RTI Corner

The appellant filed an application with the UGC and sought to know about the total number of candidate(s) who have taken admission in a particular session of the Jagan Nath University. The PIO, UGC transferred the RTI application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to The Registrar Jagan Nath University, for providing information directly to the appellant. The CIC observed that the transfer of the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act by PIO, UGC to Registrar Jagan Nath University mindlessly without ascertaining the status of the said University vis-à-vis Section 2(h) of the RTI Act was not appropriate. The CIC emphasized that the Appellant had sought for the information from a public authority and not from the Jagan Nath University which is very well as per the letters and spirit of the RTI Act. The PIO, UGC was directed by CIC to provide a statement indicating the total number of candidate(s) who have taken admission in the averred session of the University. The CIC directed the Chairman, UGC to ensure that only officers equivalent to the rank of the PIO are designated to represent the cases before the Commission in future.
Comments
In case the PIO is not able to attend the hearing before the CIC, an officer of the equivalent rank who is well versed with the issue, should be nominated to attend the hearing.
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 a copy of a Board meeting and related information. During the hearing before the CIC, the PIO submitted that a suitable reply was given on 06.05.2021. He further submitted that the applicant has filed writ petition no. CWP 1825 of 2020 and he has already filed the documents along-with the writ petition. The Cantonment Board also filed the reply with all documents before the Hon’ble High Court and also submitted all the documents which are related under the RTI Act. The CIC took serious note of the unnecessary delay in providing the reply. The CIC observed that the purpose of the Act gets defeated if a citizen has to wait for the second appeal hearing to get a reply from the PIO. Moreover, the reply dated 06.05.2021 was also not available on record. The PIO was issued a strict warning for not providing a reply on time. Further, he was cautioned to be careful in future and send written submissions to the Commission in advance of the hearing.
Comments
The PIO should provide a reply to the RTI applicant within the timeline prescribed under the RTI Act. In this case, the PIO if the Cantonment Board was cautioned to exercise due care in future to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 shall be initiated. A PIO must exercise due caution to prevent such caustic remarks being passed against him.
Citation: Sanjay v. Chief Executive Officer Office of the Cantonment Board 229 Race Course Road, Ambala Cantt in File no.: - CIC/IARMY/A/2019/129849, Date of Decision: 12/05/2021
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 submitted that he had filed written submissions at CIC in respect of his second appeal No. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/120059 on 23/07/2018. In this connection, he sought a certified copy of the said written submissions. The appellant submitted that certified copy means, stamp has to be affixed and designated officer has to sign the document and give it. He admitted that the Commission cannot certify a document not generated by them but was concerned that his written submissions was not received at the time of decision. The PIO submitted that the written submissions dated 23.07.2018 of the appellant were available on record at pages 50-97 of the PDF file no. CIC/SBIND/A/2017/120059. The PIO replied that there is no provision for providing certified copy of the documents provided by the appellant to the appellant himself. The CIC upheld the order of the PIO.
Comments
The information generated by the applicant is not held by the PIO. Being the originator of the information, the applicant is the holder of the information. This view has been upheld by the Madras High Court in W.P no. 26781 of 2013.
Citation: Prakash Ishwarbhai Patel v. RTI Cell, Central Information Commission in File No.: - CIC/CICOM/A/2019/116199, Date of Decision: 23/04/2021
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 regarding deployment of army men to other country (UN & Bhutan) for specific mission like the certified copy of the instructions on the basis of which unit sends its army men to other country, the number of times the army men employees have been deployed to other country since January 2005, the list of Army men who were sent to other country, the criteria fixed for selection of Army men etc. The reply was delayed and not proper. The CIC held that the RTI application was handled very badly and it shows that the RTI matters are being handled in a very negligent manner. The CIC expressed its extreme displeasure at the conduct of the respondent organisation as a whole for showing such laxity while handling the RTI applications and the correspondence related to it and to the then CPIO for being negligent in handling the RTI application. The CIC directed that the Bombay Engineering Group & Centre, Kirkee office needs to evolve a system to ensure proper receipt & dispatch of the RTI correspondence by the CPIOs/Deemed PIOs/FAAs and maintain a proper record of every RTI application received and replied to by the organisation.
Comments
For timely discharge of duties mandated under the RTI Act, the dak management system of the public authority should be proper. All public authorities should maintain a proper record of each and every RTI application received in the organisation, to whom it is marked for action to prevent misplacement and mishandling of RTI correspondence. If an organisation needs to organise training programmes for the CPIOs and the deemed PIOs to familiarize them with the provisions of the RTI Act, they should contact proper trainers so that mistakes do not happen.
Citation: Gurmeet Singh v. Bombay Engineering Group & Centre, Kirkee in File no.: - CIC/IARMY/A/2019/111340, Date of Decision: 04/03/2021, 26/03/2021, 23/04/2021
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

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