RTI Corner

The appellant had a grievance regarding non-allotment of his alternate entitled land area for construction of a shop in lieu of the land acquired by the Damodar Valley Corporation which caused him financial stress. He sought an action taken report on his application along with a note sheet of daily progress on his complaint which was denied under sections 8(1)(g) & 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The CIC ruled that blanket denial of information was not appropriate. The PIO was directed to provide a revised reply indicating the categorical action taken on the averred complaint along with the relevant available information after procuring the same from the actual record holder after applying severability in consonance with Section 10 of RTI Act. Regarding allocation of land area for his shop, the CIC held that it is purely a matter of grievance which is not amenable under the RTI Act.
Comments
The Right to Information Act provides the mechanism for procuring information which can be used for the redressal of any grievance. It is not, by itself, a forum for grievance redressal.
Citation: Amal Mandal v. Damodar Valley Corporation, File No: CIC/DVCOR/A/2022/120453, Date of Decision: 03.11.2022
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 copies of the appointment letters issued to the dependents of the deceased employees for appointment on compassionate grounds during a particular period. During the hearing, the appellant’s representative submitted that the father of the appellant was an employee and hence, information should be given. The CIC observed that the information sought is related to third parties and rightly rejected by the respondent. However, the exemption clause was not correctly quoted. The personal information of third parties are exempt u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC further observed that the FAA failed to dispose of the first appeal on time which is a sorry state of affairs. The CPIO and the FAA were both cautioned to be careful regarding the provisions of the RTI Act.
Comments
This is a case where the CIC held that this is a third party information which is duly exempt under the RTI Act. However, both the CPIO and the FAA were at the receiving end due to ignorance of the provisions of the RTI. The CPIO did not quote the correct exemption clause while the FAA did not follow the timeline. All officers must learn the basics of the RTI Act to save themselves from such humiliation.
Citation: Rajesh Nayak v. The CPIO O/o the Cantonment Board Ramgarh, File No. CIC/IARMY/A/2021/132210, Date of Decision: 02.11.2022
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 the status of his appeal dated 23.01.2015, appeal dated nil regarding APAR and low marks given therein, the details of promotion proceedings, list of selected GMs and their bio data, performance appraisal reports of other employees, etc. The respondent submitted that there was no provision for promotion from Scale VI to Scale VII. Further, the appellant was not promoted to the post of General Manager. Therefore, it was evident that the appeal dated 23.01.2015 was rejected. Moreover, the details of other selected GMs and their promotion proceedings were fiduciary in nature and could not be parted with the appellant. The CIC observed that the reply given by the respondent was partly evasive. The appellant had inter alia sought the status of his appeal dated 23.01.2015, appeal dated nil regarding APAR and low marks given therein, the details of promotion proceedings, list of selected GMs and their bio data, performance appraisal reports of other employees, etc. The details of other employees such as their appraisal reports, bio data, etc. consisted personal details and third party information. However, the final results of promotion of selected employees i.e. final marks secured of selected candidates should have been published in public domain for the sake of transparency and accountability. Further, the appellant was entitled to know the status of his appeal/petition dated 23.01.2015 and appeal regarding low marking in his APAR. The CIC directed to provide the information in respect of the status of his appeal dated 23.01.2015, appeal dated nil regarding APAR and low marks given therein, selection process records including marks and comments recorded by DPC for the promotion process from DGM to GM.
Comments
There should be transparency in the selection process to maintain the faith of the citizens on the selection process.
Citation: N Sai Prasad v. Indian Overseas Bank, Second Appeal No. CIC/IOVBK/A/2020/133750, 01.11.2022.
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