RTI Corner

The appellant sought documents related with reconstitution, partnership, ownership of M/s Manmad Gas Centre, Manmad, Dist: Nashik and other queries related thereto. The appellant contended that neither the reply of the PIO nor that of the FAO has been received by him. Before the CIC, the appellant contended that after filing the second appeal, he has only received one written submission wherein it is mentioned that the reply has already been sent. The respondent HPCL contended that the PIO reply was sent by an ordinary post but the FAO had replied on the email id of the appellant. He further contended that after filing the second appeal, he has only received one written submission wherein it is mentioned that the reply has already been sent. The CIC observed that the appellant had specifically mentioned in his first appeal that he did not receive the reply of the PIO, still the relevant reply had not been furnished by the respondent. The CIC cautioned the respondent to be more careful in future while dealing with the matters related to the RTI Act. The CIC directed the respondent to provide the proof of email sent to the appellant as exists in their records along with their reply of the PIO duly authenticated as per their records by registered post to the appellant.
Comments
As far as possible, the PIO should send a reply to the RTI Application through speed post and retain the proof of sending the reply.
Citation: Dilip Kumar Kachardas Bhandari v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in Second Appeal No.CIC/HPCLD/A/2020/682554, Date of decision: 04-07-2022
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 complainant alleged that information sought has not been provided while the RBI stated that point-wise reply, as per the documents available on record, has been provided. The RBI apologized for the delay caused in providing reply to the complainant due to Covid. The CIC observed that the complainant has sought voluminous information related to the names of the borrower entity of the Top 75 Banking Frauds as reported by the Cooperative banks in Uttarakhand for the 5 years till the end of FY 2019. The information sought is voluminous in nature and may not be readily available with the PIO in the manner as sought by the complainant, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, the disclosure of information is exempted as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The CIC referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009. The CIC further observed that the respondent has made every possible effort to provide replies and available information to the complainant and hence, no further intervention is required in the matter.
Comments
Subsection 9 PF section 7 provides that an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. It provides for only changing the form in which the information is available and does not provide blanket exemption.
Citation: Mr. Samir Sardana v. Reserve Bank of India in Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2020/693342, Date of decision: 04-07-2022
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 denied receipt of satisfactory information in compliance with the order of the SIC, J&K dated 18.07.2019 and stated that no opportunity of hearing was provided to him at the FAA stage. The Respondent remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation and an unsigned written submission was received by CIC from the O/o the Collector Land Acquisition I&FC Department, Srinagar vide letter dated 13.06.2022 wherein it was stated that the information was already provided to the Appellant on 14.01.2019. The CIC noted that a note ostensibly expressing satisfaction has been received by the respondent from a representative of Dr. Fayaz Ahmad on 11.06.2022, the factual veracity of which was not established. The CIC observed that as per available record, the order of the SIC, J&K has not been complied with till date since the statement of the compensation paid to each farmer/ land owner whose land has been acquired by the department has not been provided. Furthermore, the written submission given by the Respondent is unsigned and does not mention the name of the officer signing it. Holding that due to the absence of the Respondent, the proceeding before it is vitiated, the CIC issued show cause notice to the Collector, Land Acquisition I&FC Department, Srinagar to show cause why penal action should not be taken against him for not providing complete information to the Appellant and for not complying with the order of the SIC, J&K.
Comments
Not following the orders of the Information can lead to imposition of penalty on the concerned public information officer.
Citation: Dr. Fayaz Ahmad Bhat v. O/o Collector Land Acquisition, Irrigation & Flood Control Dept., Rajbagh, Srinagar in Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/114941, Date of Decision: 17.06.2022
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