RTI Corner

The appellant sought copies of recruitment Rules of NATRIP approved by Governing Council, copies of sanction posts, vacant posts and promotion policies of NATRIP approved by Governing Council, advertisement published for recruitment/tenders etc. The appellant acknowledged that he had received 1000 pages of documents but claimed that they contained either repeat pages or blank papers without providing the information sought by him. It was articulated that the information sought by him was of general nature which would have been placed in the Public Domain in accordance with Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 relating to suo-motu disclosure by the Public Authority. The CIC advised the Respondent to suo-motu disclose such recruitment rules/policy in public domain in compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act to ensure transparency, credibility, objectivity and accountability in the functioning of the Public Authority.
Comments
A voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and filing of RTI Application by the members of public who wish to seek information should be an exception. The Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications so that the general public need not resort to the filing of RTI Application.
Citation: Mr. S. Murli Manoharam v. National Automotive Testing & R&D Infrastructure Project, Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises in Appeal No.:-CIC/NATRI/A/2017/117839-BJ, Date of Decision: 30.11.2017
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 for the details of LTC availed by a public servant since her joining in the Ministry, the names of family members given in the LTC claim etc. The appellant claimed that the expenditure was incurred through Government exchequer and this information could be provided to him. The CIC ruled that the number of LTCs availed by Government officials and the number of family members is disclosable under the RTI Act.
Comments
Being a government servant does not mean a surrender of privacy. The information about the family members remains personal information that is not liable to be disclosed under the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: Ms. Prathiba Sharma v. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways in Case No. CIC/MORTH/A/2017/168269/MP; Date of Decision: 01st December, 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 related to a college namely ‘Vaageshwari College’ from the AICTE, but, the spellings of the name of the college mentioned in the AICTE records was ‘Vaageswari College’. The PIO replied that no such college was approved by the AICTE. The CIC observed that the only difference in the spelling of college name was alphabet ‘h’, the PIO could have mentioned in the reply about the same. The CIC directed the PIO to provide a point wise reply to the appellant, mentioning that the name of the college approved by the AICTE within 7 days from the date of receipt of the order. Observing that the reply to the RTI application was not provided within the stipulated time period of 30 days and the FAA had not adjudicated on the first appeal, the CIC cautioned the respondent authority to be more careful in future while dealing with RTI matters.
Comments
The reply given indicates a tendency of some PIOs to give a technically correct answer which may not be the best way of dealing with the RTI Application. The provisions of the RTI Act should be followed not only in letter but also in spirit.
Citation: Shri More Ganesh, Rangareddy v. AICTE in Appeal No. CIC/AICTE/A/2017/190104+189930/MP, Date of Decision: November 30, 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/