RTI Corner

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

The appellant sought documents related with reconstitution, partnership, ownership of M/s Manmad Gas Centre, Manmad, Dist: Nashik and other queries related thereto. The appellant contended that neither the reply of the PIO nor that of the FAO has been received by him. Before the CIC, the appellant contended that after filing the second appeal, he has only received one written submission wherein it is mentioned that the reply has already been sent. The respondent HPCL contended that the PIO reply was sent by an ordinary post but the FAO had replied on the email id of the appellant. He further contended that after filing the second appeal, he has only received one written submission wherein it is mentioned that the reply has already been sent. The CIC observed that the appellant had specifically mentioned in his first appeal that he did not receive the reply of the PIO, still the relevant reply had not been furnished by the respondent. The CIC cautioned the respondent to be more careful in future while dealing with the matters related to the RTI Act. The CIC directed the respondent to provide the proof of email sent to the appellant as exists in their records along with their reply of the PIO duly authenticated as per their records by registered post to the appellant.
Comments
As far as possible, the PIO should send a reply to the RTI Application through speed post and retain the proof of sending the reply.
Citation: Dilip Kumar Kachardas Bhandari v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in Second Appeal No.CIC/HPCLD/A/2020/682554, Date of decision: 04-07-2022
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 complainant alleged that information sought has not been provided while the RBI stated that point-wise reply, as per the documents available on record, has been provided. The RBI apologized for the delay caused in providing reply to the complainant due to Covid. The CIC observed that the complainant has sought voluminous information related to the names of the borrower entity of the Top 75 Banking Frauds as reported by the Cooperative banks in Uttarakhand for the 5 years till the end of FY 2019. The information sought is voluminous in nature and may not be readily available with the PIO in the manner as sought by the complainant, collating and compiling of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization. Hence, the disclosure of information is exempted as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The CIC referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in CBSE and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors, SLP(C) NO. 7526/2009. The CIC further observed that the respondent has made every possible effort to provide replies and available information to the complainant and hence, no further intervention is required in the matter.
Comments
Subsection 9 PF section 7 provides that an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. It provides for only changing the form in which the information is available and does not provide blanket exemption.
Citation: Mr. Samir Sardana v. Reserve Bank of India in Complaint No. CIC/RBIND/C/2020/693342, Date of decision: 04-07-2022
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 Appellant denied receipt of satisfactory information in compliance with the order of the SIC, J&K dated 18.07.2019 and stated that no opportunity of hearing was provided to him at the FAA stage. The Respondent remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation and an unsigned written submission was received by CIC from the O/o the Collector Land Acquisition I&FC Department, Srinagar vide letter dated 13.06.2022 wherein it was stated that the information was already provided to the Appellant on 14.01.2019. The CIC noted that a note ostensibly expressing satisfaction has been received by the respondent from a representative of Dr. Fayaz Ahmad on 11.06.2022, the factual veracity of which was not established. The CIC observed that as per available record, the order of the SIC, J&K has not been complied with till date since the statement of the compensation paid to each farmer/ land owner whose land has been acquired by the department has not been provided. Furthermore, the written submission given by the Respondent is unsigned and does not mention the name of the officer signing it. Holding that due to the absence of the Respondent, the proceeding before it is vitiated, the CIC issued show cause notice to the Collector, Land Acquisition I&FC Department, Srinagar to show cause why penal action should not be taken against him for not providing complete information to the Appellant and for not complying with the order of the SIC, J&K.
Comments
Not following the orders of the Information can lead to imposition of penalty on the concerned public information officer.
Citation: Dr. Fayaz Ahmad Bhat v. O/o Collector Land Acquisition, Irrigation & Flood Control Dept., Rajbagh, Srinagar in Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/114941, Date of Decision: 17.06.2022
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 Appellant sought information from Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University about a college. The PIO submitted that the said college has been disaffiliated in the year 2015. The CIC interjected and remarked that the Appellant is seeking information of the averred college prior to the year 2015 in the instant RTI Application. The CIC ruled that the information pertains to the rules related to the fee structure of different courses of the averred college prior to the year 2015 and denying the same under the garb of third party information is completely unwarranted and admonished the Respondent for the same. The CIC directed the Respondent to provide a relevant, categorical and point-wise revised reply to the Appellant.
Comments
If an organisation ceases to be a public authority on a particular date, the information for the prior period can still be sought under the RTI Act, 2005.
Citation: G R Nautiyal v. Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University in Second Appeal No. CIC/HNBGU/A/2021/107261, Date of Decision: 17.06.2022
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

A timely reply had not been provided by the University to the applicant, which is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. A show - cause notice was issued by the CIC for imposition of penalty. The CIC observed that the RTI Application is addressed to Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra (formerly known as Agra University), which is a State University under the control of the State Government, and dropped the proceedings.
Comments
Section 20 of the RTI Act reads, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that …” which implies that the jurisdiction of the CIC is limited to the central public authorities. Hence, a second appeal against the state government public authorities cannot be filed to the CIC.
Citation: Kaushal Agarwal v. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra in Complaint No. CIC/BBAUV/C/2017/178310, 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

One of the Applicants for the post of Associate Professor who was not selected by the committee sought the copy of the minutes of the selection committee. The Respondent submitted that details of other candidates along with the name of the members of the averred selection committee is there in the minutes of the selection committee which is personal information of third party exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Upon being queried by the CIC to establish the larger public interest while seeking such sort of information, the appellant could not provide a cogent reply. The CIC observed that adequate reply has been given by the Respondent and upheld the same. The CIC further observed that the Appellant has made use of such intemperate and defaming words such as ‘you are biased’ while communicating with the CIC which were viewed adversely. The Appellant was cautioned to be careful and mindful while choosing his words.
Comments
An appellant should refrain from making baseless allegations and instead focus on seeking information. The appeal should be drafted professionally and baced on facts rather than emotions.
Citation: Hari Baksh v. Central University of Tamil Nadu in Second Appeal No. CIC/CUOTN/A/2021/108486, Date of Decision: 16.06.2022
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

9 pages of information was provided in response to a request for mark sheets of a third party and related information. On perusal of the contents of the case, the CIC observed that the Respondent has wrongly provided third party information which is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, to the Appellant. The CIC held that such lackadaisical conduct of the Respondent is not in accordance with the extant provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC strictly admonished the concerned Respondent, for providing the same to the Appellant, without application of mind and sternly cautioned them to acquaint themselves well with the provisions of RTI Act.
Comments
A PIO must be well versed with the provisions of the RTI Act to comply with the duties enshrined under the Act. The third-party can claim damages for the loss of personal information.
Citation: Jitendra Bhatt v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwadidyalaya, Sagar in Second Appeal No. CIC/DHGVV/A/2021/104888, Date of Decision: 17.06.2022
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 appellant filed a complaint against a JNU Registrar and wanted the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to take action against him. The PIO informed the appellant about the fact that the averred complaint filed by him was filed in their records without action as it did not concern the role and functions of CAT. The CIC upheld the stand of the PIO observing that the Appellant appears to be harbouring a grievance against the action/inaction on his complaint against a JNU professor filed by him with various authorities like PMO, MHRD etc. as he believes that the forwarding of the said complaint to the concerned JNU professor by these authorities is a travesty of justice against which he complained to CAT thereafter.
Comments
An appellant should restrict his RTI Application to seeking information as it is beyond the powers of the Information Commission to decide any other matter. The Apex Court in the matter of Union of India v Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) observed that while deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information “which is held by or under the control of any public authority”, the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. The High Court of Delhi in the case of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) held that the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished.
Citation: Chitresh Kumar Banjare v Central Administrative Tribunal in File No : CIC/CADMT/A/2021/114543, Date of Decision: 16/06/2022
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

During the appeal before the CIC, the Ministry of Home Affairs submitted that the tamra-patras were issued by the central government in 1972 only and thereafter by the respective state governments. Hence, the information could not be provided in the form it was requested by the Appellant. It was added that the first appeal pertaining to a different RTI application was annexed by the Appellant in the Second Appeal filed by the Appellant before the CIC. The CIC observed that the reply provided by the PIO was not exhaustive and the reasons provided during the hearing should have been mentioned therein. The CIC directed the PIO to re-examine the RTI application and provide a revised reply to the Appellant offering him an inspection of available records on a mutually convenient date and time and giving the reasons why complete information cannot be provided. The Appellant was also cautioned to ensure that correct documents pertaining to the specific case are chronologically attached with the Second Appeals/ Complaints filed before the CIC henceforth.
Comments
The PIO must ensure that the reply sent by him is complete and is self-explanatory. Incomplete or non-specific replies may end in an appeal wasting precious time of the CIC, the appellant, and the public authority.
Citation: Shri Rohit Sabharwal v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2020/140086, Date of Decision: 26.04.2022
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