RTI Corner

The appellant sought to know from the Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway whether the Assistant Divisional Engineer is competent to authorize the termination of service of a Trackman and other information. Respondent prayed the CIC to grant him time to file written submission enumerating the facts of this case in detail to facilitate due assistance to the bench in disposal of this appeal. The CIC severely admonished the conduct of the Respondent as he did not bother to file written submission despite praying for the same through his representative before the bench. The CIC observed that the Appellant is agitating a matter in which he has already been given a relief by issuing a favourable order despite having indulged in bigamy. The CIC deemed it fit to refer the matter to DRM, North Western Railway to take note of the aberration in the form of lenient view being taken by subordinate officers in such a serious matter as bigamy.
Comments
It is a case where the RTI appeal has taken a spin, or rather a googly. Instead of providing any information, the case may turn into an examination of what the junior officers decided in the case of bigamy.
Citation: Ved Prakash Meena v. Office the Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, CIC/NWRLY/A/2023/139716; Date of Decision : 06.03.2025
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 PIO denied information sought by the appellant claiming that it relates to internal communication of the Bank and is confidential in nature. Further, no larger public interest is involved in the matter and the information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Before the CIC, it was submitted that the appellant has filed multiple RTI applications and First Appeals and the same have been disposed of within stipulated time frame. It was informed that RTI applications of the appellant are an offshoot of a family dispute between him and his relative (being one of their staff) and the respondent authority is being dragged to such a personal dispute, which is a clear abuse of the provisions of RTI Act. The respondent claimed that in addition to filing numerous RTI applications and complaints, the appellant had also been harassing the officials of our Zone by repeated calls and personal visits to the Branch/Zone. The Appellant has filed numerous complaints against the CPIO, First Appellate Authority of Ujjain Zone and even against the CPIO and First Appellate Authority of Head Office for exercising their functions under the RTI Act. The officials including the CPIOs are under threat of constant attack from the RTI Applicant for no fault of theirs. Malicious attacks are made on CPIOs through lengthy RTI Applications and Appeals. It was also submitted that the appellant's second appeal was dismissed by the CIC vide order dated 20.09.2024 in No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/128876 and order dated 28.11.2024 in No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/141282. The CIC noted that the reply given by the PIO is evasive and misleading. The CPIO, without applying his mind, has simply denied the information as it pertains to their internal communication and most importantly, the CPIO has not specified any of the exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the above-mentioned points and furnish a revised reply to the appellant, specifying the correct exemptions clauses or sub-clauses. Regarding the submission of the respondents of multiple RTI applications being filed by the appellant, the CIC observed that the said concern can be taken up in an appropriate matter in the future for want of any similar pattern of cases as well as in the absence of any specific reference of the number of RTI applications filed with the respondent.
Comments
A PIO must know the clauses of the RTI Act thoroughly and the denial of information should be only as per section 8 or section 9.
Citation: Premchand Bangaria v. Bank of India, Mumbai, CIC/BKOIN/A/2024/116770; Date of Decision: 05.03.2025
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 appellant had filed an application in respect of rebate on House Building advance to him which was kept in abeyance since July 2017. He sought to know why the rebate was not granted by respected Regional Director of Education and the current status of his case. The PIO informed that the file regarding House Building Advance was returned to the Office of DDE (HQ). The CIC noted that information sought was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. The CIC observed that the custodian of information i.e. PIO, Directorate of Education (HQ), did not appear before the Commission despite knowing the fact that the matter pertained to them and notices were issued to them. Thus, prima facie it appears that the information sought was deliberately withhold by the PIO, Directorate of Education (HQ), New Delhi. The CIC issued show caused to Shri Rajesh Joshi (DDE), HQ, /present PIO and Shri Devender Mohan, PIO (Zone-18), District West -B, to explain as to why maximum penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the information to the appellant and also why compensation equal to the amount involved in the case should be awarded to the appellant. Both the PIOs were directed to submit their written explanations and also appear on the next date of hearing.
Comments
All PIO’s should keep a special track of files under submission if the information sought pertains to such files as it might be difficult to pinpoint as to who is the holder of information. Whenever a case is coming up for hearing, the PIO should invariably attend the hearing or seek specific exemption citing the reasons.
Citation: Yatendra Pal v. Directorate of Education, CIC/DIRED/A/2023/650684; 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