RTI Corner

A loan was obtained by one Mr. R.K. Rohilla for which the appellant purportedly stood surety. A recovery of Rs. 1,64,000/- + interest was effectuated from salary of the appellant upon order of attachment issued from Court of Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi. The Appellant addressed a letter dated 05.07.2016 to the Assistant Registrar mentioning that he has neither took any loan nor stood as Guarantor for Mr. Rohilla. Vide RTI application dated 23.07.2016, the appellant sought action taken upon on his letter. The CIC held that the ends of justice require that the appellant be furnished with copies of complete file of claim application filed by credit society before RCS. The proof of appellant having stood surety towards the loan agreement as submitted by Credit society before RCS shall be made available to the appellant.
Comments
In case of commercial disputes, the RTI Act has emerged as a possible tool to resolve the same in an amicable manner.
Citation: Mr. Raj Kumar Respondent v. Assistant Registrar-(S-III, T&C) O/o the Joint Registrar Registrar Cooperative Societies, GNCTD in No.CIC/RECOS/A/2017/109027, Date of Decision: 01.08.2018
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 acknowledged the receipt of the letter from CBSE, New Delhi dated 29.04.2017 seeking a fee of Rs.2/- per page for 40 pages of information to be furnished to him. He contested that since the reply was received beyond 30 days, no fee could be deposited by him.
Regarding the plea of the Appellant regarding disclosure of information without any charges, the CIC observed that no response was provided to the Appellant within the mandatory period of 30 days from the date of RTI application, hence the information should indeed be provided to him, free of cost.
Comments
As per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified of 30 days prescribed u/s 7 (1).
Citation:Mr. Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Central Board of Secondary Education in Complaint No.:- CIC/CBSED/C/2017/140614-BJ, Date of Decision: 31.08.2018
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/

An application was filed to DDA seeking information about the execution of a Will and raising some queries related to mutation of the said property. The appellant submitted that a property was mutated on the death of her brother in favour of the present recorded owner without her consent. She contended that all legal heirs are required to grant a ‘No Objection’ as a condition precedent to any mutation in property records. She further submitted that two letters by DDA to her as well another legal heir seeking their consent for grant of mutation was sent on wrong address and alleged that it wasn’t a coincidence. On the other hand, the DDA submitted that the mutation was done as per the last recorded will which was registered and there is no requirement of NOC while acting on the basis of a registered will. The appellant questioned as to how DDA would check if the produced will was the last such recorded testament of the deceased which could only authenticated by a NOC. Referring to Section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, the CIC ruled that the DDA is required to clarify its extant policy on acceptance of Wills and means to ascertain their genuineness as well as the fact that, they were last testament of the deceased. Being an adversely affected party, the appellant has reason to know the rationale behind the decision of DDA under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Comments
As per the section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
Citation: Ms. Neelam Sethi v. DDA in F. No.CIC/DDATY/A/2017/130398, Date of Decision: 01.08.2018
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/