RTI Corner

The Appellant contended that in recruitment for WCS post, the selection criteria followed by Rajasthan and other states are controversial in nature since every CITS course has its own importance, yet instead of following uniform selection process, some states are making rules according to their choice which creates confusion. To clarify this controversy, he sought the eligibility criteria for CTS trades, which has not been clarified in the reply by the Directorate General of Training. As the word “relevant trades” used in the eligibility criteria is not explained in clear words, the Appellant prayed to the CIC to direct the Respondent to give clear cut clarification regarding the term used “Relevant Trades” in the eligibility criteria. The CIC observed that the requisite information should have been disclosed upfront or atleast through FAQs with the concerned piece of information. An Advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act was issued to the Respondent Public Authority to firstly, disclose the meaning of “Relevant Trade” upfront on their website and secondly, to create a FAQ section on their website and also keep it updated so as to make it easy for a layperson to get frequently sought information and relevant orders/circulars.
Comments
Proactive disclosure by the public authority relieves the burden of RTI Applications, which are filed merely seeking clarifications and not any specific record. It is also in tune with the requirements of Section 4 of the RTI Act.
Citation: Vidya Sagar Prajapat v. Directorate General of Training, File No: CIC/DGTRG/A/2023/623500; Date of Decision : 31.07.2024
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 PIO submitted before the CIC that the instant RTI Application was filed without payment of the requisite fee and therefore, the same was treated as incomplete. On being asked by the CIC to provide any proof regarding the fee paid by him towards the instant RTI Application, the Complainant failed to furnish any proof for the same. The CIC observed that the Complainant has lodged the instant RTI Application without payment of the requisite fee and the same has also been informed to the Complainant by the PIO. Hence, the CIC held that the present petition is not maintainable being infructuous.
Comments
An applicant must adhere to the essentials of the RTI Act and not only pay the required application fee, but also retain the proof of payment of fee.
Citation: Bhushan Kumar v. Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Custom House, Mumbai, CIC/CCUM1/C/2023/645312; Date of Decision: 06.09.2024
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

RTI application was filed through online module seeking information about the muster roll. The respondent submitted before the CIC that the applicant is habitual to filling useless RTI applications in department "which has no relationship to any public activities or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual” under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant’s representative pleaded that information has been wrongly denied by the PIO ignoring the fact that Appellant’s name was included in the muster roll. Respondent stated that they receive humongous number of muster roll and each of which contains the attendance records of more than 100 of working staffs wherefrom it is difficult to severe the records of only one person i.e. Appellant. Each month there are several muster rolls charged to the account and voucher number is assigned to each. Hence, without the voucher number, the replying respondent will not be able to locate the sought for specific muster roll. The voucher number would be known to DDO i.e. AC, Shahdara South, Delhi as the disbursement has been made by his office and muster roll register is also maintained by their concerned department. The CIC held that the blanket denial of information by the PIO ignoring the fact that the Appellant has sought the muster roll and attendance records of his own along with other safai karamachari, is not appropriate as per the provisions of the RTI Act as he is entitled to know information regarding himself. The CIC directed to provide revised information to the Appellant concerning himself free of cost, after accessing the information from the actual custodian by invoking Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. The Respondent was directed to redact that part of information which is exempted from disclosure and to afford an opportunity of inspection of relevant records to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time.
Comments
In many cases in the past, the CIC has held that copy of muster roll should be provided. Those who are aware of the origin of the Transparency movement which led to RTI Act would recall the ‘Jansunwais’ by the Mazdoor Kisan Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS). The MKSS uncovered various frauds like fake muster rolls, overbilling in purchase, underpayment of wages etc. by access to the official records and public documents.
Citation: Nikki Mukesh v. Office of the Dy. Controller of Accounts, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, CIC/MCDND/A/2023/124366, +/124367; Date of Decision: 05.09.2024
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

Questions regarding a raid by the enforcement team of a Discom and as to whether their actions, assessments were correct or incorrect were raised. The CIC noted that numerous second appeals/complaints are coming up for hearing related to DISCOMS where the it was earlier held that DISCOMS are Public Authority within the scope and meaning of RTI Act. The operation of the said order of CIC has been stayed on an appeal filed by the DISCOM through an interim injunction passed in the year 2007. The CIC noted with concern that matter is pending before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court since 2007, i.e. pending from 17 years, which is crossing almost a generation, which is of 25 years as given in The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. In the meantime, general public at large are facing numerous issues pertaining to public services provided by DISCOMS. In order to resolve such issues of general public, the Respondent Public Authority should approach the Apex Court for vacation of stay of order. The CIC further observed that in case of DISCOMS, large infrastructure of network of electricity lines was created using powers under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for “Public Purpose”. Therefore, the urgency to get the interim injunction vacated needs no further emphasis. The PIO was directed to place a copy of this order before the Competent Authority for appropriate action in the matter.
Comments
Judicial delay are a matter of concern as noted by the CIC, more so when the matter to be decided is relatively simple. The advisory by the CIC to the Secretary / Head of the Department would hopefully expedite the matter. With privatization of basic amenities governing life and living like electricity supply, education, healthcare etc, some element of accountability has to be built in failing which the common man would suffer.
Citation: Rameshwar Dayal Gaud v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, CIC/DERCM/A/2023/148403; Date of Decision: 05.09.2024
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