RTI Corner

Certified copy a report of fact finding committee constituted by the UGC, chaired by Mrs. Mamta Aggarwal, the then Joint Secretary, UGC, New Delhi and its supporting documents, were not provided and it was submitted that it is not available with the office of UGC, New Delhi. The CIC remarked that Fact finding Committee’s Report which has duly been produced before Hon’ble Supreme Court, is supposed to be available with the UGC, to which it was submitted that an effort would be made to locate the desired report, but there is another possibility of it being weeded out. The CIC observed that no information with respect to the instant RTI Application has been provided to the Appellant. The CIC further observed that the replies furnished by the UGC were inadequate, misleading and blithe, that too with inordinate delay. The CIC took grave exception for the cavalier and irresponsible conduct of the UGC and strictly admonishes them for the same. The CIC sternly cautioned the UGC that in future, they shall ensure that replies to the RTI Applications shall be provided with mindful approach and within a stipulated time-frame as specified in the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC admonishes the UGC for poor management of the official records and cautioned them to remain careful in future. The CIC directed to make effort to search their records in a prudent manner to locate the report and provide the same along to the Appellant. The CIC directed to provide the record retention schedule and copy of the weeding out report to the Appellant with a copy marked to the CIC, in case the said Report has been weeded out.
Comments
In case of any claim of records being weeded out, the copy of destruction memo must be produced. This is one case where the CIC has admonished the public authority but has not preferred to invoke any penal provisions.
Citation: Rajesh Gill v. University Grants Commission in Second Appeal No. CIC/UGCOM/A/2021/111603, Date of Decision: 22.07.2022
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 applicant sought the name of CPIO and FAA of Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust. The CPIO/Director (NI) replied that he is the CPIO in respect of Ayodhya section of JKL division of the Ministry of Home Affairs. It was further mentioned that the Trust has been constituted by the Government of India as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court given in the judgment dated 09.11.2019 in CA No 10866-67 of 2010 vide notification dated 05.05.2020. The said trust is an autonomous organisation /body. The CIC held that the reply of the PIO is not in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act because though information sought by the Applicant has not been provided to him, none of the provisions of the RTI Act have been cited for the tacit denial. The reply sent by the PIO was found untenable in law. The CIC directed Shri Harish Kumar Wadhwa, CPIO and Dy Secretary, Arms and NI/ Ayodhya, Ministry of Home Affairs to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised point wise response strictly in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act to the Applicant within three weeks. The CIC made it clear that non-compliance of these directions shall attract penal action, as per law.
Comments
The Delhi High Court in the case of National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. v. CIC & Ors. has held that a private company upon its incorporation or registration does not become an authority or institution of self-government as defined under section 2(h) of the RTI Act, but by a subsequent enactment or order/notification issued can become an authority or institution of self-government. The words ‘established' or ‘constituted' have to be read in a manner so as to effectuate the legislative intent in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
Citation: Shri Neeraj Sharma v. Ministry of Home Affairs and Shri Ram Janmbhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust in Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/C/2021/606547 CIC/MHOME/A/2021/609248 CIC/MHOME/C/2021/612823 CIC/MHOME/A/2021/625152, Date of Decision: 08.07.2022
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 representative of the Complainant submitted that he has received the information and he further expressed his satisfaction with the same. The respondent submitted that earlier at the time of filing of the RTI Application, the averred information was not found therefore, the same was not furnished to the Complainant, but the same was later on found and provided to the Complainant on 04.05.2022 in another case bearing CIC file no. CIC/NIOPS/A/2021/696773. The CIC observed that though the Respondent has provided adequate information to the Complainant, the same was heedlessly denied on the first instance, which raises a doubt of existence of malafide intention in denial of averred information by the Respondent. Taking a grave exception to such unmindful and heedless approach of the Respondent while dealing with the instant RTI Application, the CIC admonished such conduct directed the Respondent to furnish a written explanation regarding the above conduct in the instant matter within a time frame of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Comments
The RTI Act, 2005 provides a strict timeline for providing the reply to the applicant failing which penal action can be initiated against the PIO.
Citation: Jatinder Singh v. National Institute of Open Schooling in Complaint No. CIC/NIOPS/C/2021/622506, Date of Decision: 01.09.2022
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

Information[h1] about loan sanctioned to PG Dyes & Chem which become NPA and about action under SARFAESI Act 2002 was sought. The Indian Overseas Bank submitted that it had come into their knowledge that the appellant had passed away few months back. Moreover, they had provided para-wise reply/information to the appellant. Moreover, PG Dyes & Chem was sold to the Asset Reconstruction Company, therefore, the relevant documents relating to the company were no longer under their custody and was under the custody of the ARC. The CIC observed that as informed by the respondent, the appellant had demised and no successor had impleaded in the matter. Moreover, appropriate reply having been given by the CPIO, there appears to be no public interest in prolonging the matter further.
Comments
Following the murders of some RTI Applicants which shook the country, the CIC had decided that no such RTI applications would abate on the death of the RTI Applicant.
Citation: C Arul Amuthan v. Indian Overseas Bank in Second Appeal No. CIC/IOVBK/A/2020/123471, Date of decision: 31.08.2022
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