RTI Corner

Appellant had taken a home loan and asked the Bank why there is a difference of amount between OS (Outstanding Amount) and DP (Drawing Power) and a related question. The PIO informed that difference in drawing power and outstanding amount occurred on account of interest accrual over a period of time due to delayed repayment or due to interest rate change. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the RTI application and provide revised information including copy of the calculation sheet of the appellant’s loan account.
Comments
The RTI Act includes providing the existing information and does not involve creating information. A citizen cannot expect a PIO to create a fresh information to satisfy his query.
Citation: K. Subbramaniyan v. State Bank of India in Second Appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2019/106076, Date of decision: 16.04.2021
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 requested for status mentioned by his wife in the bank account opening form regarding her marital status like whether Single/ Married/ Separated/ Divorcee as a matrimonial dispute between the appellant and his wife was pending before the Hon’ble Family Court. In the second appeal, he stated that he is husband of Mrs. Nisha and has every right to know about the marital status of his spouse which could be decisive factor in deciding the maintenance order. The CIC held that the basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption from disclosure enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed by a private dispute between husband and wife, unless the petitioner is able to justify how such disclosure would be in ‘public interest’.
Comments
A delicate balance has to be maintained between the transparency and the fundamental right to privacy. Whenever there is a conflict between two rights, the same have to be reconciled and harmony has to be maintained.
Citation: Keshav Anand v. Bank of Baroda in Second Appeal No. CIC/DENAB/A/2019/107456, Date of decision: 16.04.2021
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

Certified copy of the total budget in Official Expenses and Expenditure in Official Expense, the Inventories of all items, list of the officers posted in Administration Branch and related information was sought by the RTI applicant. The PIO provided part of information sought and informed that the rest of the information is exhaustive and also not readily available with them. The CIC directed the PIO to offer an opportunity of inspection of the relevant and available records as sought for. The CIC further directed that photocopies would be provided to the appellant free of cost upto 50 pages after the inspection.
Comments
As per sub-section 9 of section 7 of the RTI Act, information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. If the information sought is voluminous, the PIO should take recourse to this provision to request the applicant to inspect the documents.
Citation: Ashok Kumar v. National Commission for Scheduled Castes in File No: CIC/NCFSC/A/2019/138123, Date of Decision: 18/03/2021
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 for the pay scales for teaching staff and payments as per labour law (Minimum Wages Act of State/Central Govt.) for non-teaching Staff from the inception of the MESCO College of Pharmacy, Hyderabad i.e. from 2003-04 to 2019-20. The PIO, All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to whom the RTI application was sent, the provided the information available with him and informed that the concerned college denied their consent to the disclosure of the information. The CIC observed that the square denial of the information by the PIO citing the refusal of the concerned college to part with the information is grossly inappropriate as no exemption clause of Section 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act was invoked for the said denial. Moreover, the information sought for pertains to the pay scales of the employees of the college which should ordinarily be made available in the public domain by the concerned authorities. The CIC directed to provide the information related to the pay scale and gross salary of the faculties & non-teaching staff to the Appellant.
Comments
The case shows how information about the private institutions can be sought from the regulatory authorities. All PIOs should note that denial of information under the RTI Act can be done only as per section 8 or section 9 of the Act.
Citation: Dr Javed Akhtar Ansari v. All India Council For Technical Education in File No : CIC/AICTE/A/2019/644119, Date of Decision: 01/04/2021
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 about Audit of funds of the PHC. On second appeal before CIC, the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) claimed that information sought by the Appellant is not held by them whereas expenditure related details with respect to the projects are held by the concerned State Government. The Andhra Pradesh Information Commission had communicated to the Appellant that his Second Appeal should be addressed to the CIC as NRHM falls under the jurisdiction of Central Government. The CIC observed that Health falls in the concurrent list of the Constitution. In view of the lack of clarity about the actual custodian of information, the CIC directed the NRHM to explain why no information is held by them and who is the actual custodian of information in this case. Further, the CIC directed to transfer the RTI Application if not done already, with a copy marked to the Appellant.
Comments
This case highlights the confusion about the holder of information regarding an important scheme such as NRHM. The second appeal could have been avoided had the respective PIOs acted diligently as per the provisions of the RTI Act and provided the information available at their ends.
Citation: Shri G. Venkataramana v. PIO, Dist. Audit Officer, State Audit, PIO, Dist. Audit Officer, State Audit, and National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) in Second Appeal No. CIC/DIROA/A/2017/175616/MH&FW, Date of Decision: 18.03.2021

The appellant claimed that he was working as a carpenter at the Rashtriya Rifles Bn and was asked to perform fence sentry duty at night. He sought certain information about it including if duty can be assigned with those weapons for which training has not been imparted. The appellant claimed that though he had specifically requested that a reply be provided in Hindi, he was given a reply in English. The CIC directed to provide a Hindi version of the reply provided by the PIO. As the appellant had shown an inability in understanding any communication other than Hindi, the translated copy of the CIC order was also provided.
Comments
The RTI Act does not put an obligation to translate the available information. The applicant should be provided the information in the form it is maintained with the public authority.
Citation: Pankaj Kumar v. Rashtriya Rifles in File No CIC/IARMY/A/2019/117057 dated 17.03.202
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 submitted that in respect of his RTI application dated 24.10.2018, no information has been provided to him. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 26.08.2020, complete information was given to the appellant on his RTI application. The respondent further tendered his unconditional apology with respect to delay in giving reply to the appellant. The appellant stated that he has not received reply dated 26.08.2020 from the respondent and requested that the information should be sent on his e-mail ID to which the respondent agreed to. The CIC observed that there was a delay in giving complete information to the appellant on his RTI application. The CIC issued a strict warning to the respondent PIO to be careful in future and ensure that reply should be provided to the applicants within stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act. This warning of the CIC should be brought into the notice of the Controlling Authority of the then PIO. The General Manager, Hindustan Urvarak & Rasayan Limited, Dhanbad should look into the working of the RTI Cell, Sindhri and take appropriate steps in improving the same. The respondent was directed to again send a copy of their reply dated 26.08.2020 to the appellant through registered post and as well as on his e-mail ID as mentioned in the RTI application. The show-cause notice for imposing penalty was dropped.
Comments
As per section 20, a penalty of Rs 250/- has to be imposed on the PIO for each day of delay and the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the PIO. In this case, the PIO has not come up with any reasonable cause for delay in providing the information. However, the CIC has preferred to let him go without any justification which does not appear to be legally proper.
Citation: Shakti Chaurasiya v. Hindustan Urvarak & Rasayan Limited, Dhanbad in Second Appeal No. CIC/DFERT/A/2018/171012, Date of Decision: 25-01-2021
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 to know whether action has been taken for the complaint which has been lodged on Google Reviews by Mohit Sharma for G.B. Pant Hospital. He also sought to know whether the complaint lodged on public platform on Google reviews would be considered and the reason if it is not considered so. The CIC observed that the reply provided the PIO was vague and was prepared without application of mind. The CIC expressed displeasure on such a conduct of the PIO and warned him to remain extremely careful in future so that such lapses do not recur. The CIC observed that appropriate reply has not been provided to the Appellant and directed the PIO to provide a revised reply to the Appellant, free of cost, within 15 days of receipt of the order and send a compliance report of the same to the CIC.
Comments
The PIO should provide a specific reply to the appellant. This case throws up the interesting question whether complaints lodged on public platforms such as Google reviews would be considered and whether action should be initiated.
Citation: Mohit Sharma v. Office of the Medical Superintendent, G.B. Pant Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research-(GIPMER) in Second Appeal No.: CIC/GBPIT/A/2018/162506, Date of Decision: 29-01-2021
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

Proof of payment made by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. against certain invoices raised by Supreme Advertising Private Limited was sought. The information sought relates to Petrotech-2016. The information is not available with IOCL, as all the records pertaining to the event were handed over to Federation of Indian Petroleum Industries (FIPI) after closing of Petrotech-2016. The PIO informed the CIC that all the payments, as raised by M/s. Supreme Advertising Private Limited for the work executed during the period related to Petrotech-2016, have been paid and there are no dues left on this account. However, the copies of documentary evidences in this regard cannot be provided, as the same is not available with IOCL. The CIC observed that the appellant is seeking information in his individual capacity from the IOCL regarding M/s. Supreme Advertising Private Limited. The appellant is clearly seeking the commercial information which pertains to third party and the appellant is not the authorized representative of SAPL to whom the information can be disclosed. The appellant had raised grievance with respect to some dispute of payment with SAPL (which is not a public authority). The information sought is of commercial nature between IOCL and SAPL. Nonetheless, the respondent has given the factual information to the appellant inspite of being third party information. The Commission further held that the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) read with Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third party.
Comments
It is not clear from the order whether the Hon’ble CIC had tried to verify whether the appellant was a representative of M/s. Supreme Advertising Private Limited before denying the information under Section 8(1)(d) read with Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC has erred by not looking into the reasons why IOCL had already provided some information to the appellant despite being third party information. Further, the order does not mention who was supposed to hold the documents sought by the appellant, if at all they were to be retained.
Citation: Rohit Yajnik v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited in Second Appeal No. CIC/IOCLD/A/2019/118452, Date: 25-01-2021
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

An application was filed under the RTI Act by Shri Shankar Khalid, Director for Shivani Flexipack Ltd. seeking certified copies of E.R.1s electronically filed by them and related information. The CIC observed that there is nothing on record which shows that the RTI and second appeal has been filed by a ‘citizen’ as per Section 3 of the RTI Act and by the applicant. Information should have been sought by the same citizen in his individual capacity at the time of appeal. In the present case, the appellant has nowhere mentioned that he/she has sought information in his/her individual capacity but as legal entity. The appellant has also not proved his/her identity or given any of his identity proof to show that he/she was seeking information in second appeal in his/her individual capacity. The CIC held that the appellant is a company but not an individual and therefore, the RTI application/appeal of the appellant is not tenable as per Section 3 of the RTI Act.
Comments
As per the provisions of the RTI Act, only a citizen has the right to obtain information from a public authority and to file appeal. In many cases the CIC has held that if a verifiable name is there is an application, it is can be taken as an application filed by that individual who also happens to hold a position in a company.
Citation: Shivani Flexipack Ltd. v. CPIO, O/o. The Assistant Commissioner Central GST, Division-I, Satara in Second Appeal No. CIC/CCSTM/A/2019/104058, Date of Decision: 27.01.2021
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 the ITR details of his father Late Sh. Madan Lal. He admitted that he is not the sole heir of Late Sh. Madan Lal. The respondent contended that there is an ongoing dispute among the brothers of the appellant with regard to the sole heirship and accordingly, they have claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act for denying the ITR details. The CIC held that in the absence of any larger public interest in the matter, the appellant is not entitled to seek the ITR details of Late Sh. Madan Lal which is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Comments
Ordinarily, the legal heir is entitled to the information pertaining to the deceased. This case throws up a situation where there are multiple legal heirs and only one is seeking the information.
Citation: Kamal Aggarwal v. O/o the Income Tax Officer in Second Appeal Nos. CIC/CCITC/A/2018/155973 CIC/CCITC/A/2018/155918, CIC/CCITC/A/2018/155917, CIC/CCITC/A/2018/155916 & CIC/CCITC/A/2018/155914, Date of Decision: 22-01-2021
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 to know about the monthly salary paid to her husband. The PIO claimed that DRDO is an exempt organisation u/s 24(1) of the RTI Act and hence no information could be given. The CIC observed that the DRDO has been placed in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act vide notification No. GSR 347 dated 28/09/2005 by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-Section 2 of Section 24 of the RTI Act. In view of this, except for cases where human rights violation and/or corruption are alleged, nothing contained in RTI Act shall apply to the DRDO. As no case of human rights violation or corruption was made out by the Appellant, the CIC upheld the submissions of the PIO.
Comments
Section 4 (1)(b) (x) calls upon the Public Authorities to disclose the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees. However, Sec 24 (1) says that nothing contained in the RTI Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule. Hence, even the information which is required to be pro-actively disclosed under the RTI Act cannot be sought in respect of organisations listed in the second schedule.
Citation: Sarika v. DRDO, RTI Cell, Defence Material & Stores Research and Development Establishment in File no.: CIC/DRADO/A/2019/104760, Date of Decision: 28/01/2021
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