RTI Corner

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/

The appellant showed a clipping of Hindustan Times, New Delhi edition dated 21.11.2017, which says that the Delhi Development Authority had decided to allot plots to applicants of its 1981 Rohini residential scheme who had bought property in the national capital after the last date of submission of applications. It was further held that nearly 82,000 people had applied for plots under the scheme and 14,000 allottees are still waiting to get the possession. In this regard, the appellant sought file notings and action taken on the decision of Delhi Lieutenant Governor. The appellant sought information pertaining to agenda for relaxation of Rule17 of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 sent to Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs for consideration and issue of final notification. The respondent informed that the file pertaining to allotment/possession of plots is still under consideration. The Commission directed the respondent to facilitate inspection of documents and provide certified copies of selected documents.
Comments
Information can be denied only under section 8 (1) or section 9 of the RTI Act. The claim that the file is still under consideration cannot be a ground for denial of information.
Citation: Shri Varun Krishna Appellant v. M/o Housing & Urban Affairs in Appeal No.: CIC/MOHUA/A/2018/622330, Date of Decision – 02.08.2018
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/

Information regarding entry and departure timings of a particular vehicle as per the record book of a toll plaza was sought by the appellant. The respondent was absent at the hearing despite valid and timely notice of the CIC for which warning was issued to the concerned respondent PIO and Project Director, National Highways Authority of India. The CIC observed that the concerned PIO should desist from committing such lapse in future. The PIO claimed that relevant records are not available whereas the First Appellate Authority claimed that the sought for information is a third party information, hence, the same cannot be provided u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The PIO and Project Director, NHAI was directed to state on affidavit to the CIC that the information provided on these points is factually correct, based on records and nothing is hidden therein.
Comments
The PIO should either take a prior permission of the CIC before abstaining himself from the hearing or he should send a proper representative to attend the hearing before the CIC after obtaining due permission from the CIC for doing so and after ensuring that the authorised representative is briefed appropriately.
Citation: Dilip Joshi v. National Highways Authority of India in File No.: CIC/ NHAIN /A/2017/102258, Date of hearing: 20.03.2018, 13.07.2018
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/

Copies of records relating to receipt & disposal of RTI applications for a particular period were sought. The Appellant claimed that as the information is in the nature of suo motu disclosure, the provisions of Section 7(9) cannot be invoked. The respondent agreed in principle to so motu disclose the sought for information viz. status of RTI application/first appeal received in their office, first appellate authority order etc. on their website. However, he sought for some time to arrange adequate training to all the concerned officers of Air India Ltd. The CIC allowed 4 months time to impart required training to the employees & for updating the software. The Air India was directed to put the information in public domain within 4 months from the date of receipt of this order.
Comments
Information relating to disposal of RTI application is liable to be disclosed on the website of the public authority in compliance with Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act read with DoPT circular dated 15.04.2013 vide O.M. No. 1/6/2011-IR.
Citation: : Mr. R.K. Jain v. Air India Limited in Complaint No. CIC/AIRIN/C/2016/299172, Dated of Decision: 02.01.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand 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 sought the names of all beneficiaries including pregnant and lactating women at Anganwadi Centre situated at a particular village but did not get any response from the public authority. The CIC directed the PIO of Ministry of WCD to issue necessary guidelines for voluntary disclosures as per the mandate under Section 4 of RTI Act for the guidance of all Child Development Project Officers, ICDS Project to provide complete information voluntarily on their websites, which would eventually benefit the appellant also. The CIC directed that all CDPOs of ICDS project all over the country to voluntarily publish the month-wise expenditure incurred for functioning and maintenance of Anganwadi centres, names of the beneficiaries, details of benefits regularly on their website and display the printed copies conspicuously on notice board.
Comments
Though the State Governments directly monitor and supervise the functioning of Anganwadi centres, this massive programme receives around 50% of the funds (Rs. 16,000 crores approximately) from the Central Government. Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act, clause (xii) mandates voluntary disclosure of the manner of execution of subsidy programs, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programs; and under clause (xiii) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted by it. Therefore, it is the mandatory duty of the every public authority to disclose complete details of money spent on subsidy program like that of the ICDS on Anganwadies including the details of each individual beneficiary of this program.
Citation: : Myathari Janardhan v. PIO, MOWCD in CIC/MOWCD/A/2017/166012 Date of Decision – 10.07.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand 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 asked information regarding the procedure of inquiry against a bank official of Central Bank of India and other details etc from the PIO, Reserve Bank of India. On appeal , the FAA advised the appellant to file a fresh RTI application to the Central Bank of India. Before the CIC, the RBI stated that since the information pertaining to the procedure of inquiry against a bank official of Central Bank of India and other details of a particular bank employee was sought, the information ought to be available with the Central Bank of India. However, inadvertently the RTI application was not transferred to the PIO, Central Bank of India. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same. The CIC counselled the PIO to be more careful in future, so that such lapses do not recur. The CIC also directed the PIO to transfer the RTI application along with a copy of the Commission’s decision to the PIO, Central Bank of India within a period of two weeks under intimation to the appellant.
Comments
As per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, where an application is made to a public authority but the subject matter of the RTI application pertains to another public authority, the PIO of the public authority receiving the RTI application has to transfer the same to the public authority concerned.
Citation: : Riaz Ahmed vs. Reserve Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/RBIND/A/2017/195214, dated 18.06.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand 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 claimed that misleading response has been given by the PIO in respect of his application pertaining to demonetization stating that the information sought is not specific. The Bank submitted that there are a number of cases where customers come to the Bank to exchange their old notes with the new notes. Hence, the PIO presumed that the appellant had sought details of the old notes which are still in circulation and accepted as legal tender. The respondent further stated that no record is available with the Bank regarding the same. Hence, the appellant was informed that the information sought by him is not specific. The CIC observed that the PIO should have inferred that the information sought pertain to the demonetized currency notes. Nonetheless, if he felt that the information sought for was not clear, he should have sought clarification from the appellant. The Commission took a serious view of this lapse and counseled the PIO to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur. The CIC directed to provide the information within a period of four weeks.
Comments
In case of doubt about the query, it would be appropriate on the part of the PIO to seek necessary clarifications from the applicant.
Citation: : Pramod Kumar vs. State Bank of India in Decision No. CIC/SBBAJ/A/2017/122397 Dated 29.06.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand 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 sought information regarding the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in a particular case wherein a direction for issuing detailed set of instructions in consultation with CBEC regarding the detention of imported goods was made. In the light of the unpreparedness exhibited by the Respondent present at the hearing, the Commission was compelled to postpone the hearing by four weeks. The CIC directed to issue notice to the CPIO Import. Further, the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Delhi Zone was instructed to revisit the provisions of the RTI Act in his jurisdiction and issue directives to all the concerned officials to sincerely look at the preamble of the RTI Act 2005 and its various provisions for the ease and convenience of the information seekers. The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
Comments
In view of a large number of appeals coming up for hearing where the PIO has failed to perform his duty or seems unaware of the provisions of Act, the CIC has passed strictures and has directed to convene trainings for the officers.
Citation: : Mr. R.K. Jain v. The Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi in Appeal No.:-CIC/CCCDZ/A/2017/101575-BJ-Interim, Date of Decision: 07.03.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand 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 sought details of the municipal laws enacted/ amendments of acts done, both central & state on the basis of international treaties & conventions ratified by the Government of India. The PIO informed the CIC that such details are not held exclusively by any public authority and the statutory enactments are already in public domain.
Comments
Under the RTI Act, the PIO is expected to provide the information as available to him. He is not expected to categorize the statutory enactments on the basis of requirements of appellant as per a given parameter.
Citation: : Govardhan G. Bhasme v. MHA in F. No.CIC/MHOME/A/2017/133556 CIC/MHOME/A/2017/154208, Date of Decision: 27.03.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand 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 sought information regarding the name and address of the Employee’s Insurance Court. The PIO did not provided reply timely leading to issue of the show cause notice why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not furnishing the information within prescribed timelines. After going through the explanation of the PIO, the CIC noted that the RTI application was transferred after 16 days delay excluding the five days mandate as specified under the RTI Act. The CIC noted that information was provided by PIO after 67 days from the date of receiving the RTI application. The CIC imposed a penalty of Rs. 16,750/- on the PIO and directed to recover the amount from the salary payable to the PIO.
Comments
There is a prescribed timeline of 5 days for the transfer of RTI application which should be adhered to by the PIO.
Citation: : Shambhu Prasad v. PIO, ESIC in CIC/ESICO/A/2017/130089, Date of Decision - 2.5.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand 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 filed an appeal to the CIC claiming that information on point no 2. of his applicantion regarding incoming call details of his number for a particular period has not been provided to him by the BSNL. He stated that the respondent has asked his identity proof by stating that, ‘information can only be given if the appellant will submit his identity proof’. The appellant stated that there is no provision under the RTI Act to ask for the appellant’s identity proof to give information. The respondent submitted that there is a cutting on point no. 2 of the RTI application of the appellant and it was presumed that the appellant does not want information in respect of the same. The appellant stated that he has not made any cutting on his RTI application and made an allegation against a Clerk for the cuttings in his RTI application. The CIC held that the respondent should give information to the appellant on point no. 2 of his RTI application regarding incoming and outgoing calls. The CIC directed the respondent to conduct an enquiry in the matter regarding tampering with the RTI application in consultation with the appellant and give a report to the Commission.
Comments
Allegation of tampering with the RTI Application is serious issue which may lead to imposition of penalty for obstructing free flow of information.
Citation: Sh. Narendra Bhansali v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. in Appeal No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2017/118096, Dated of Decision: 01.05.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/

Certain information relating to the representation of the appellant was denied claiming that it was not traceable in their record. The appellant claimed that his letter dated 14.10.2013 was sent by Speed Post vide tracking no. ED 888476332 IN and also delivered personally to the office of the CMD of Bank. The Commission observed that record keeping and proper maintenance of files is a key function of any public authority. Hence, it is imperative to ascertain the facts leading to the misplacement of the representation submitted by the appellant. The Commission directed the First Appellate Authority of Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office, Gurgaon to inquire into the matter of the ‘missing’ representation and to ascertain as to whether the representation was actually misplaced or the PIO had taken that plea to deny information to the appellant. The FAA was directed to take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for the misplacement of the representation, if required. A copy of the inquiry report along with the action taken report to be provided to the Information Commission as well as to the appellant within a period of six weeks.
Comments
All organisations should take a note of the fact that in case of ‘missing’ records, the Information Commission has started taking strict action for not taking due care of the records.
Citation: Dinesh Bhagat v. Oriental Bank of Commerce, RTI Cell in Decision No. CIC/OBKOC/A/2017/179224 Dated 28.03.2018
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is the co-author of the books: RIGHT TO INFORMATION – LAW AND PRACTICand PIO’s guide to RTI. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/