RTI Corner

Photocopies of documents issued to any department, including file notings, employee signatures and related information was sought by the appellant. In compliance of CIC’s order dated 16.02.2024 in the case no. CIC/DOEAF/A/2023/622452, an opportunity for inspection of records was granted to the Appellant, but he chose not avail the opportunity. The PIO informed that the appellant was an employee working as Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) in India Govt. Mint, Mumbai. His case of dismissal is currently pending with this Department and he files RTI applications with this Department to know about the progress of his case. The CIC directed to grant another opportunity of inspection of the relevant records to the Appellant with respect to his queries stated in the RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time.
Comments
If an appellant has not availed the opportunity of inspection of records, there appears little to be gained by offering another opportunity to inspect the documents. The issue whether the PIO is justified in claiming that information is not available has escaped the scrutiny of the CIC.
Citation: Shri Satish Ashok Sherkhane v. Department of Economic Affairs, CIC/DOEAF/A/2025/604540; Date of Decision : 04.03.2025
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

For the post of AHO Gr B under the Medical Dept of East Coast Railway Bhubaneswar, certain examination was done. The appellant submitted the representation towards Question No. 97, as the first answer key published the right answer was given option C and the revised answer key mentioned the right answer as option A. The appellant requested to provide a copy proof which justifies the answer A is correct and what is the existing practice in East Coast Railway for stores and works matters. The CIC observed that the reply provided by the Respondent is not satisfactory as the Respondent has not provided the documentary proof to the Appellant. The CIC directed the PIO-cum-Additional Chief Medical Director to provide documentary proof to the Appellant within two weeks.
Comments
The PIO is sometimes faced with a dilemma whether providing a “justification” amounts to creating an information and whether the same is covered under the definition of “information” as per section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. This case law should be read along with Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act which reads, ‘provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.’
Citation: Kumar Swet Kamal v. Office of the Principal Chief Medical Director, Rail Sadan, Bhubaneswar, CIC/ECRBH/A/2023/652155; 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