RTI Corner

The complainant claimed that 09 of his RTI applications were replied by way of a single letter by the PIO and none of his RTI applications were replied satisfactorily. The Respondent referred to the heavy load of work due to additional charge & that the Complainant had opportunity to file the first appeal but he did not file the first appeal and neither did he attend the hearing. The CIC noted that the exemption u/s 8(1)(j) was claimed regarding information relating to the total number of RTI Applications & Complaints filed under the RTI Act. The CIC directed the then PIO Mr. P.K Mondal, now posted as JCIT, TDS (in charge of Dhanbad and Ranchi) to show cause why penal action should not be taken against under the provision of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Comments
The above case points to the need of periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities. This judgment series is a humble attempt in to achieve this goal.
Citation: Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy v. Income Tax Department in Complaint No.:-CIC-CBDTD-C-2016-299256-BJ Date of Decision: 21.07.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

The appellant, Shri Mata Prasad, sought information regarding appointment of Garden Attendant in Archaeological Survey of India. The PIO informed the CIC that the appellant is a terminated employee from the Horticulture Branch, Archaeological Survey of India and he is prejudice with the ASI officers. The information had already been provided by the PIO earlier but the appellant chose to file an appeal dated 04.05.2017 before the CIC. The CIC ruled that all information were provided to the applicant by all PIOs and a final order was passed on 30.06.2017. The PIO added that the information collected through RTI by Shri Mata Prasad are being used to blackmail and harass the officers for his ill wishes. The CIC had warned to Shri Mata Prasad to refrain from misusing RTI Act and harassing the authorities for no rhyme or reason and also advised to stop filing such infructuous application in its final order CIC/ALSOI/A/2017143727 dated 10.08.2017. After perusing the details of the case, the CIC held that sufficient information had been provided to the appellant but for the reasons best known to him, he is still not satisfied. The CIC cautioned the appellant to desist from such kind of abuse to the RTI Act and stop harassing the public authority and the CIC.
Comments
There is no provision in the RTI Act for taking any action against the abusive and repetitive RTI applications which in turn would secure the interests of genuine RTI seekers. Even the CIC has been at the receiving end in some cases. Hopefully, better sense would prevail and the RTI abusers would end the misuse of the Act which brings a bad name to the sunshine Act.
Citation: Mata Prasad v. Archaeological Survey of India in CIC/ALSOI/A/2017/145334, Decided On: 15.09.2017
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at - Right to Information Act 2005- RTI Foundation of India

The Appellant sought copy of the file noting with comments of DGMS (Navy) staff relating to his transfer to HQ 8 Mtn Div as DADH. The PIO denied the information under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act claiming that the file noting(s) on which the postings have been discussed is likely to contain the profile, specialisation, past appointments and likely future employability of officers including the location and operational status of the units concerned. It was argued that these noting(s) would also contain details of more than one officer as a chain transfer is normally effected. The advocate of the Appellant stated that the Appellant only wants to know the circumstances under which his particular transfer was effected. He also clarified that the Appellant does not want any security or deployment details or information about transfer of other officers but only the noting of DGMS(Navy) relating to his transfer. The CIC allowed the disclosure of information after applying severability. The specific portion where Appellant’s transfer has been deliberated upon was directed to be provided will be provided. The specific information related to security and personal information of other officers was to be blackened out.
Comments
When an applicant raises a very limited request seeking to only know the circumstances under which he was transferred, it is not appropriate to deny the limited information by citing the larger picture of security in a generic manner.
Citation: Rajesh Batlish v. Integrated HQ M/o Defence (Navy) in File No. : CIC/INAVY/A/2017/103441/SD; Date of Decision: 31/08/2017