RTI Corner

The Appellant filed sought the list of petrol pump functioning in the urban area of district Bareilly. Further, he asked about the land requirements with layout of one Pump, the details of pumps which not fulfilled the land requirements and related information. The PIO denied the information holding that the appellant has not disclosed the public interest warranting disclosure of such an information. The CIC observed that reply furnished by the Respondent is not meticulous and directed the concerned PIO to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised point-wise reply as available in their records. The CIC strongly recommended the IOCL to explore the viability of maintaining such information on their official website pertaining to list of petrol pumps functioning all over India and related issues regarding land requirement/measurement for allotment of petrol pump.
Comments
Making the information available in the public domain proactively is in keeping with the letter and spirit of suo-motu disclosures prescribed under Section 4 of the RTI Act, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information.
Citation: Shri Anand Singh Chauhan v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), CIC/IOCLD/A/2023/626935; Date of Decision: 07.05.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought the enquiry findings in relation to the complaints filed by her and her husband. The Respondent stated that it has been informed to the Appellant that since a court case filed by her is pending before the Court of Law, therefore, inquiry in her complaint was put on hold awaiting the final verdict of the law. The Appellant contended that the information has been wrongly denied on the ground that matter is sub-judice before Court of Law. She contended that no stay order has been granted by the Hon’ble Court for non-disclosure of any information and the subject matter before Court of law relates to pay fixation while she through instant RTI application sought action taken report on her complaint of harassment by the concerned teacher. The CIC held that the initial denial of information by the PIO on the plea that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Court of Law was inappropriate more particularly when such information as sought by the Appellant is regarding her own complaint which she has every right to know. The CIC observed that the only pertinent exemption from disclosure appears to be with respect to the names and identifying particulars of the persons which may be reflected on the noting/comments/reports/statements on the relevant information sought for and cannot be divulged considering the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) and Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. The PIO should have redacted the personal information of other third-party officers by invoking the provisions of Section 10 of RTI Act. The PIO was directed to provide a revised categorical reply intimating the broad updated outcome of Appellant’s complaint to her and also advised to exercise due diligence in future while responding to the RTI Applications.
Comments
The matter being sub-judice is not a valid ground for denial of information as per the provisions of the RTI Act unless there is an express injunction order passed by the Court prohibiting disclosure as clearly defined in Section 8 (1)(b) of the RTI Act.
Citation: Seema Gupta v. Office of the Deputy Director of Education, File No: CIC/DIRED/A/2024/609275; Date of Decision : 25.08.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Three registered post envelopes were returned to the sender (District Judge) without being delivered. With reference to three registered postal envelopes which were returned without affixing any remark on the envelopes, the appellant requested to provide the reasons for return. The Department of Post submitted that the three registered articles, referred to in the RTI application, were returned with remarks “receiver not at address”. Further, it was submitted that the reply sent in response to the RTI application was inadvertently sent at the incorrect address, hence, could not be timely delivered. However, on receipt of the return mail, they rectified the address and communicated the information to the appellant on 09.02.2024. The CIC observed that the respondent initially replied on 14.12.2023 but the same was not delivered timely to the appellant due to incorrect address. The CIC accepted the clarification provided by the PIO that the delay in response to the RTI application was inadvertent and had occurred on account of incorrect address being mentioned in the dispatch letter. Holding that due information has been furnished and the delay caused on the PIO’s part does not appear to be deliberate, the CIC disposed the appeal.
Comments
If the delay in reply by the PIO is unintentional and due to an inadvertent error, there is no penal liability as there is no malafide denial of information.
Citation: Sardar Ajit Singh v. Department of Posts, Second Appeal No. CIC/POSTS/A/2024/112391; Date of Decision: 11.07.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant had worked on deputation for three years with CONCOR and sought information about the Foreign Service Contribution (FSC) due to which payment of his gratuity had been stopped. The PIO replied that the applicant may seek the information from the concerned Railway Administration and the detailed response can be obtained by the applicant from the concerned East Central Railway. The CIC observed that the denial of information by the PIO on both the points of RTI Application in one liner without substantiating the same under any relevant exemption clause of Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act depicts that this case has been handled badly which is contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act. Observing that the PIO is expected to have applied her mind and should have facilitated relevant information as sought by the appellant by invoking Section 5(4) or Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, the CIC commented that “This reply is as bad as possible”. The CIC held that inaction on the part of then CPIO and the present CPIO is prima facie established. As the then PIO had superannuated, the CIC issued a show cause notice to the present PIO for imposing penalty. Further, the Respondent was directed to re-examine the contents of RTI Application and provide a point-wise revised updated reply against all the points.
Comments
It is observed that some PIO’s try to wash their hands off by giving vague or terse reply. Such casual conduct of the PIO causes unwarranted obstruction to the free flow of information and is a violation of the provisions of the RTI Act which may lead to punitive action against them.
Citation:Vijay Kumar Verma v. Container Corporation of India Ltd, File No: CIC/CCOFI/A/2024/105017; Date of Decision: 11.07.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com