RTI Corner

Information regarding the action taken report on a representation addressed to the Chief Engineer, CPWD, copy of note sheets of the proceedings, copy of enquiry report, if any conducted along with the certified copy of report etc. was denied to the appellant under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. The CIC directed the CPWD to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the Appellant within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
Comments
The limited scope of examination by the CIC is whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. The CIC is not a body for grievance redressal.
Citation: Ms. Mithila Rai v. CPIO and Chief Executive Engineer and Vigilance Unit, CPWD in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CPWEH/A/2017/116001-BJ + CIC/CPWEH/A/2017/147342-BJ, Date of Decision: 08.02.2019
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant filed RTI application seeking information on plan posts, non-plan posts, policy of UGC for the positions sanctioned under the scheme for the establishment centre for the study of social exclusion and inclusive policy regarding their extension from one plan to another etc. Multiple hearings were scheduled before the CIC in which interim orders were passed. The PIO submitted that due to her poor health condition she was not able to attend the Commission’s hearing on 13.02.2019. On a query by the CIC, she could not explain why the CIC order dated 02.01.2017 was not complied with by her on time. She further submitted that she is retiring from service on 31.03.2019 and in a similar case, a penalty of Rs 25,000 has already been imposed on her vide CIC order dated 13.02.2019 in case no. CIC/SA/A/2015/002095/00003/VN which she has paid already. The CIC observed that the PIO is on the verge of retirement but still did not understand the literal meaning of the order of the CIC, which is a matter of concern for the UGC. The Commission observed that the PIO was already penalised for non compliance of a CIC order and therefore, imposing penalty on her would literally amount to double jeopardy.
Comments
The objectives of the RTI Act is to ensure timely supply of relevant information to the appellant and imposing penalty bring no reform, until and unless the public authority authorities evolve a system to monitor and improve the system of disposal of the RTI applications.
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The Appellant sought information regarding tariff chart for parking of cars at Terminal 2 Delhi Airport. The PIO submitted that DIAL is a private authority and is entrusted with the responsibility of looking after all operational matters etc. of IGI Airport and therefore it is free to fix tariff as per Chapter XII of the DIAL Operation, Management and Development Agreement. He referred the RTI Application to Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL) under Section 6(3) of RTI Act while mentioning in the same letter that DIAL is not a public authority under RTI Act. The CIC took grave exception to the reply of the CPIO observing it as absurd and admonishes the CPIO for his gross non-application of mind in dealing with the RTI Application. The CIC noted that Ministry of Civil Aviation has regulatory powers over all airports in India. The CIC held that if the PIO maintains that DIAL looks after all operational matters of IGI Airport, the Ministry of Civil Aviation should be in a position to access the information from DIAL if the same is not available with their office.
Comments
If DIAL is not a public authority under RTI Act, by implication Section 6(3) of the RTI Act has no applicability for the said authority. The definition of information under the RTI Act is wide. Under section 2(f), “information” means not only any material in any form held by the public authority but also any information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.
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. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/