RTI Corner

While hearing the second appeal, the CIC observed that in many similar cases in the recent past, it has been noticed that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated CPIO’s and FAA’s, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID’s. An advisory was issued under section 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Additional Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority’s office and issue a direction to their PIO’s and FAA’s to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeals in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act. It was also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances.
Comments
Vide Office Memorandum Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, dated 06.10.2015, the Department of Personnel and Training, had directed that the reply should contain the name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO. Further, the name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned in case of the first appeal. All public authorities should ensure compliance of the above instructions.
Citation: Devanshi Jay Kothari v. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of GST & CX, Division V, Jamshedpur, CIC/CCESR/A/2023/143990; Date of Decision : 20.02.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The applicant submitted that after serving the chargesheet to certain officials, nothing has been beard so far and it is not known as to what happened to the chargesheets. He sought to know whether some major or minor penalty has been imposed or not and whether the embezzled amount in connivance with each other and on account of serious lapse on their part the loss caused to the State exchequer has been recovered. The PIO replied that the charge-sheet, disciplinary proceedings, professional records etc. are all personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant appealed claiming that it related to a massive scam and records have been sought for in larger public interest. Upon being asked by the CIC as to whether the appellant was the informer/complainant based on which action initiated against the delinquent officials, he answered in negative. Considering the issue flagged by the appellant and in the light of larger public interest and a natural public expectations to know the broad outcome of a case which was in the public domain, the Respondent was directed by the CIC to inform the broad outcome of the final order passed on the chargesheet issued to the officials as also the final outcome of departmental disciplinary appeal as mentioned in the RTI application.
Comments
The copy of chargesheet and its outcome has often been sought by applicants. It has been debated whether it is a personal information and whether the same should be made available to the complainant or any other person.
Citation: Ram Lal Arora v. Executive Engineer (HQ), O/o Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Administration, CIC/ENGDP/A/2024/611452; Date of Decision: 14.01.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The RTI applicant had applied online on the Parivahan website (parivahan.gov.in) for issuing an NOC. On not getting a response, he filed an application under the RTI Act requesting to provide two duly stamped hardcopies of the NOC through post. The PIO replied that the NOC is approved today and the applicant can download the NOC from the website. The CIC observed that the appropriate reply has been furnished by the PIO. Noting that the PIO had abstained from the hearing despite being served the notice, the CIC admonished the conduct of the CPIO for remaining absent during the hearing.
Comments
It is a typical case where a citizen has used the power of RTI Act to make a government official perform a specific function beyond seeking information.
Citation :Keshav Khanna v. Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh, CIC/STAUT/A/2023/649724; Date of Decision: 14.01.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The RTI applicant alleged that the registered scrap dealer in association with the ASI of the Transport Department, Delhi, instead of sending the vehicle to the registered scrapping yard, opens it at another location and sells its parts. He stated that this information can be verified through the CCTV footage of the registered pang yard. After the vehicle is picked up by the Transport Department's team, it is checked whether the vehicle has gone to the registered pang yard at the given address or been sent elsewhere. After a few days, the owner receives messages regarding the registration and related payment on the provided phone number. The applicant sought certain information relating to the same. The CIC held that the instant RTI application has not been adequately answered and directed the PIO to revisit the contents of RTI application and provide revised information. The CIC issued an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Transport Department, GNCTD, for (i) amending the concerned Rules to incorporate the provisions for inspection of seized end-of-life vehicles to its owner; and (ii) upfront disclosure of information regarding Rules, Bye laws, SoP, Guidelines, Office Orders governing RVSFs (Registered Vehicle Scrapping Facilities) under Section 4 of the RTI Act in public domain, to make it easy for a layperson particularly vehicle owners to get relevant information through website.
Comments
The Transport Department has ordered the registered dealer to retain the engine number and chassis number by cutting and preserving them. The guidelines for releasing end of life vehicle (ELV) seized as part of enforcement drive should be put in public domain. If section 4 of the RTI Act is implemented fully, it would relieve the Public Authority of the burden of RTI Applications.
Citation :V Singh v. Transport Department, Delhi, CIC/TDDEL/A/2023/649458; Date of Decision: 16.01.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com