RTI Corner

The appellant sought for the list of beneficiaries and the office to which they served at the time of allotment of CGEWHO dwelling houses of different types claiming irregularity in the transfer of his title deed. The PIO denied the information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that as far as the welfare schemes are concerned, the Government has a duty to maintain total transparency in the interest of better implementation. The CIC further held that a Title deed is a registered document indicating the transfer of property, which is a public activity by public authority. This cannot be termed as private information of a third party. Observing that the denying information about public welfare schemes of the government on the ground of privacy of some other person is sheer abuse of right to privacy by the Government and deliberate violation of RTI Act, the CIC issued a show cause to the PIO and deemed PIO why maximum penalty should not be imposed against each of them for not providing the information. The public authority was directed to explain why it should not be ordered to pay compensation to the appellant.
Comments
Registration means giving a notice to public in general, so that people know that such property has been already transferred, which implies that it could not be further transferred. As per the Transfer of Property Act and Registration Act, registration of property is a compulsory statutory condition which essentially provides for maintenance of records of transaction and public access to it. Anybody can seek to find encumbrances on any registered immovable property as per the provision of these laws.
Citation: Dr. K. Venkata Rao v. Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation in CIC/KY/A/2014/901399, Decided On: 17.11.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought detailed list of sundry creditors to each Private hospital (such as Medanta, Artemis, Fortis, Max, Paras etc) and the Government Owned Hospitals within the NCR region. The PIO informed that there are 390 CGHS empanelled institutions & Hospitals in Delhi. Earlier, due to heavy workload coupled with budgetary constraints, there used to be delay of around one year in settlement of claims of CGHS & empanelled hospitals which has dropped to around 3-4 months. The Commission directed the respondent to make proactive disclosure regarding the institutional creditors of CGHS & amounts due towards each of them.
Comments
A large number of government servants have complained of delay in reimbursement of the expenses incurred on their treatment. Many private hospitals had refused to be a part of the panel of hospitals approved by the Ministry of Health & family welfare where the government employees could take treatment. Hopefully, the public display of the list of creditors would expedite the payment of pending dues.
Citation: Aseem Takyar v. CGHS in F. No. CIC/CGHSR/A/2017/135673 F. No.CIC/CGHSD/A/2017/178863, Date of Decision : 31.10.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant sought information with regard to Chief Minister Relief Fund such as the complete list of funds, contribution received on account of NCT of Delhi, Chief Minister Relief Fund between the financial year 2013-16 and the list of beneficiaries to whom money was paid. The PIO argued against the disclosure of identity of the beneficiaries as the same may prejudice the privacy of the individual concerned and depict him/her in a position which is looked down upon by society. The CIC ruled that the names of beneficiaries as well the amount disbursed should be intimated to the appellant and found no impediment in placing the aforesaid data in public domain as well. The CIC observed that the names of beneficiaries and financial aid disbursed cannot be denied to the legislature and hence, the same doesn’t attract Section 8(1)(j).
Comments
The recipients of state aid cannot claim privacy as regards the benefits received by them and to ensure transparency in exercise of discretion by the authority, such data should be proactively disclosed by the public authority.
Citation: Mr. Aseem Takyar v. Chief Minister’s Secretariat GNCTD in F. No.CIC/LTGSE/A/2017/135671 and F. No.CIC/FDEPT/A/2016/304308, Date of Decision: 31.10.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/