RTI Corner

The Appellant sought information with reference to sanction of his permanent TA claim which appeared to have been restricted to 2 AC train fare. He asked for a copy of authority for restricting his claim to 2nd AC train fare instead of restricting the same to shortest route of his entitlement i.e. Air Travel. He further demanded a copy of authority for deduction of taxi fare of Rs. 3060/- (Rs.1560 and Rs.1500) against the said TA claim. After going through reply of CPIO, the CIC observed that it is the lowest air fare that has been taken into account and not the train fare as stated by the appellant in his second appeal. During the hearing, he explained that the restriction is partly based on the air fare and partly on the train fare. The CIC held that though it appears that what was sanctioned was as per the appellant’s entitlement, still point no 1 needs to be properly clarified to the appellant. The second point regarding the taxi fare has been explained properly in terms of the appellant’s entitlement.
Comments
The quantum of money spent on a CIC hearing would be more that the disputed TA entitlement in this case. It is often seen that deductions are made in the TA bill by the account departments without clarifying the reasons for the same. The claimant is left on his own to decipher the reasons for the trimming of the claim.
Citation: Prathipati Bhanu Prasad v. O/o the Controller of Defence Accounts (Border Roads), File no.: CIC/CGDAC/A/2022/610238; Date of Decision: 16/03/2023
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 to know as to when his application will be placed for consideration before the Rajya Sabha. The CIC observed that The RTI Act does not cast any obligation on the PIO to answer queries, in which the seeker of information attempts to elicit answer to the questions with prefixes, such as, why, what, when and whether. The CIC directed the PIO to forward the letter petition of the appellant dated 28.11.2019 to the Chief Secretary, Bihar under intimation to the appellant within 3 days of the receipt of the order.
Comments
The case shows how the drafting of the RTI applications affects eliciting proper response from the public authority. The applicant could have asked whether there are any norms for putting up a letter to the Rajya Sabha and for the body to consider it.
Citation: Santosh Kumar Pandit v. Parliament of India Rajya Sabha Secretariat, File no.: - CIC/PAROI/A/2022/137994, Date of Decision: 08/02/2023
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

Copies of CIRP forms of an Insolvency Professional submitted during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process were denied by the PIO claiming that the said form and the accompanying documents were held by the respondent authority in its fiduciary capacity. The appellant contended that the information was related to public function and alleged that the Insolvency Professional was involved in committing serious financial frauds. The CIC ruled that the disclosure of sought for forms and documents is unwarranted and undesirable in view of the bar imposed under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Further, the CIC assessed the institutional impact of disclosure of information and opined that the possibility of harm/injury emanating from disclosure outweighed the public interest.
Comments
The Central Information Commission is a creature of the RTI Act, 2005 which describes its powers and functions. The role of Information Commission is limited to providing information and for challenging the procedural rules, an appellant should approach the appropriate judicial forum.
Citation: Anil Kumar Ojha v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, File no.: CIC/IBBIN/A/2022/640485, Date of Decision: 09/02/2023
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 information regarding the status of the complaint filed at IBBI under section 217 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Section 7 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The PIO submitted that the RTI application was rejected at the outset as it was not filed by a citizen but a body corporate. Referring to Section 3 of the RTI Act, the CIC observed that the right to information is available only to the citizens of India and there is no provision for giving information to Corporations, Associations, Companies. As the application was filed by M/s Utility Premises Pvt. Ltd., the second appeal is therefore disposed of as being inadmissible.
Comments
The Department of Personnel & Training published “Guide on the Right to Information Act, 2005” in 2009 which mentioned that if the RTI application were filed by an office bearer of any legal entity, indicating his/her name, in such cases information can be supplied to him / her on the presumption that a citizen has sought the information.
Citation: UPPL Projects Pvt Ltd. v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), File no.: CIC/IBBIN/A/2022/126256, Date of Decision: 09/02/2023
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