RTI Corner

The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking information related to E-FIR regarding a cyber-fraud such as action on the FIR, as per the Citizens Charter, in how many days should HE expect reply on above FIR, the reasons under Sec 4 (1) (d) of the RTI Act for the delay, whether the above FIR contents are found frivolous etc. The appellant submitted before the CIC that the information provided was not clear and satisfactory. If the FIR in question was untraceable then it implies that there is laxity on the part of the organisation/ personnel involved and action should be taken against the erring official (s). The ACP tendered his apology for the ambiguity caused by the PIO’s response and clarified that while mentioning that the E FIR is untraced, the SHO, Sultanpuri implied that the accused are not traceable. The CIC observed that the RTI application has not been attended appropriately as the point wise reply of the SHO, Sultanpuri was poorly drafted causing ambiguity for the Appellant. Therefore, the CIC directed the PIO to provide a clear and cogent point wise reply with the updated factual position to the Appellant by 15.01.2024 under intimation to the Commission.
Comments
Readers would have noted the use of section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act by the appellant to seek the reasons for the delay. A PIO should be careful while sending a reply to ensure an unambiguous reply.
Citation: Ms. Shikha Sharma v. Delhi Police, CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/125152; Date of Decision: 13.12.2023
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 Action Taken Report with corroborative photographs in respect of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Special Task Force (STF) complaint 2020031440075. He said that the RTI Application pertains to the removal of illegal construction and encroachment on roof terrace by his neighbour. The STF was constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for removing the unauthorized construction, and in this particular case no action has been taken by DDA despite many complaints over three to four years. The appellant claimed dereliction of duty on the part of the concerned STF officials, as they have chosen to hide and to provide misleading information. The PIO explained that the complaint was forwarded to the concerned official which is SDMC, who have further booked the said unauthorised construction for removing the said encroachment. He further stated that STF meetings are conducted in every 15 days and this particular matter was taken up after which they have also provided the Action Taken Report to the Appellant. He informed that they are only authorized to direct the SDMC and they are not responsible for removing the encroachment. The appellant replied that an undated ATR has been furnished to him many a times which is of no value. Moreover, the SDMC is not following the directions of the STF, and cannot get away with accountability as well as responsibility by stating that they had forwarded it to some other department. He raised the concern that if the SDMC is not implementing the directions of STF as per directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, some actions should be taken against them but no such initiative has been taken even by the STF, which indicates that they are working hand in glove. The CIC directed the CPIO to re-examine the RTI application and furnish correct and detailed information to the Appellant. Further, the CIC observed that unauthorized construction poses a grave threat to both individuals and communities. Therefore, the CIC advised the Principal Commissioner (Housing) DDA, to consider the case of the Appellant in the backdrop of the above facts and take corrective action, if required.
Comments
The RTI Act, 2005 has been used by many applicants to enforce the rule of law. If an authority is not taking action as prescribed under law, the Act may be used to force it to take required action.
Citation: Captain P. J. Ashish v. Delhi Development Authority, CIC/DDATY/A/2023/610212-UM; Date of Decision: 06.11.2023
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

Appellant sought copy of nomination form E2 and F2 allegedly executed by her late father with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited raising concerns regarding the authenticity of a document, executed by her late father. The said document is crucial for the reconstitution of an LPG distributorship associated with BPCL. The respondent stated that the requested information could not be disclosed under the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that the appellant is the daughter and heir of the late Shri Bharatkumar Mohanlal Suchak and has been unwittingly included in the indemnity clause of Annexure E2, which was supposedly executed by her late father. Holding that this clause effectively makes her a party to the document, the CIC directed that she is not considered as third party, and is entitled to request and receive a copy of the same.
Comments
The RTI Act has often been used by individuals in commercial disputes to obtain certain information to build a case. The applicant has to show either the information is not personal or has to establish that there is larger public interest in disclosure.
Citation: Ms. Sharmila Bharatkumar Suchak v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/117952 –UM; Date of Decision: 02.11.2023
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