RTI Corner

The appellant claimed that he was working as a carpenter at the Rashtriya Rifles Bn and was asked to perform fence sentry duty at night. He sought certain information about it including if duty can be assigned with those weapons for which training has not been imparted. The appellant claimed that though he had specifically requested that a reply be provided in Hindi, he was given a reply in English. The CIC directed to provide a Hindi version of the reply provided by the PIO. As the appellant had shown an inability in understanding any communication other than Hindi, the translated copy of the CIC order was also provided.
Comments
The RTI Act does not put an obligation to translate the available information. The applicant should be provided the information in the form it is maintained with the public authority.
Citation: Pankaj Kumar v. Rashtriya Rifles in File No CIC/IARMY/A/2019/117057 dated 17.03.202
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 submitted that in respect of his RTI application dated 24.10.2018, no information has been provided to him. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 26.08.2020, complete information was given to the appellant on his RTI application. The respondent further tendered his unconditional apology with respect to delay in giving reply to the appellant. The appellant stated that he has not received reply dated 26.08.2020 from the respondent and requested that the information should be sent on his e-mail ID to which the respondent agreed to. The CIC observed that there was a delay in giving complete information to the appellant on his RTI application. The CIC issued a strict warning to the respondent PIO to be careful in future and ensure that reply should be provided to the applicants within stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act. This warning of the CIC should be brought into the notice of the Controlling Authority of the then PIO. The General Manager, Hindustan Urvarak & Rasayan Limited, Dhanbad should look into the working of the RTI Cell, Sindhri and take appropriate steps in improving the same. The respondent was directed to again send a copy of their reply dated 26.08.2020 to the appellant through registered post and as well as on his e-mail ID as mentioned in the RTI application. The show-cause notice for imposing penalty was dropped.
Comments
As per section 20, a penalty of Rs 250/- has to be imposed on the PIO for each day of delay and the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the PIO. In this case, the PIO has not come up with any reasonable cause for delay in providing the information. However, the CIC has preferred to let him go without any justification which does not appear to be legally proper.
Citation: Shakti Chaurasiya v. Hindustan Urvarak & Rasayan Limited, Dhanbad in Second Appeal No. CIC/DFERT/A/2018/171012, Date of Decision: 25-01-2021
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 sought to know whether action has been taken for the complaint which has been lodged on Google Reviews by Mohit Sharma for G.B. Pant Hospital. He also sought to know whether the complaint lodged on public platform on Google reviews would be considered and the reason if it is not considered so. The CIC observed that the reply provided the PIO was vague and was prepared without application of mind. The CIC expressed displeasure on such a conduct of the PIO and warned him to remain extremely careful in future so that such lapses do not recur. The CIC observed that appropriate reply has not been provided to the Appellant and directed the PIO to provide a revised reply to the Appellant, free of cost, within 15 days of receipt of the order and send a compliance report of the same to the CIC.
Comments
The PIO should provide a specific reply to the appellant. This case throws up the interesting question whether complaints lodged on public platforms such as Google reviews would be considered and whether action should be initiated.
Citation: Mohit Sharma v. Office of the Medical Superintendent, G.B. Pant Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research-(GIPMER) in Second Appeal No.: CIC/GBPIT/A/2018/162506, Date of Decision: 29-01-2021
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

Proof of payment made by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. against certain invoices raised by Supreme Advertising Private Limited was sought. The information sought relates to Petrotech-2016. The information is not available with IOCL, as all the records pertaining to the event were handed over to Federation of Indian Petroleum Industries (FIPI) after closing of Petrotech-2016. The PIO informed the CIC that all the payments, as raised by M/s. Supreme Advertising Private Limited for the work executed during the period related to Petrotech-2016, have been paid and there are no dues left on this account. However, the copies of documentary evidences in this regard cannot be provided, as the same is not available with IOCL. The CIC observed that the appellant is seeking information in his individual capacity from the IOCL regarding M/s. Supreme Advertising Private Limited. The appellant is clearly seeking the commercial information which pertains to third party and the appellant is not the authorized representative of SAPL to whom the information can be disclosed. The appellant had raised grievance with respect to some dispute of payment with SAPL (which is not a public authority). The information sought is of commercial nature between IOCL and SAPL. Nonetheless, the respondent has given the factual information to the appellant inspite of being third party information. The Commission further held that the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) read with Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third party.
Comments
It is not clear from the order whether the Hon’ble CIC had tried to verify whether the appellant was a representative of M/s. Supreme Advertising Private Limited before denying the information under Section 8(1)(d) read with Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC has erred by not looking into the reasons why IOCL had already provided some information to the appellant despite being third party information. Further, the order does not mention who was supposed to hold the documents sought by the appellant, if at all they were to be retained.
Citation: Rohit Yajnik v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Second Appeal No. CIC/IOCLD/A/2019/118452, Date: 25-01-2021
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