RTI Corner

The appellant sought information related to his grievance which was sent to Ministry of Culture on Pg Portal. The PIO did not provide the desired information. During the hearing and in their written submissions also, both the PIO and the deemed PIO admitted that since the subject matter in the present RTI application and another RTI application filed in the past (which was replied to) were similar, they had taken the stand that a reply in connection with the present RTI application was not required. They also submitted that the appellant is in the habit of filing repeated RTI application on the same subject matter. The CIC was appalled at the conduct of the CPIO and the deemed PIO for handling the RTI application in such a negligent manner. The PIO and the deemed PIO kept the RTI application with them without taking any action though both had an administrative responsibility under the RTI Act to provide the correct and complete information in a timely manner. The CIC observed that the position not only paints a dismal picture of the public authority in regard to the management of RTI applications but also exhibits lack of complete awareness regarding the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC imposed a token penalty of Rs 1000/- each u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act on the CPIO, Smt. Vinodi Sharma and Smt. Kusum Dhingra, the deemed PIO.
Comments
As per the provisions of the RTI Act, a categorical reply to each and every RTI application should be provide and this means even if a similar RTI application was replied to before and information was provided, this fact is to be brought to the knowledge of the appellant while replying to the subsequent RTI application.
Citation: Chandranshu Mehta v. Sangeet Natak Akademi (Ministry of Culture) in Decision no.: CIC/SANAK/A/2018/164502/01975/Final, Date of Decision: 28/10/2019, 03/12/2019.
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored 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 the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant sought copy of order of the Central Information Commission vide File No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00566 dated 19.04.2007 alongwith certified copy of the documents etc. He stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO that the relevant file records have been weeded out because under the Evidence Act, the Public Authority does not have the power to weed out such records. The CPIO submitted that records pertaining to the relevant Second Appeal have been weeded out and the Appellant informed accordingly. The CIC held that it is not in a position to order any relief in the matter because the records sought are not available.
Comments
It is surprising to note that the CIC has not looked the question whether it had the power to destroy the records and if not so, who was responsible for directing the destruction of the file.
Citation: Vijay Pal Singh v. CPIO, Central Information Commission in File No: CIC/CICOM/A/2018/135290, Date of Decision: 05/12/2019
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored 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 the link: - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India.

Vide order dated 20.09.2017, the CIC had directed the CPIO, Geological Survey of India, Kolkata to provide certain information to the appellant, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. However, no information was provided and the respondent admitted that, inadvertently, no reply in compliance with the order of the CIC could be furnished to the appellant. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the CIC to condone the same. The CIC took an adverse view of the inaction on the part of the respondent in not responding to its letter dated 08.02.2019 regarding non-compliance of the Commission’s order. This shows that the respondent had deliberately not complied with the Commission’s order. The CIC directed the Director General, Geological Survey of India, Kolkata to take corrective action in the matter. The CIC also recommended disciplinary action against Shri S.C. Bose, the then Assistant Director (Personnel and Administration) and CPIO, RTI Cell, GSI, Kolkata under the service rules applicable to him for not complying with the order of the Commission dated 20.09.2017.
Comments
Under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, disciplinary action can be taken against a CPIO for malafide denial of information.
Citation: B. K. Bisaria v. CPIO, Geological Survey of India in Appeal No. CIC/YA/A/2016/001876
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored 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 the link: - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India