RTI Corner

The appellant explained that he is the owner of the 1st floor in a building and an alleged illegal construction has been carried out on top of the 2nd floor, which renders the building unsafe and risky. He filed a complaint and later through an application under the RTI Act, sought the action taken with regards to stop the unauthorized construction report. As he was not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, he filed an appeal and the FAA vide order dated 15.06.2018 directed the PIO to provide a modified reply within 15 days. The PIO complied with the order of the FAA after an inordinate delay of almost 2 years. The appellant submitted that the illegal construction was in the initial stages i.e., only brick-work was started and presently, the unauthorized construction of the alleged illegal building has been completed. The CIC directed the PIO to submit an explanation as to why the order of the FAA was not complied within the stipulated time period. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide an action taken report with regard to the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction after ascertaining the position from SHO.
Comments
Unauthorised construction is rampant throughout the country and this case law shows how a common citizen can use it to his benefit.
Citation: Shri Yogesh Agarwal v. PIO/EE (Bldg.-II), West Zone, SDMC, New Delhi in Second Appeal No. CIC/SDMCW/A/2018/144543, Date of Decision: 12.06.2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant sought information regarding the copy of the Rule under which two conditions were imposed on the Defence Assistant which led to the withdrawal of his Defence Assistant from his case along with other information claiming that they related to allegation of corruption and human rights violation. He submitted that the information was wrongly and malafidely denied by the Cabinet Secretariat on the pretext of the Organization being exempted under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further submitted that the copies of his APAR were also not provided to him violating his basic fundamental rights. The CIC observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. The CIC directed the FAA to re-examine the queries of the RTI application and furnish a clear, cogent, precise reply along with the copy of his own APAR to the Appellant within a period of 30 days. The CIC also instructed the Cabinet Secretariat to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
Comments
It is sometimes seen that RTI applications are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. On many occasions the CIC has expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Public Authorities in responding to the RTI application which is against the spirit of the RTI Act.
Citation: Mr. Dev Raj Singh v. Cabinet Secretariat in Second Appeal No.:- CIC/CABST/A/2018/162403-BJDate of Decision : 12.06.2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.co

The Complainant sought the district wise details of the hospitals and healthcare facilities designated as COVID-19 treatment centres; address and telephone numbers; criteria for designating them as COVID-19 treatment centres; hospitals and healthcare facilities whose status as COVID 19 treatment centres was withdrawn, etc. Explaining that the information sought was in the larger public interest directly pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic situation, the Complainant submitted that the suo motu disclosure of information would immensely benefit the patients for taking timely action. Similarly, a non-COVID-19 patient could avoid approaching the hospitals designated as COVID-19 treatment centres. The Complainant submitted that the since the consolidated district wise information of COVID-19 treatment centres was not available in the public domain or the website of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Directorate General of Health Services or the Indian Council of Medical Research, he was constrained to file an RTI application and subsequently the instant Complaint since it is a matter pertaining to life and liberty of citizens.
The CIC was appalled to learn this basic information could not be provided to the information seeker by any of the Respondents. The CIC further observed that the information sought ought to have been suo motu disclosed on the website of the Public Authority at the outset so as to obviate the necessity for an information seeker to obtain the same through an RTI application. The CIC observed that the decisions themselves and the senior decision makers involved are thoroughly documented in order for the Governments to remain accountable both during and after the crisis for future generations to be able to learn from these actions. The CIC issued an advisory to the Secretary, M/o H&FW to designate an officer of an appropriate seniority as a Nodal Officer to examine the matter and suo motu disclose the information sought in the RTI application on the website of the Public Authority within a period of 15 days in the larger public interest.
Comments
India is known as a software power and it would be quite easy to have a consolidated district wise data of Covid facilities and their mapping om Google Maps for the benefit of the citizens. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
Citation: Mr. Venkatesh Nayak v. Indian Council of Medical Research, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, DGHS, Department of Health & Family Welfare in Complaint No. CIC/MOHFW/C/2020/668909-BJ + CIC/DTGHS/C/2020/668913-BJ, Date of Decision: 05.06.2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.co