RTI Corner

Information about an application for renewal of Notary was sought. The PIO submitted that he has assumed charge only recently and has not been able to locate the records related to the instant RTI Application. He further submitted that the notary cell was being shifted at the time from Shastri Bhawan and the records are therefore, lying scattered and is in the process of being digitised. He further sought for one more opportunity to find out the availability of the records. The CIC was unnerved at the absurdity of the submission of the PIO as the RTI Application under reference was filed on the online RTI portal vide Registration No. JUSTC/R/E/21/02460, and hence, there is no question of not being able to trace the same from the physical records. Further, it was apparent from the reply that Dr. Amit Tyagi, Deputy Legal Advisor had been the incumbent PIO for close to a year now. Furthermore, the CIC noted that the Appellant has also denied receipt of any reply to the RTI Application when the said reply is readily available on the RTI online portal. The CIC took grave exception to the fact that both the parties misrepresented the facts of the case and have caused a gross disregard to the hearing proceedings. The appeal was dismissed while calling for the explanation of the PIO.
Comments
The case is a reminder of all that is expected from all the stakeholders to the RTI Act. The PIO conduct depicts ignorance of how to look for a RTI Application while the RTI appellant does not care to even find whether a reply has been sent.
Citation: Balaji Bhagat v. Department of Legal Affairs, File No: CIC/DOLAF/A/2022/612693, Date of Decision : 07/02/2023
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 complete list of tenders published for ALH production, tenders awarded, year wise expenditure statements and related information was sought from HAL through multiple RTI applications. The CIC observed that some of the replies by the PIO did not invoke any exemption clause in cases of denial of information. The information denied was not amplified or justified with proper exemption clauses under the RTI Act. Further, some of the information sought related to suo-moto disclosure and therefore, the reply given was grossly improper. The PIO failed to provide any justification for denial, as well as for not providing replies in respect of case. The CIC observed that the omission of the FAA in issuing not speaking orders and disposing of the first appeals is a matter of grave concern. Regarding the contention of the PIO that a total 44 RTI applications were filed, the CIC observed that there is no express bar on number of RTI applications that can be filed by a citizen. The idea to prevent frivolous litigation cannot be construed as preventing sincere applications seeking information related to Sec 4 implementation etc. The PIO was directed to provide a point-wise reply individually to the RTI Applications.
Comments
A PIO must invoke any of the sub-sections of section 8 or section 9 of the RTI Act in case of denial of information failing which it may be deemed to be a willful denial of information rendering him liable for imposition of penalty. All applications must be replied to individually. All FAA must pass a reasoned and speaking order within the time limit if an appeal is filed to them.
Citation: Raghu S v. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), File no.:- CIC/HALTD/A/2022/116372 + 19 others, Date of Decision : 10/02/2023
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

Information was sought about the recruitment and selection of candidates for the post of Assistant Commandant (Engineer) in ITBP. The PIO denied the information citing section 24 of the RTI Act and the FAA upheld the same. The CIC observed that the FAA did not decide the matter after taking into consideration the decisions (Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Harinder Singh v. SIC Punjab and Haryana and Ors WP (C) 22229 of 2011 and the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Manipur in Abid Hussain v. State of Manipur WP (C) 880 of 2019) which were mentioned in the first appeal. Furthermore, the order pronounced was devoid of any substantive reasoning and examination of facts. The CIC directed the FAA to re-examine the first appeal and pronounce a reasoned speaking order after granting an opportunity of fair hearing to the Appellant by 15.03.2023.
Comments
Many FAAs tend to ignore their responsibility as there is no specific penalty prescribed under the RTI Act on the FAA. A FAA must pass a reasoned and speaking order when a first appeal is received.
Citation: Shri Ajay Kumar v. ITBP; Second Appeal No. CIC/ITIBP/A/2021/139356, Date of Decision: 10.02.2023
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 the GST Registration details of all the parties/ individuals/ companies/ firms who have participated in a particular tender of SAIL, the date and time of reverse auction conducted for the said tender and other related information. The PIO did not provide any information initially and later sent a reply seeking photocopying charges for providing 125 pages. The PIO submitted that after the CIC notice, he coordinated with the custodian and a reply was received on 4 points and the reply for the remaining 2 points was awaited. The CIC directed the PIO to send a revised reply to the appellant on all the points and send the complete documents containing 125 pages free of cost alongwith the point-wise reply, after taking assistance from the custodian u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
Comments
The PIO was lucky to have escaped without any show cause notice for imposition of penalty as asking for photocopying charges after a lapse of 30 days is not maintainable as per the RTI Act.
Citation: Avishek Kumar v. SAIL Collieries Division, File No. CIC/SAIL1/A/2021/135948, Date of Decision: 18/11/2022
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