RTI Corner

The appellant sought for information regarding Lease Deed dated March 30, 2016, executed between Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL) and Industrial Development Bank of India Limited (IDBI Bank) wherein JIL transferred to IDBI Bank a land measuring 50.26 acres through Debt Asset Swap (DAS) in order to liquidate their out-standing liabilities amounting to Rs.253.32 Crores. He asked whether any transaction, in part(s) or full, by sale or transfer, took place between March 30, 2016 and August 31, 2023. The appellant argued that after March 30, 2016 and upon DAS, all Ownership and Tangible Rights to the said landed property remained with IDBI Bank in its fullness and hence, there remains No Fiduciary Relationship or Larger Public interest between IDBI Bank and JIL. Further, it is wrong on part of for IDBI Bank to invoke Larger Public interest as there are more than 22,000 Home Buyers of JIL. The appellant alleged that the IDBl Bank has not come out clean and transparent on the information sought only through substantiation of tangible right of JIL in the said property. The CIC directed to provide the available information to the Appellant.
Comments RTI has emerged as a potent tool to obtain information for those affected adversely in a commercial dispute.
Citation:Sqn. Ldr. S. D. Mitroo v. IDBI Bank Limited, CIC/IDBIL/A/2023/147236; Date of Decision: 23.02.2024
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 asked the Pharmacy Council of India (PCI) to inform in how many High Courts, a separate advocate was appointed to present its case apart from apart from the Additional Solicitor General of India, and the amount paid by PCI to the advocate from the year 2020 till now. The PIO informed that such list is not available. On second appeal, the Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly furnished to the Appellant within stipulated time frame. The CIC held that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent since only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
Comments
The quantum of payment made to the advocates has often been argued as personal information held in the fiduciary capacity. In most organisations, there would be a legal head for making the payments which would contain the details of the expenditure incurred during the financial year. Further, such information can be found after inspection of the individual files.
Citation: Shri Arvind Kumar v. Pharmacy Council of India, CIC/PHRCI/A/2023/646736; Date of Decision: 27.02.2024
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 whether Madhusudan Law University, Cuttack, Odisha is affiliated to Bar Council of India (BCI) and sought the correspondence details about its affiliation along with the inspection reports. The Respondent stated that the inspection reports of colleges are not uploaded on the site of BCI but the facilities, campus, faculty etc. details are displayed on the website of the concerned College/University. Such inspection reports contain photographs and other details pertaining to the University/College shared in confidence with the BCI, hence, the inspection reports are not put in public domain by the BCI. However, the Respondent conceded that inspection report containing generic information can be provided to the Appellant if so directed by the CIC. In exercise of its powers under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act, the CIC gave a recommendation to the BCI to make endeavour to disclose as much information as possible on its website in terms of the mandate laid down under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, particularly voluntarily disclose every inspection report of the colleges/universities recognised/affiliated under BCI in order to enhance transparency in the process of recognizing law colleges.
Comments
There have been complaints about the manner in which recognition / grading of the institutions is done by the regulatory bodies. Such disclosure would aid in putting an end to such complaints. It would be keenly watched what kind of mechanism the BCI adopts for disclosure.
Citation: Shri Shashwata Sekhar Baral v. Bar Council of India, CIC/BCOIN/A/2023/616519; Date of Decision: 20.02.2024
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