RTI Corner

The appellant submitted that an arrear was calculated for refixation of his pay. The payment arrear details were prepared by the respondent division and sent to Asansol division duly vetted by Accounts. In this regard, the appellant sought the certified detail of arrear calculation in tabular sheet and the certified Copy of the calculation sheet sent to Asansol division. The PIO provided certain information and replied that the copy of the calculation sheet may be obtained from Asansol division. The CIC observed that the Respondent has not provided complete information to the Appellant and the reply is incomplete, vague and misleading. Merely stating that the information sought is available with some other department does not suffice the information being provided under the RTI Act. If the information sought by the Appellant is not available in their department, then the Respondent should have transferred the RTI application of the Appellant to the concerned department. The Respondent has neither transferred the RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act nor was assistance sought as per Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. The CIC directed the Respondent to take assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from the concerned PIO along with consolidated statement which includes due, drawn and balance amount to be paid and provide information to the Appellant, free of cost, within four weeks failing which to show-cause within this period as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed under the RTI Act.
Comments
This order of the CIC is unusual - It contains a direction to the PIO to perform certain functions with a built in show cause notice in case of failure to perform the direction.
Citation: Asim Kumar Dey v. North Eastern Railway, CIC/NERLG/A/2024/600144; 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 appellant sought information about whether a ration card holder can be given ration if his fingerprint or iris authentication on the POS machine fails. He sought for the procedure in this regard seeking copy of the relevant circulars. He further sought information about the procedure to provide ration to a disabled ration card holder. There was a delay in providing the information. The PIO submitted that the RTI application was filed on 26/4/2023 and the reply was prepared by the Policy Branch but it could not be dispatched due to a fire incident occurred in May, 2023 and the file was bundled up with the other files. The reply was provided to the RTI applicant on 02/05/2024 and also, a Memo was issued to the erring official i.e. MTS of the branch on 02/05/2024 with the direction to submit his reply within three days as to why the RTI reply was not dispatched within time. It was submitted before the CIC that a lenient view may kindly be taken in the matter keeping in view the circumstances in which the error occurred and the official has already been warned to be careful in future. The CIC was not convinced with the reasons mentioned for delay in reply provided by the Respondent because no documents or FIR copy has been annexed with the written submission to substantiate the explanation claiming occurrence of fire incident at the relevant time. The PIO was directed to file a revised updated written submission detailing the reason for delay in replying to the Complainant beyond stipulated time. In the spirit of the RTI Act, an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act was issued to the Respondent Public Authority for upfront disclosure of information as sought in this RTI application and related Rules, Circulars, Office Orders, Bye Laws, etc. under Section 4 of the RTI Act in public domain
Comments
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Kishan Chand Jain v. UOI & Ors. WP (C) No. 990 of 2021 adviced to disclose to the beneficiaries of the Public Distribution System particularly PwD beneficiaries regarding the provision for facilitating ration distribution to them through other members of the family or through authorized representative. Such information should be displayed at all the Fair Price Shops and the same will also relieve the Public Authority of the burden of RTI Applications.
Citation: Ashok Kumar v. Food, Supply and Consumers Affairs, CIC/FSACA/C/2024/129241; Date of Decision: 21.05.2025
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 GPF Final payment, Interest, reasons of pending of GPF final payment etc. but did not receive any reply from the PIO. During the hearing before the CIC, the PIO remained absent despite of having received the prior notice for the hearing. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the RTI application and provide the information sought by the Appellant, except which is exempted from disclosure under the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the CIC took grave exception to the delay caused by the PIO in not providing any reply to the Appellant within the stipulated time frame and also for the unexplained absence during the hearing. Observing that such casual conduct of the PIO causes unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and is in grave violation to the provisions of RTI Act, the CIC directed the PIO to file a written submission detailing the reason for not providing any reply within the time bound manner and for the unexplained absence during the hearing before the Commission.
Comments
It is unfortunate to see that the PIO’s fail to reply within the prescribed time limit and do not attend the hearing physically / online before the CIC. These actions invite unpleasant action and undermine the authority of the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: Shri Arup Sengupta v. Border Security Force, CIC/BDRSF/A/2024/108310; Date of Decision: 07.05.2025
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 asked for the certified Xerox copies of a particular office Tender. The PIO replied that the information sought is huge, and asked to visit the office to verify in person after advance intimation. Before the CIC, the respondent submitted that since the information requested is voluminous, and considering that the M-Book is a critical accounting record that must be maintained with care, the appellant was requested to visit the office during working hours to review the information. However, the appellant has not visited the office to inspect the information as of today. The CIC observed that an appropriate reply has been provided by the PIO and no further action lies.
Comments
Copy of a tender is usually published in Newspaper or website and hence, a soft copy should be available with the office. It is not understood how it can be termed as voluminous and in place of a copy of the tender, an inspection is being provided.
Citation: Shri D DHANANJAYA v. Archaeological Survey of India Archaeological Survey of India, CIC/ALSOI/A/2024/108144; Date of Decision: 07.05.2025
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