RTI Corner

Information with respect to the Loan/Mortgage loan/Credit facilities sanctioned to M/s Om Sokhal Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd including its directors, their spouses, etc. was denied by UCO Bank under section 8 (1) (e) and (j). The appellant argued that they were the buyers and there had been multiple loans on the same property by the builders, their relatives and the directors. The CIC noted that buyers, including the appellant, had booked a flat and because of the apparent malfeasance which had taken place advertently or inadvertently exhibiting lack of due diligence while financing the project as a whole or to the related parties or group industries. The appellant being buyer of one of the flats was not stranger to the subject matter. The CIC observed that the objective of the RTI is to bring transparency and accountability in the functioning of the public authorities. The whole episode had raised doubts on the propriety of the public authority i.e. bank in financing the project. It was also brought on record that there were criminal cases and civil cases pending investigation or final judicial pronouncements. The appellant has only sought information which was in the custody of the public authority and as the affected party, he has a right to the information sought. Public interest demanded that the same may be made available as sought by the appellant for bringing transparency and accountability, as the final rights and obligations will be decided by the respected courts or other authorities. The CIC directed to provide the information.
Comments
It is not uncommon to come across cases where a builder has taken suspicious loans or a bank has granted loans which are being investigated. It is the common buyer who is forced to suffer in silence.
Citation: Radhika Sharma v. UCO Bank, CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/602682, &CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/602617; 05.09.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

No reply was provided to the Complainant by the Assam University within the stipulated time frame and hence, a show-cause notice was issued to the PIO to explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act. An explanation was provided that the CPIO is the nodal officer of the University for transmitting required information to the applicant. The CPIO acquires information from different wings of the University as supplied by the concerned officer. In the instant case, the matter processed and communicated by CPIO as obtained from other wings of the University and there was no intentional delay or dilatory tactics on the part of CPIO. The said information has already been obtained and communicated to the applicant. The CIC accepted the explanation tendered by the then PIO and found no reason to disbelieve him. The CIC observed that there is nothing on record to suggest that the PIO acted malafidely or failed to exercise due diligence.
Comments
If there is a delay by the deemed PIO, penalty may be imposed on him/her. Hence, it is the duty of the deemed PIO to ensure that the information is provided as per the provisions of the RTI Act.
Citation: Nirupam Deb v. Assam University, CIC/ASUVR/C/2021/643616; Date of Decision: 10.11.2022
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought information about Dr Amulya K Panda Director, National Institute of Immunology like - the name of the subject in which he obtained master’s degree (with specialization, if any), the subject on which he was awarded PhD degree etc. It was informed that Dr Panda has superannuated on 31.05.2021. It is a personal information exempt under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, since it has no relation to public activity or interest and is exempted from disclosure to prevent unwarranted invasion of privacy. Relying on the ratio laid down in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal Nos. 10044, 10045 and 2683 (all of 2010), the CIC denied the request of Appellant for disclosure of the information and upheld the submission of the PIO.
Comments
Information about the educational qualification of scholars is usually available publically, on the website of the organisation. The linked in profile of Dr Amulya K Panda shows his education as PhD - Biotechnology (IIT Delhi), M Tech - Chemical Engineering (IIT Madras) apart from other degrees. It indicates that the individual has no qualms regarding disclosure of his educational degree. The PIO could have issued a third party notice rather than flatly denying the information. If the qualification for a post requires Master’s degree or PhD, it is liable to be disclosed under RTI.
Citation: Dr. D. D. Joshi v. National Institute of Immunology (Ministry of Science & Technology), CIC/NIIMM/A/2022/647852; Date of Decision: 26.07.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Marks secured Marks secured in Written Exam and interview were sought by a candidate. The PIO informed that the marks of candidates whose candidature has been cancelled have not been provided/ uploaded on the Commission’s website. Since, the candidature of the RTI applicant for the said exam has been cancelled, the information sought cannot be provided as per the UPSC policy. On second appeal, the CIC held that since the Appellant has sought for his own marks and has applied for the same under the RTI Act, the reason cited by the CPIO for denying the same is not in compliance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Comments
As per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the PIO. Relying on UPSC policy to deny an information to a candidate whose candidature is cancelled is not tenable under the RTI Act as Section 22 grants overriding powers to the Act over any other statute.
Citation: Amit Turan v. Union Public Service Commission, CIC/UPSCM/A/2022/658298; 07/08/2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com