RTI Corner

The appellant filed a complaint with Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) regarding an un-authorized building pointing out violation of Map Sanction, Fire N.O.C., safety norms, illegal use of basement for academic tuition center, International Restaurant, Banquet Hall and meeting hall etc. He filed an application under the RTI Act seeking action taken report. For most of the information, the PIO replied that the information does not pertain to Building Department. The First Appellate Authority held that the PIO, should have transferred the RTI application to the concerned department and directed to transfer the RTI application to whom the information is more closely related within 07 days from the receipt of this order. The CIC observed that the issue raised by the Appellant is not merely a private grievance but one of serious public concern. The Appellant appears to have attempted to draw the attention of the MCD towards rampant unauthorized construction, illegal commercial activities, unsafe use of basements, congestion, and violations of fire and safety norms and such applications are in the nature of public alerts. The CIC noted with concern that neither Section 6(3) nor Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 has been properly invoked within time frame by the Respondent. The replies furnished are evasive in nature. The PIO was duty-bound either to transfer the RTI application promptly under Section 6(3) at the initial stage or to seek assistance from the concerned officers under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and thereafter provide a consolidated and meaningful reply to the Appellant. Merely shifting responsibility by repeatedly stating “information does not pertain to this department” defeats the spirit and mandate of the RTI Act and cannot be countenanced by the Information Commission. The CIC directed the PIO to obtain the requisite information from the concerned departments/offices by invoking Section 5(4) of the RTI Act and to provide a revised, clear, and point-wise reply to the Appellant on all the queries raised in the RTI application, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC strongly advised the MCD to introspect, streamline inter-departmental coordination, and ensure that complaints and RTI applications highlighting potential public hazards are treated with the seriousness they deserve.
Comments
Illegal commercial activities and unsafe use of basements has led to loss of life in many accidents. As rightly pointed out by the CIC, such RTI applications are in the nature of public alerts and municipal corporations should introspect and streamline inter-departmental coordination failing which such incidents would recur.
Citation: Arvind Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2024/118670; Date of Decision: 22.01.2026
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 information about proximity of proposed retail outlet of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) with respect to other buildings. Referring to the SDM's investigation report mentioning the existence of residential buildings within the proximity of the proposed petrol pump, he claimed that the map submitted by IOCL to various government bodies indicates the presence of 100 meters of open land around the site. This contradiction raises concerns about the accuracy and integrity of the information provided by IOCL. The respondent submitted that the RTI application is in the nature of a grievance and the appellant has not disclosed any public interest for seeking the information. The respondent submitted that the appellant has raised complaints with them and they have duly replied to his complaints. The CIC observed that the respondent did not give an appropriate reply to the appellant and directed to provide a revised point-wise reply. Further, the CIC directed to provide information such as the Vigilance Inquiry Procedure for willful misrepresentation of facts or willful concealment of material facts in the drawing and documents.
Comments
The PIO should be careful while replying to an application and must ensure that the information provided is strictly as per records. Contradictory information indicates malafide intent and defeats the objective of transparency.
Citation: Anirudha Dhanik v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, File No: CIC/IOCLD/C/2024/641662/A; Date of Decision: 23-01-2026
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 the copy of Letter from competent authority for Lok Sabha Elections held in Delhi in May 2024 and the list of RCS staff deputed for election duty from the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, GNCTD, regarding Bannu Biradari CGHS Ltd. The Appellant contended that the PIO neither forwarded the RTI Application to the Administration branch nor gathered the information from the concerned record holder. The CIC observed that the CPIO’s reply is prima-facie evasive/misleading. The CIC further observed that the PIO ought to have forwarded the RTI Application to the Administration branch or should have sought the assistance of the concerned record holder as per Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. Further, the CIC commented that the FAA is also found to have abdicated the statutory duty under the RTI Act. The CIC directed to provide the information permissible under RTI Act. Noting the absence of the PIO or an authorized representative during the hearing, the CIC directed the PIO to send a proper written explanation stating the reasons for acting in defiance of the stipulations contained in the notice of hearing.
Comments
The PIO is expected to seek the help of the holder of information under section 5(4) of the RTI Act. The concerned individual whose assistance is sought to provide the information is the deemed PIO.
Citation: Adarsh Kumar Dua v. Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, GNCTD, Second Appeal No. CIC/RECOS/A/2024/139457; Date of Decision: 22.01.2026
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 information about the number of personnel sanctioned, vacant and available posts in Municipal Corporation of Delhi and related information. The PIO asked the appellant to deposit Rs. 376/- for providing a copy of Scheduled for the year 2023-24 (Schedule contains a total of 188 pages @ Rs 2 per page). The Respondent submitted that the Appellant has not deposited the additional fee till the date of hearing. The CIC observed that the information sought pertains to sanctioned, filled and vacant posts in MCD, which directly relates to its organizational structure and public appointments. Such information falls within Section 4(1) (b)(i) and (ii) of the RTI Act and is mandatorily required to be disclosed on a suo motu basis by the Public Authority. Hence, the insistence on charging photocopying fees in this case is not justified, as the denial of free access runs contrary to the spirit of proactive disclosure. The CIC noted that the MCD is not complying with the provisions of section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act in letter and spirit and counseled that every Public Authority shall make constant endeavour to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo moto to the public at required intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that public does not have to resort to the use of RTI Act to obtain basic information. The MCD was advised to expedite updating of information in compliance with provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
The question of further fee to be demanded in case of information which is required to be disclosed pro-actively has been categorically dealt in this case. The public authorities should provide the information as required under section 4 on their website.
Citation: Pooja Verma v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, File No: CIC/MCDND/A/2024/112338; Date of Decision : 11.09.2025
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