RTI Corner

Authors: Dr. R.K. Verma & Dr. Anuradha Verma
Edition: 2nd Edition; 2023
No. of pages: 912
Publisher: M/s Taxmann
Price: INR 2595 / USD 68
ISBN No. 978-93-5778-529-7
Hardbound
The second edition of the “PIO’s Guide to RTI” has been published by M/s Taxmann in October 2023. The first edition came in 2011 and the next edition was much awaited.
The book is essentially a subject wise compilation of the operative part of the CIC orders and judgments of Courts interspersed with explanations of terms and concepts. The listing of content is very detailed and covers 29 pages, which makes it effortless to search for a case law which the reader desires. The plethora of case laws makes the work of the PIO simple to provide information by referring to a similar case law. The minutest of the issue under the RTI Act which one could fathom has been duly covered in the book. The authors have been successful in maintaining the balance between using common language which makes the reader friendly, while retaining the legal aspects of the Act.
The chapter on section 4 is all-encompassing which would enable the public authorities to understand the concepts of pro- active disclosure, duties of nodal officer, third party audit etc. in depth. The specific guidelines in the book would be helpful to the public authorities in the fulfillment of their duties.
The advocates and RTI activists would also find the book interesting for the deep knowledge it offers.
From the publisher’s side, the printing and paper quality is first-rate.
Overall, it is a must have book for all the Public Information Officers and the First Appellate Authorities.
Pros: Extensive case laws, Excellent division into headings, Elaborate examples and tips for PIO/FAA to avoid penalty, Misuse of RTI and ways to deal with it
Cons: Thick, On the costlier side
Disclaimer: The co-author, Dr Anuradha Verma, is a weekly columnist of this site, bringing out the column “DATE WITH RTI” since 2008.

The appellant sought to know whether DDA has any plans for in-situ rehabilitation of families residing at Rangpuri Pahari Malikpur Kohi. If yes, the details of decision, copy of the scheme and other relevant information to be provided. The PIO referred to the in Situ Rehabilitation Policy and advised the application to visit the DDA site. Deliberations between the parties indicated that the response provided by the Respondent is unsatisfactory and generic and fails to address the specific query raised by the Appellant. The CIC directed that a revised reply should be sent clearly stating whether there is any scheme for in-situ rehabilitation of families residing at Rangpuri Pahari Malikpur Kohi or not. Further, an explanation of the PIO was called as to why no penal action should be initiated for the violation of the express provisions of the RTI Act.
Comments
In many cases, the CIC has preferred not to order for disclosure of information on the ground that interrogative questions not beyond the scope of RTI Act. This case law shows that under the RTI Act the PIO must provide specific information failing which he may be liable for imposition of penalty.
Citation:Samay Singh and Ors. v. DDA, CIC/DDATY/A/2022/652023; Date of Decision
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 application was filed seeking the name of the CPIO and FAA at Central Bureau of Investigation, provisions of law about nondisclosure of name of the CPIO and FAA while disposing of application/ Appeal and related information. The PIO replied that the CBI has been put at Sl. No. 23 of the Second Schedule to RTI Act, 2005, subject to the provisions of Section 24 of the Act. The CIC observed that as the instant RTI Application and Appeal(s) have been filed collectively by two persons, the Appeal is not maintainable. The CIC ruled that since the instant RTI Application is not filed as per the laid down provisions, the appeal(s) are treated as infructuous.
Comments
The order of the CIC is contrary to the decision of another bench of the CIC. In the case of Samir Kumar Haldar v. Employees Provident Fund Organization, Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001429 decision dated 16 July 2010, it was held that there is nothing in the law or the rules preventing more than one citizen from submitting the RTI application. The CIC was hearing an appeal against the order of the FAA which held that it is not proper to disclose the information sought jointly. The CIC should have acted as per judicial discipline and the matter ought to have been referred to a larger bench if there was a contrary view.
Citation: Mr GV Malwad and Mr VN Malwad v. CBI Policy Division, CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/654255 + CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/643367; Date of Decision: 20/09/2023
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

Copy of a CAT order was denied under the RTI Act, 2005 advising the applicant to apply for obtaining copies of judgments/documents etc. of a particular case after providing the complete details of case as provided under Chapter XVIII of C.A.T. Rules of Practice, 1993. The CPIO & FAA relied on a division bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat, CA No(s).1966-1967 of 2020 dated 04.03.2020. The CIC referred to Apex Court judgment dated 11.04.2019 passed by a Division Bench in the matter of Institute of Company Secretaries of India v. Paras Jain, CA No. 5665 of 2014 wherein it was held that the existence of two avenues is not mutually exclusive and it is up to the candidate to choose either of the routes. Thus, if a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Rules therein, however, if the information is sought under the Guidelines of the appellant, then the appellant is at liberty to charge the candidates as per its guidelines.
Comments There is confusion on account of varying stands taken on the issue by different benches whether judicial orders should be provided under RTI Act if there is an alternative procedure prescribed under any other rules. The alternate procedure might be lengthier, complex or costly and hence, it should be left to the individual to choose the one which he wishes to use. Till a final word emerges, the confusion unfortunately, is likely to continue.
Citation: Girish Damodar Gole v. Central Administrative Tribunal, CIC/CADMT/A/2022/666640; Date of Decision: 20.09.2023
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

Certified copies of the bills raised by the counsels in a petition before the High Court, Name and designation of the officials who approved the counsel fees and related file notings were sought. The respondent bank denied the information on the ground of sub-judice. The CIC observed that more than two years have elapsed and information sought was not provided to the appellant. The then CPIO and present CPIO were show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the information. In spite of the orders of the CIC dated 25.05.2022 and 13.09.2022, the respondent had failed to provide the information as directed. It was informed that the bank had challenged the order dated 13.09.2022 of the CIC. The CIC mention that challenging the order may not be legal ground to circumvent the orders of the Commission. The CIC imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000- (Rupees Ten Thousand) on Shri Anand Joshi, the CPIO.
Comments Just because the case is sub-judice, information cannot be denied to an applicant.
Citation: Durgesh Kuwar v. Punjab & Sind Bank, CIC/PASBK/A/2019/160744; 05.09.2023
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