RTI Corner

Respondent was of the impression that the information sought in RTI application was already replied as similar information he had already asked in some other RTI application. Hence, he returned the RTI application stating that the information requested has already been supplied previously. Later, on perusal of files, the CPIO understood that the information requested in this petition is different from previous petition and expressed his regret for the mistake assuring the CIC that such situation will not recur in future. The PIO submitted that it was not done wantonly or in malafide intention. The CIC observed that the Respondent was unable to respond correctly to the queries raised by the Appellant, subsequently, the FAA had furnished appropriate information. Considering the detailed, comprehensive and self explanatory statement of facts filed by the Respondent before it, the CIC directed the PIO to send a copy of the written submission to the Appellant. The CIC closed the matter directing the Respondent to submit a compliance report in this regard before it..
Comments This case law offers relief in those cases where the PIO has inadvertently acted against the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: Shri Vanniaperumal A v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, CIC/NIEPM/A/2023/605558/MOCAF; Date of Decision : 27.03.2024
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 Appellant filed an RTI application with PACL Nodal Officer and Secretary, Judge (Retd) R.M. Lotha Committee seeking certain information. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal with the FAA, SEBI. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of response, the Appellant filed a second appeal with the CIC. The Appellant submitted that he is only conversant with Tamil language and submitted that he has not received any information in the matter. SEBI submitted that it did not receive the RTI Application under reference and only the First Appeal addressed to SEBI was received. Since the RTI Application with reference to which the First Appeal was filed was never received by SEBI, the First Appeal was treated as a fresh RTI Application. For the want of proper RTI fees, the Appellant was informed that SEBI can accept RTI Application accompanied with RTI fees through prescribed mode and he was also advised that he can also file a fresh RTI Application. The CIC observed that the Appellant has filed the First Appeal before the FAA, SEBI without even filing any RTI Application with SEBI. The Registry has also erroneously arrayed SEBI as a Respondent in the matter, therefore, the role of SEBI is dispensed with. The appeal was rendered as not maintainable.
Comments
An applicant must file the RTI application and appeal with the same public authority. In case the application has been transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, then the appeal is liable to be filed with the FAA of the public authority to whom the RTI application has been transferred.
Citation: M. Shanmugam v. Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd. and SEBI, CIC/SEBIH/A/2022/133634; 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

In his RTI application, the appellant sought information on 24 points wherein he pointed out which points pertained to which PIOs. The CIC observed that the appellant has indicated 4 PIOs to whom the queries pertained and despite knowing this fact, he has filed single RTI application before Education Department mentioning all the PIOs of different zones with the expectation that PIO of Department of Education would collect the information from all the PIOs concerned and provide it to the appellant. The respondent informed that the appellant is habitual RTI applicant and filed various RTI applications, first appeals and second appeals under the RTI Act just to harass the public authority. It may not be out of place to mention that total 27 second appeals/complaints have been disposed of by the appellant either by his name or his son’s name (Ullas Jain) before the Commission as on date and in most of the cases, he did not appear despite service of hearing notice. The Commission observed that the information as available with the respondent has already been provided to the appellant and no interference from the CIC is warranted. Further, the CIC advised the appellant to exercise his right to information in an informed and judicious manner in the future.
Comments
Many PIO’s have been transferring the RTI application to different zones either out of fear of penalty or under the erroneous belief that they are expected to compile the information and provide to the applicant. It causes unnecessary transfer of RTI application across multiple levels which is not mandated under the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: V K Jain v. Dy. Director of Education, CIC/DIRED/A/2022/668667; Date of Decision: 22-03-2024
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