CIC cautioned the Respondent that the PIO ought to restrict themselves to the definition of information as envisaged under Section 2(f); the Section 8 exemptions as well as availability/unavailability of information. Any rejection of a RTI Application ought to be strictly premised on the applicable provisions of the RTI Act and RTI Rules, 2012 alone and not any other extraneous considerations. In cases where the CPIO seeks to rely on arguments like repetition and misuse of RTI Act, then allegations of such magnitude ought to be sufficiently supported with relevant proof in terms of details of past record of RTI Applications and Appeal(s) and the replies provided thereupon or atleast any reference of decisions issued by the CIC in matters of the same Appellant with respect to the same public authority.
Comments
Some PIO’s tend to reject RTI applications on grounds which are not specified under the RTI Act. In many instances, the PIO is rejecting the application as being repetitive and therefore, amounting to misuse of the RTI Act. As this case provides the guidelines for such occurrences, it would be highly relevant for the PIOs.
Citation: N. K. Gupta v. Indian Bank, Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2024/119412 + 117836; Date of Decision: 28.03.2025
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