RTI Corner

The documentary requirement for a bus driver in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) and other information was sought. The PIO stated that on directions of the FAA, the reply along with copy of Recruitment Rules has been provided to the appellant. During the hearing before the CIC, the PIO tendered his apology for delay in reply by explaining that delay occurred due to reorganization of units within DTC and resultant reshuffling of staff and records. He added that it was unintentional and may be condoned in the interest of justice. He further agreed to file a written submission explaining the reason for delay in giving reply with supporting documents on the CIC’s website and will mark a copy of the same to the appellant. The CIC accepted the apology and condoned the delay in the absence of malafide on the part of the PIO holding it as unintentional.
Comments
The simple deed of sending a timely reply could have saved the PIO from the embarrassment of tendering an apology and would have also avoided the appellant from going through the hassle of filing a complaint. The time frame for filing a reply to the RTI application should be strictly followed by all the PIO’s.
Citation: Rakesh Kumar v. Delhi Transport Corporation, CIC/DTCOR/A/2024/601322; 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

Information about a contract to build a website and related information was not provided claiming that that no contract/MOU/Agreement/etc to build the website was found in the file. It was informed that the matter is very old and related files have been physically destroyed as per Regulations for the Army 1987. Further, all efforts have been undertaken at the Army Headquarters Southern Command to investigate the details as asked by the applicant. However, personnel involved in the said matter have been posted out as routine turnover/ retired. The CIC observed that the information sought was denied by the Respondent on the plea that it was more than 10 years old and the same was destroyed as per as per Regulations for the Army 1987. However, no documentary evidence of the destruction of record or the specific record retention schedule applied in this case has been provided. The CIC directed the Respondent to search the records once again and if the documents were not found, they should provide a copy of the Record Retention Policy and a copy of weeded-out record destruction certificate, to the Appellant. If the records destruction certificate is not available, then the Respondent should file an affidavit to the CIC regarding non-availability of the documents sought in the RTI application.
Comments
If the records are being destroyed as per the record maintainance schedule, the destruction memo must be maintained and the copy of the same provided to the RTI applicant.
Citation: Kamal Kashyap v. HQ Chief Engineer, HQ Southern Command, PIN-908541, C/o 56 APO, CIC/DPTMA/A/2024/614534; Date of Decision: 22.05.2025
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 details of non-compliance towards certain appeals communicated to CIC. The CIC observed that the case is premised on cumbersome and incoherent contents placed on record by the Appellant and the grouse of the Appellant is his alleged pending appeal(s)/letter(s). The CIC noted that the averred replies were mere reference letters quoted by the Appellant in the preface to his RTI Application and yet the Appellant chose to argue at length against these replies in the First Appeal when these were not even the actual RTI queries. The CIC commented on the sheer enormity of the jumbled contents of the instant RTI Application and the fact that it is framed as though the Appellant is filing a grievance petition, and not being clear about what exactly the reference letter(s) are. The CIC pointed to the preface to the RTI Application which refered to different letter(s), thus causing much of unwarranted confusion and making the task of deciphering the desired information onerous. The CIC dismissed the appeal remarking that RTI Act did not envisage the exercise of right to information in such a frivolous manner.
Comments
Sometimes a PIO comes across an application containing ramblings making it nearly impossible to comprehend what is the information being sought. Such inarticulate disjoined applications makes it nearly difficult to provide any meaningful information.
Citation: B Parameshwar v. Central Information Commission, CIC/CICOM/A/2024/113340; Date of Decision: 23.05.2025
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 data on customer satisfaction ratings for SBI services from its inception to the current date and asked for the categorization of ratings by type of service and other related information. The PIO provided certain information and clarified before the CIC that data sought on certain points of the RTI application was not available in the desired format. The CIC upheld the order of the CIC. The CIC brought it to the notice of the respondent that in a series of matters filed by the same appellant against a different public authority i.e IDPL (File nos. CIC/IDPCL/A/2024/612395 and CIC/IDPCL/A/2024/604666) an order was passed to veracity of the appellant’s BPL status. The CIC advised the respondent to exercise due caution with respect to the future RTI application received from the appellant relying on his BPL status.
Comments
There is no specific section of the RTI Act, 2005 or rule which prescribes whether the verification of the BPL status should be done, if the PIO has doubts regarding the same. If there are any suspicions, the PIO could ask for the BPL certificate to verify the status of the RTI applicant.
Citation: Rachhpal Singh Saini v. State Bank of India, CIC/SBIND/A/2024/602064; Date of Decision: 22.05.2025
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