RTI Corner

The Appellant filed an RTI application with PACL Nodal Officer and Secretary, Judge (Retd) R.M. Lodha Committee seeking certain information. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal with the FAA, PACL Nodal Officer and Secretary, Judge (Retd) R.M. Lodha Committee. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any response, the Appellant approached the CIC. During hearing, the attention of the CIC was invited towards the following clarification mentioned in the written submissions filed by SEBI, copy of which was also endorsed to the Appellant. The clarification read, “…the Justice Lodha Committee having been constituted by an order dated 02/02/2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is not a Public Authority within the meaning under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence would not fall within the purview of the said Act…” After adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, the CIC observed that the Appellant has not filed the RTI Application with any public authority as required under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act.
Comments
The CIC has preferred to rely on the submissions of the respondent without referring to the definition of a public authority as per section 2(h) of the RTI Act. any authority or body or institution of self-Government established or constituted by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Govern­ment is covered under the definition of a public authority. As per section 2(a) of the RTI Act, "appropriate Government" means in relation to a public authority which is established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Central Government or the Union territory administration, the Central Government. It is apparent that Justice Lodha Committee having been constituted by an order dated 02/02/2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is a Public Authority within the meaning under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: M. Shanmugam v. Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd. and SEBI, CIC/SEBIH/A/2022/134030; Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
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 applicant referred to reply of earlier RTI application where it was mentioned that CGHS Rules are being followed for settlement of medical claims including dental medical reimbursement as applicable in Delhi NCR. The applicant submitted that since there is no clear circular or guidelines of FCI Headquarters, New Delhi for reimbursement of dental medical treatment. Therefore, Swamy's Medical Attendance Rule mentioned in the letter issued by FCI Headquarters is followed in most of the Offices in FCI while dealing with medical reimbursement of employees of FCI. The applicant contended that there is a huge confusion in most of the FCI Offices as to which Circular / Guidelines / Letter issued by FCI, Headquarters, New Delhi has to be adhered while dealing with reimbursement of medical claims. He requested to provide the clear information / FCI Headquarters Circular or Guidelines regarding any kind of medical reimbursement (which includes dental medical treatment also). The respondent replied that as per RTI Act, PIO is required to provide information as available with him in the form of O.M., notifications, rules, regulations, orders, letters and circulars etc. Queries / clarifications or interpretation of information is outside the preview of the RTI Act. The CIC held that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent
Comments
Legally, only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided to the information seekers and giving reasons/ opinions/ interpretations, etc are beyond the scope of duty of the PIO. However, it is an Obligation of public authorities under section 4(1) (d) to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
Citation: Shri CHANDAN v. Food Corporation of India, CIC/FCIND/A/2022/647480; Date of Decision : 18.03.2024
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

Mr. Shamim Alam filed an RTI application seeking information in relation to Non-Judicial stamp paper of the Denomination of Rupees 10 bearing a distinct number. The PIO replied that the disclosure of the sensitive details of the stamp paper(s) would adversely affect the economic interest of the country and would not serve any larger public interest. The information was denied by seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(a), 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. First Appeal was filed by Mr. Shakil Ahmed as a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder of the Mr. Shamim Alam which was rejected by FAA. Upon a remark by the CIC during second appeal regarding the appropriateness of the FAA’s order in having rejected the First Appeal filed under SPA by Shakil Ahmed, the Representative of the Appellant feebly stated that the erroneous First Appeal stands rectified as the Second Appeal has been filed by Shamim Alam only. The CIC observed that the FAA has appropriately rejected the First Appeal as being not maintainable as the RTI Application and First Appeal are filed by separate individuals. Further, since the channel of First Appeal has not been properly exhausted by the Appellant, the instant second appeal is also not maintainable.
Comments
As far as possible, a person who desires an information should file the RTI application and appeal under his / her own name and signature.
Citation: Shamim Alam v. Security Printing Press, Hyderabad, CIC/SPPRE/A/2022/151493; Date of Decision: 18.03.2024
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 applicant sought certain information from the Security Paper Mill like the standards for testing of parameters of Density, Brookfield Viscosity and Non-Volatile Solid in respect of Polymer (Flocculant). The PIO denied the information claiming that the actual and complete procedures can't be shared with or provided to others because it was their internal confidential documents and being a Security Organization and being a NABL Accredited Lab, they have to maintain the confidentiality of the organization. The CIC observed that the information has been denied without even invoking any exemption clause of the RTI Act. Repeated opportunities were afforded by CIC to justify the denial under any of the exemptions envisaged under Section 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act, yet, the Respondent continued to harp on the ‘approval of competent authority’ and eventually quoted Section 8(1)(d) in an unconvincing manner. The CIC observed that what has been sought by this Applicant is merely the testing procedure followed by Security Paper Mill Quality Control Lab (SPM QC) for testing of certain parameters in respect of a product, Polymer (Flocculant), which is procured by Security Paper Mill (SPM) through public tender. SPM accepts or rejects the product supplied by vendors on the basis of testing carried out using these procedures and these testing procedures are, therefore, a matter of public interest, since vendors’ interests will be adversely affected if material is rejected on the basis of inappropriate / non- standard testing procedures. The information sought does not pertain to any of the core activities of SPM and does not affect security interests in any manner. Holding that this information must be provided and cannot be withheld on the ground of confidentiality, the CIC directed to provide the information.
Comments
Without properly invoking section 8 or section 9 of the RTI Act, a PIO should not reject the application seeking information. If the interests of a vendor are affected by the procedure followed by the public authority, the public interest may be claimed to seek the details of such procedure.
Citation:Mahasweta M. v. Security Paper Mill, M.P., CIC/SPMIL/A/2022/635766; Date of Decision: 15.03.2024
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 PIO of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought by him is not available in their office and transferred the RTI application to the concerned PIO of Bangalore Development Authority under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, which is separate Public Authority under the State Government, The CIC observed that the PIO has given a timely response to the Appellant informing him the factual position in the matter. The CIC held that had the Appellant been actually interested in getting information, he would have approached the transferee Public Authority to know the actual status of the information. But the Appellant in the present case filed the first appeal with present Respondent Public Authority. This shows that the Appellant wants to pressurize the Respondent to create information which is not in their record. Further, the CIC held that the Appellant cannot raise fresh queries/issues at the stage of first appeal/second appeal. The directions of the First Appellate Authority to the PIO to go through the concern raised by the appellant in the first appeal and take further action were set aside.
Comments
An appeal should be filed with the FAA of the organisation which is holding the information. A PIO can file an appeal against the orders of his/her own FAA.
Citation: Vasanth Kumar V M v. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, CIC/MOENF/A/2023/613465; Date of Decision: 18-03-2024
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