RTI Corner

Information about the clause under which CHAFAA allowance of the appellant was not adjusted and other information was sought from the Bihar Regimental Centre. The Respondent informed the CIC that a sum of Rs. 1,08,258/ - in lieu of CHAFAA was remitted in the account of Appellant. The CIC noted that the core contention has already clarified by Respondent through written submission that this amount was credited to the account of Appellant. The CIC found no infirmity in the response furnished in terms of the RTI Act. Further, the CIC cautioned the Respondent to be careful in future and avoid causing disregard to the hearing proceedings by remaining absent before the bench to avoid attracting penal action.
Comments
The case law depicts how the RTI Act is being used by citizens for grievance redressal. It also shows that even after providing the information to the appellant and solving his grievance, the public authority was at the receiving end before the CIC as the PIO abstained at the hearing proceedings.
Citation: Dhage Sandip Sudam v. Pay Account Office (ORs), Bihar Regimental Centre, File No : CIC/PAYAO/A/2022/149251/CGDAC; Date of Decision : 11-01-2024
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

An online RTI application was filed seeking certain information from the CPIO, CBDT, New Delhi who transferred the RTI Application to the CPIO, Principal CCIT New Delhi who in turn transferred the application to the CPIO, PCIT New Delhi to send the information directly to the Complainant. The Complainant filed a complaint with the CIC on the ground of non-receipt of proper reply from the CPIO except mere intimation of transfer of RTI Application. The respondent submitted that inadvertently, the then Nodal Officer (RTI) /CPIO in office of the Pr. CCIT could not transfer the RTI application to the concerned CPIO Income Tax Officer, Ward 59(8), D-Block, Vikash Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. The respondent expressed their regret and submitted that this type of mistake will not occur in future. The CIC observed that such casual conduct of the CPIOs' tantamount to disregard for the proceedings of the Commission and also cause unwarranted obstruction to the Complainant's right to information which is in grave violation to the provisions of RTI Act. The CIC issued show cause notice to the CPIO but after hearing the submissions, held that there is no malafide or deliberate omission on the part of the Respondent and penalty proceedings were dropped.
Comment
While transferring an application filed under the RTI Act under section 6(3), a CPIO must exercise due caution to identify who is the concerned CPIO. It would save time and avoid unnecessary delay in providing the information.
Citation: Anurag Agarwal v. Income Tax Department, Complaint No. CIC/CBODT/C/2022/651966; Date of Decision: 29.12.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

In response to an application seeking certain information, the RTI applicant was provided opportunity to attend the personal hearing on two occasions to make the CPIO / FAA to understand his query, however, the applicant chose not to attend the same on any of the occasions. The Respondent stated that the relevant information has been already furnished to the Appellant from their official record. He stated that the Appellant was working as a JSO in MoSPI and he has been absconding since April 2023 and has failed to join office despite various communications and reminder letter sent to him in this regard. He offered inspection of record to the Appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to provide an opportunity to the Appellant or his authorised representative, to inspect available and relevant records as sought in the instant RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time duly intimated to the Appellant telephonically and/or in writing.
Comments
The PIO should not use “an offer of inspection of documents” as a tool to deny information. If the RTI applicant is unable to come personally for inspection or personal hearing, an authorised representative may be deputed to for the same.
Citation: Shri Ankit Demta v. Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation, Second Appeal No. CIC/MOSPI/A/2022/666229; Date of Decision: 04.01.2024
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought for a certified legible copy of the “Show cause” explantion submitted in the Commission by the concerned CPIO of Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) in compliance with the directions of the Information Commission. The CIC observed that the Appellant is seeking certified copy of such record which was merely a compliance correspondence between the Respondent and the Information Commission. The CIC observed that the DPCC is under no mandate to provide such correspondence to the Appellant. The CIC counselled the Appellant that in case he has not received the relevant information from the DPCC in compliance to some directions passed by the Information Commission, the Appellant has right to file a non-compliance complaint in the Information Commission as per the practice rather than filing fresh RTI Application.
Comments
Many appellants tend to file another RTI application to know the fate of the implementation of the CIC order rather than exercising the right to file a non-compliance complaint in the Information Commission. The proper way would be to bring the non-compliance to the notice
Citation: Rameshwar Lal Sharma v. Department of Posts, CIC/POSTS/A/2022/159587; Date of Decision: 14.12.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Certain information was provided to the appellant who submitted before the CIC that incomplete information has been provided and the documents should be certified. The CIC observed that the PIO and FAA have erred in providing the information related to the third party especially in the absence of any larger public interest without even following the process laid down under section 11 of the RTI Act. The CIC held that insistence of the Appellant to certify the documents which were already provided to him in the manner desired by him or any further disclosure with respect to the third party’s service matter to be a grossly unwarranted prayer. The CIC advised the PIO and FAA to acquaint themselves well with the provisions of the RTI Act to ensure appropriate disposal of RTI matters in the future.
Comments
Section 11 of the RTI Act provides for seeking the comments of the third parties if the CPIO intends to disclose their personal information which must be followed strictly. The PIOs/FAAs must learn the nuances of the RTI Act so as to avoid such blunders. This series of weekly articles is an attempt to help everyone in this endeavour.
Citation: Rameshwar Lal Sharma v. Department of Posts, CIC/POSTS/A/2022/159587; Date of Decision: 14.12.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com