RTI Corner

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

Information in connection with the National Iodine Deficiency Disorders Control Programme was sought. The PIO submitted that in all the RTI applications where the appellant was directed to pay the requisite photocopying charges, he has never paid the same on the pretext that he is facing some problem while paying the additional photocopying charges through online mode, despite the fact that the First Appellate Authority had properly guided the appellant in a step-wise manner as to how the charges are to be paid. This shows that the appellant is misusing the RTI Act and is not serious about obtaining the information sought. The CIC took note of the fact that in 7 other cases against the same respondent, the appellant has raised the issue regarding online payment of the photocopying charges. The CIC observed that the appellant is himself non-serious about the RTI applications filed by him. Further, the bonafides of the respondent organisation can be established from the fact that in each of the RTI applications, the PIO has never denied any information. In the interest of justice, the CIC directed the PIO to explain in writing the modes of payment other than the online RTI portal so that appellant can pay the requisite charges.
Comments
It is not mandatory for any applicant to pay the additional charges through online mode only and an appellant can opt for any other option for making the payment like IPO, DD etc., rather than waiting for the Information Commission to give any relief. Multiple RTI applications where the queries are also not specific and which are often not covered under the definition of information under Section 2(f) lead to obstruction of the flow of information with respect to other applicants and defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act.
Citation: Rajesh Nagar v. Salt Commissioner, Directorate General of Health Services and Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade in Decision no.: CIC/SALTC/A/2019/139973/03502, Date of Decision: 18/05/2020
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 why the Punjab National Bank (PNB) returned a particular cheque unpaid with a reason insufficient funds. The CIC observed that the respondent has shown callous and unprofessional attitude both while representing during the hearing as well as dealing the RTI application. The CIC held that the respondent may not evade their responsibility as a public authority on the pretext of relocation of their office in addition to the lapse of over two years. A show cause notice was issued to the PIOs to show cause as to why penalty under provisions of section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not responding to the RTI application within the prescribed time limit.
Comments
It is the duty of the PIO to maintain a professional behaviour and follow the provisions of the RTI Act. Relocation of the Office cannot be used as a ground for denial of information.
Citation: Lopamudra Chatterjee v. Punjab National Bank in Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2018/130662, Date of order: 12.05.2020
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