RTI Corner

The appellant claimed double deduction of income tax in which only one deducted amount has been refunded. He submitted to the CIC that neither complete desired information has been provided to him nor the deduction of taxes in Form 16A/ 26AS statement for the FY 2022-23 was reflected by the respondent (Railways) till date. He further contended that the PIOs never took the pain to present the case before the CIC on its own rather they sent their representatives to plead cases which is not in the spirit of the RTI Act. On query from the CIC, the respondent admitted the error shown in the Form 16 A by not showing the deducted tax amount in the appellant’s 26 AS statement of F.Y. 2022-23. She stated that their Chartered Accountant has been asked to reconcile the statement, and volunteered to redress the grievance of the appellant thereafter. The CIC concluded that the reply is vague and evasive. The PIO is expected to have applied his mind and should have facilitated relevant information as sought by the Appellant by invoking Section 5(4) or Section 6(3) of the RTI Act from the concerned department in addressing the issue raised by the appellant. Instead of doing the needful, the PIO washed their hands off by keeping the complaint of the appellant pending till date which ought to have been redressed by reconciling the account at the stage of PIO reply itself. The CIC directed to revisit the contents of the RTI Application to provide relevant information, free of cost, within four weeks. Under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act, the CIC directed to investigate this matter through Senior Divisional Officer other than Finance and Accounts. In doing so, the Appellant be associated in the investigation, and if lapse is found in the matter, the Respondent Public Authority is to fix responsibility on delinquents. Report of the inquiry along with supporting documents shall be shared with the appellant, free of cost, and also uploaded on the link provided in the Commission’s hearing notice within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Comments
Deduction of income tax is done from the seeded PAN card number of the assessee with an auto fetched systems where there is little chances of error. Perhaps, the mistake caused coupled with vague reply and absence of any remedial action led to such a strong order.
Citation: Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, CIC/NWRLY/A/2024/100624; Date of Decision: 30.04.2025
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

The applicant sought for information from Bank of Baroda about freezing of his Saving account and related information. The PIO denied the information claiming it as exempt from disclosure under section 24 of the Right to Information Act and harped on the exempt status of Anti-Corruption Bureau of the State of Gujarat as per relevant notification during personal hearing before the CIC. The CIC took grave exception to the absurd and grossly misleading reply and observed that the Bank of Baroda has cited Section 24 of the RTI Act as though it is an exempted organization and the same is unacceptable and is considered as a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act without any reasonable cause. A notice was issued to the then PIO why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20 of the RTI Act for providing a grossly wrong and misleading reply. The CIC further observed that since the RTI queries specifically sought for information related to freezing of his bank account, which is very much the domain of the bank in terms of being the concerned record holder and not CBI and even if the record holder was solely CBI, then there should have been a transfer of the RTI Application as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. There is nothing contained in the RTI Act that empowers the PIO of the Respondent bank to claim exemption on behalf of CBI and even if that were the case, the PIO did not even bother to specify the same in his reply. A notice was also issued to the PIO to explain as to why the reply of the then PIO was being mindlessly endorsed even at this stage, impliedly sharing the onus of having provided the wrong & misleading reply. The CIC directed the PIO to now provide a revised point-wise reply to the instant RTI Application.
Comments
It is a classic case which indicates ignorance of the PIO about the provisions of the RTI Act. All readers are strongly advised to read these case laws to learn about the common mistakes which may render them liable for penalty.
Citation: Nilesh R Gupta v. Bank of Baroda, CIC/BKOBD/A/2024/620207; 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

The appellant sought for the certified true copy of the rules and guidelines governing the matters connected to the compassionate appointment in the MES. The appellant asked for the eligibility criteria for a person to be considered a "dependent" of the deceased employee of the MES. Further, the appellant sought to know if "multiple dependents" of the deceased employee of the MES are eligible for the compassionate appointment, how is the "priority” created for them? He sought for the priority list in "chronological order.” The CIC observed that no reply was given to the Appellant on his RTI application which shows mala fide intent of the PIO in obstructing the information under the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him for contravening the provisions of the RTI Act and for disregarding the CIC’s notice of hearing by not appearing before it.
Comments
The guidelines regarding deciding the order of preference of taking up cases of multiple dependents should be made available on the website of the organization.
Citation: Marge Lombi v. Military Engineer Services, CIC/MESER/A/2024/600673; Date of Decision: 30.04.2025.
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

Statement of Account and other related information was sought by the appellant. The PIO replied that the Query was not clear and seeking confirmation does not fall under the purview of ‘information’ as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Further, you are filing continuous RTI Applications one after another which is clear misuse of provisions of RTI Act. A Recovery Suit has been filed against you by the bank, and the information being sought is to mislead the undersigned. Such action shall disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority under Section 7(9) of RTI Act. Moreover, it is also observed that seeking information on behalf of Company without Resolution passed by the company is not as per the Provisions of RTI Act. In the second appeal, the CIC observed that even if the infirmities contained in the RTI queries under reference is accepted, it is irksome to note that some of the arguments of the Respondent are in excess of the mandate of the RTI Act, particularly in the context of over emphasizing on the pending recovery suit or that the Appellant could access records through a different channel etc. The CIC cautioned the Respondent that the PIO ought to restrict themselves to the definition of information as envisaged under Section 2(f); the Section 8 exemptions as well as availability/unavailability of information. Any rejection of a RTI Application ought to be strictly premised on the applicable provisions of the RTI Act and RTI Rules, 2012 alone and not any other extraneous considerations. In cases where the CPIO seeks to rely on arguments like repetition and misuse of RTI Act, then allegations of such magnitude ought to be sufficiently supported with relevant proof in terms of details of past record of RTI Applications and Appeal(s) and the replies provided thereupon or atleast any reference of decisions issued by the CIC in matters of the same Appellant with respect to the same public authority.
Comments
Some PIO’s tend to reject RTI applications on grounds which are not specified under the RTI Act. In many instances, the PIO is rejecting the application as being repetitive and therefore, amounting to misuse of the RTI Act. As this case provides the guidelines for such occurrences, it would be highly relevant for the PIOs.
Citation: N. K. Gupta v. Indian Bank, Second Appeal No. CIC/IBANK/A/2024/119412 + 117836; Date of Decision: 28.03.2025
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