RTI Corner

The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking entire file relating to action taken on his complaint against Dr. Amulya Singh before Chairman, Bihar Council of Medical Registration, Patna. The Deputy Secretary, Board of Governors in supercession of Medical Council of India informed the appellant that the query pertains to Bihar Council of Medical Registration, Patna and whom further details could be obtained. There was no transfer of application under section 6(3) by the CPIO. On second appeal, the CIC held that no further intervention is required in the instant Appeal..
Comments
Vide OMs/circular No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12.06.2008, the DoPT had observed that if a person makes an application to a public authority for some information which is the concern of a public authority under any State Government or the Union Territory Administration, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the public authority receiving the application should inform the applicant that the information may be had from the concerned State Government/ UT Administration. Application in such a case need not be transferred to the State Government/ UT Administration. The OM in not likely to stand judicial scrutiny, if challenged.
Citation: Shri Arvind Kumar v. National Medical Commission in CIC/MEDCI/A/2019/160141, Date of Decision: 20.12.2021
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. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant filed RTI Application seeking information on eight points. He filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non-receipt of information from the Respondent. The Appellant requested the CIC to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the Respondent. The CIC observed that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information to the Appellant on the pretext of the instant RTI Application exceeding the word limit as per the RTI Act. Holding the reply as unsuitable and inappropriate, the CIC cautioned the Respondent to be careful in future, while handling matters pertaining to the RTI Act.
Comments
No application filed under the RTI Act can be rejected on the ground that it exceeds a specified number of words.
Citation: Mr. Varun Krishna v. M/o. Finance, Department of Economic Affairs in Complaint No. CIC/DOEAF/C/2020/665550, CIC/DOEAF/C/2020/665552 &CIC/DOEAF/C/2020/665553, Date of order: 01-11-2021
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. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Information pertaining to pending First Appeals registered in July to September 2019 including total number and List of First appeals which were registered in the above said months and other related queries were asked. The complainant contended that there is a deemed refusal of information sought in all the above RTI Applications and the reply has been provided with a considerable delay. The CIC observed that the complainant has sought categorical information in all the above RTI Applications and the PIO cannot be the custodian of all the information, however the then CPIO did not take assistance from the concerned department/ division under Section 5(4)/ Section 5 (5) of the RTI Act which in this case is their superior authority. The complainant contended that the respondent had wilful and malafide intention as they did not want to expose the poor performance of their superior authority, hence a point-wise reply has not been provided. The CIC noted that the information sought is related to FAA i.e. his own higher administrative authority seeking to indicate pendency against their superior officer, therefore he did not want to disclose it in order to hide the conduct of their superior authority. The CIC observed that the first appeal in these RTI matters have been pending and FAA did not decide these appeals to direct or guide the CPIO to provide the information. In a way there is apparent synergy between the CPIO & FAA in not giving reply to all the above RTI Applications disclosing pendency of appeals for a very long period of time. The CIC held that the then CPIO has deliberately not taken any assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from the O/o. the First Appellate Authority in reply to queries related to pendency of appeals at FAA level with malafide intention of not providing the relevant information to avoid disclosure of long pendency at the level of his Superior officer and waited to give reply after summary disposal of pending appeals. The CIC ruled that that this is the case where there is an intentional denial and obstruction of information and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) u/Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 on the then PIO, Shri Rajeev Ranjan, in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs..
Comments
Many PIOs tend to hesitate while seeking information from their seniors in respect of information held at their end. The role of the PIO under the RTI Act requires them to act independently. The PIO must remember that he alone is responsible for the consequences of delay or denial of information.
Citation: Mr. Varun Krishna v. M/o. Finance, Department of Economic Affairs in Complaint No. CIC/DOEAF/C/2020/665550, CIC/DOEAF/C/2020/665552 &CIC/DOEAF/C/2020/665553, Date of order: 01-11-2021
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. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Complainant pleaded that as the reply was delayed, the photocopying charges are not applicable. The PIO submitted that on 29.02.2020, the complainant was given all the required information free of cost who submitted an undertaking that he is satisfied with the information. The Complainant submitted before the CIC that he was forced to sign the undertaking stating his satisfaction. The CIC held that there is no ground to accept that the undertaking was signed under pressure. However, the PIO was issued a warning for not providing the documents free of cost on time and claiming charges despite the delay in replying.
Comments
As per Section 7 (6) of the RTI Act, the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the prescribed time limits. A PIO must ensure timely disbursal of information
Citation: Raashed Ashraf Rather v. Military Engineer Services in File no.: CIC/UTOJK/C/2020/114700/IAIRF, Date of Decision: 03/11/2021
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. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com