RTI Corner

Certified copy of the total budget in Official Expenses and Expenditure in Official Expense, the Inventories of all items, list of the officers posted in Administration Branch and related information was sought by the RTI applicant. The PIO provided part of information sought and informed that the rest of the information is exhaustive and also not readily available with them. The CIC directed the PIO to offer an opportunity of inspection of the relevant and available records as sought for. The CIC further directed that photocopies would be provided to the appellant free of cost upto 50 pages after the inspection.
Comments
As per sub-section 9 of section 7 of the RTI Act, information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. If the information sought is voluminous, the PIO should take recourse to this provision to request the applicant to inspect the documents.
Citation: Ashok Kumar v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes in File No: CIC/NCFSC/A/2019/138123, Date of Decision: 18/03/2021
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 for the pay scales for teaching staff and payments as per labour law (Minimum Wages Act of State/Central Govt.) for non-teaching Staff from the inception of the MESCO College of Pharmacy, Hyderabad i.e. from 2003-04 to 2019-20. The PIO, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to whom the RTI application was sent, the provided the information available with him and informed that the concerned college denied their consent to the disclosure of the information. The CIC observed that the square denial of the information by the PIO citing the refusal of the concerned college to part with the information is grossly inappropriate as no exemption clause of Section 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act was invoked for the said denial. Moreover, the information sought for pertains to the pay scales of the employees of the college which should ordinarily be made available in the public domain by the concerned authorities. The CIC directed to provide the information related to the pay scale and gross salary of the faculties & non-teaching staff to the Appellant.
Comments
The case shows how information about the private institutions can be sought from the regulatory authorities. All PIOs should note that denial of information under the RTI Act can be done only as per section 8 or section 9 of the Act.
Citation: Dr Javed Akhtar Ansari v. All India Council For Technical Education in File No : CIC/AICTE/A/2019/644119, Date of Decision: 01/04/2021
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 information about Audit of funds of the PHC. On second appeal before CIC, the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) claimed that information sought by the Appellant is not held by them whereas expenditure related details with respect to the projects are held by the concerned State Government. The Andhra Pradesh Information Commission had communicated to the Appellant that his Second Appeal should be addressed to the CIC as NRHM falls under the jurisdiction of Central Government. The CIC observed that Health falls in the concurrent list of the Constitution. In view of the lack of clarity about the actual custodian of information, the CIC directed the NRHM to explain why no information is held by them and who is the actual custodian of information in this case. Further, the CIC directed to transfer the RTI Application if not done already, with a copy marked to the Appellant.
Comments
This case highlights the confusion about the holder of information regarding an important scheme such as NRHM. The second appeal could have been avoided had the respective PIOs acted diligently as per the provisions of the RTI Act and provided the information available at their ends.
Citation: Shri G. Venkataramana v. PIO, Dist. Audit Officer, State Audit, PIO, Dist. Audit Officer, State Audit, and National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) in Second Appeal No. CIC/DIROA/A/2017/175616/MH&FW, Date of Decision: 18.03.2021