RTI Corner

The PIO denied information sought by the appellant claiming that it relates to internal communication of the Bank and is confidential in nature. Further, no larger public interest is involved in the matter and the information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Before the CIC, it was submitted that the appellant has filed multiple RTI applications and First Appeals and the same have been disposed of within stipulated time frame. It was informed that RTI applications of the appellant are an offshoot of a family dispute between him and his relative (being one of their staff) and the respondent authority is being dragged to such a personal dispute, which is a clear abuse of the provisions of RTI Act. The respondent claimed that in addition to filing numerous RTI applications and complaints, the appellant had also been harassing the officials of our Zone by repeated calls and personal visits to the Branch/Zone. The Appellant has filed numerous complaints against the CPIO, First Appellate Authority of Ujjain Zone and even against the CPIO and First Appellate Authority of Head Office for exercising their functions under the RTI Act. The officials including the CPIOs are under threat of constant attack from the RTI Applicant for no fault of theirs. Malicious attacks are made on CPIOs through lengthy RTI Applications and Appeals. It was also submitted that the appellant's second appeal was dismissed by the CIC vide order dated 20.09.2024 in No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/128876 and order dated 28.11.2024 in No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2023/141282. The CIC noted that the reply given by the PIO is evasive and misleading. The CPIO, without applying his mind, has simply denied the information as it pertains to their internal communication and most importantly, the CPIO has not specified any of the exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the above-mentioned points and furnish a revised reply to the appellant, specifying the correct exemptions clauses or sub-clauses. Regarding the submission of the respondents of multiple RTI applications being filed by the appellant, the CIC observed that the said concern can be taken up in an appropriate matter in the future for want of any similar pattern of cases as well as in the absence of any specific reference of the number of RTI applications filed with the respondent.
Comments
A PIO must know the clauses of the RTI Act thoroughly and the denial of information should be only as per section 8 or section 9.
Citation: Premchand Bangaria v. Bank of India, Mumbai, CIC/BKOIN/A/2024/116770; Date of Decision: 05.03.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant had filed an application in respect of rebate on House Building advance to him which was kept in abeyance since July 2017. He sought to know why the rebate was not granted by respected Regional Director of Education and the current status of his case. The PIO informed that the file regarding House Building Advance was returned to the Office of DDE (HQ). The CIC noted that information sought was not provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. The CIC observed that the custodian of information i.e. PIO, Directorate of Education (HQ), did not appear before the Commission despite knowing the fact that the matter pertained to them and notices were issued to them. Thus, prima facie it appears that the information sought was deliberately withhold by the PIO, Directorate of Education (HQ), New Delhi. The CIC issued show caused to Shri Rajesh Joshi (DDE), HQ, /present PIO and Shri Devender Mohan, PIO (Zone-18), District West -B, to explain as to why maximum penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the information to the appellant and also why compensation equal to the amount involved in the case should be awarded to the appellant. Both the PIOs were directed to submit their written explanations and also appear on the next date of hearing.
Comments
All PIO’s should keep a special track of files under submission if the information sought pertains to such files as it might be difficult to pinpoint as to who is the holder of information. Whenever a case is coming up for hearing, the PIO should invariably attend the hearing or seek specific exemption citing the reasons.
Citation: Yatendra Pal v. Directorate of Education, CIC/DIRED/A/2023/650684; Date of Decision: 20.02.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

While hearing the second appeal, the CIC observed that in many similar cases in the recent past, it has been noticed that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated CPIO’s and FAA’s, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID’s. An advisory was issued under section 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Additional Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority’s office and issue a direction to their PIO’s and FAA’s to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeals in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act. It was also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances.
Comments
Vide Office Memorandum Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, dated 06.10.2015, the Department of Personnel and Training, had directed that the reply should contain the name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO. Further, the name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned in case of the first appeal. All public authorities should ensure compliance of the above instructions.
Citation: Devanshi Jay Kothari v. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of GST & CX, Division V, Jamshedpur, CIC/CCESR/A/2023/143990; Date of Decision : 20.02.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The applicant submitted that after serving the chargesheet to certain officials, nothing has been beard so far and it is not known as to what happened to the chargesheets. He sought to know whether some major or minor penalty has been imposed or not and whether the embezzled amount in connivance with each other and on account of serious lapse on their part the loss caused to the State exchequer has been recovered. The PIO replied that the charge-sheet, disciplinary proceedings, professional records etc. are all personal information exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. The appellant appealed claiming that it related to a massive scam and records have been sought for in larger public interest. Upon being asked by the CIC as to whether the appellant was the informer/complainant based on which action initiated against the delinquent officials, he answered in negative. Considering the issue flagged by the appellant and in the light of larger public interest and a natural public expectations to know the broad outcome of a case which was in the public domain, the Respondent was directed by the CIC to inform the broad outcome of the final order passed on the chargesheet issued to the officials as also the final outcome of departmental disciplinary appeal as mentioned in the RTI application.
Comments
The copy of chargesheet and its outcome has often been sought by applicants. It has been debated whether it is a personal information and whether the same should be made available to the complainant or any other person.
Citation: Ram Lal Arora v. Executive Engineer (HQ), O/o Chief Engineer, Chandigarh Administration, CIC/ENGDP/A/2024/611452; Date of Decision: 14.01.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The RTI applicant had applied online on the Parivahan website (parivahan.gov.in) for issuing an NOC. On not getting a response, he filed an application under the RTI Act requesting to provide two duly stamped hardcopies of the NOC through post. The PIO replied that the NOC is approved today and the applicant can download the NOC from the website. The CIC observed that the appropriate reply has been furnished by the PIO. Noting that the PIO had abstained from the hearing despite being served the notice, the CIC admonished the conduct of the CPIO for remaining absent during the hearing.
Comments
It is a typical case where a citizen has used the power of RTI Act to make a government official perform a specific function beyond seeking information.
Citation :Keshav Khanna v. Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh, CIC/STAUT/A/2023/649724; Date of Decision: 14.01.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The RTI applicant alleged that the registered scrap dealer in association with the ASI of the Transport Department, Delhi, instead of sending the vehicle to the registered scrapping yard, opens it at another location and sells its parts. He stated that this information can be verified through the CCTV footage of the registered pang yard. After the vehicle is picked up by the Transport Department's team, it is checked whether the vehicle has gone to the registered pang yard at the given address or been sent elsewhere. After a few days, the owner receives messages regarding the registration and related payment on the provided phone number. The applicant sought certain information relating to the same. The CIC held that the instant RTI application has not been adequately answered and directed the PIO to revisit the contents of RTI application and provide revised information. The CIC issued an advisory under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Transport Department, GNCTD, for (i) amending the concerned Rules to incorporate the provisions for inspection of seized end-of-life vehicles to its owner; and (ii) upfront disclosure of information regarding Rules, Bye laws, SoP, Guidelines, Office Orders governing RVSFs (Registered Vehicle Scrapping Facilities) under Section 4 of the RTI Act in public domain, to make it easy for a layperson particularly vehicle owners to get relevant information through website.
Comments
The Transport Department has ordered the registered dealer to retain the engine number and chassis number by cutting and preserving them. The guidelines for releasing end of life vehicle (ELV) seized as part of enforcement drive should be put in public domain. If section 4 of the RTI Act is implemented fully, it would relieve the Public Authority of the burden of RTI Applications.
Citation :V Singh v. Transport Department, Delhi, CIC/TDDEL/A/2023/649458; Date of Decision: 16.01.2025
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

A complaint dated 17.12.2024 for non-compliance of CIC’s order dated 22.07.2024 was heard by the CIC. In the order dated 22.07.2024, the CIC had admonished the casual conduct of Mr. RP Yadav, Supt.-cum PIO, Social Welfare (South), GNCTD, Delhi and had directed to revisit the RTI Application and provide a revised reply. The CIC noted that there is a substantial delay in compliance with the order and the respondent failed to explain the reasons for the delay. The CIC referred to the criteria for processing or sanctioning of the application, under the Financial Assistance to Persons with Special Needs (popularly known as Disability Pension). The CIC noted that Ms. Madhu (Appellant’s niece) is a physically challenged person; an orphan; a member of scheduled caste; a girl child; unmarried who cannot carry out her daily activities without assistance; and has no independent means of livelihood. The CIC observed that “The extraordinary circumstances and adverse conditions faced by Ms. Madhu establish her as the weakest of the weak and poorest of the poor, being the most deprived citizen whose case deserved extra sensitivity, and it certainly could not have been dealt with in an ordinary manner by the respondent public authority in the department of Social Welfare. The appellant, being her aunt, is the only support Ms. Madhu has”. For the loss, harassment and detriment suffered by her, the Department of Social Welfare was directed by the CIC to pay a compensation of Rs. 92,000/- to the appellant within a week.
Comments
In this case, the application for compensation of Disability Pension to Ms. Madhu was forwarded to the Deputy Director (FAS), New Delhi and was pending on the date of hearing. The case was dealt with in a very casual and insensitive manner as per the CIC and the action was condemned. The CIC observed in the order that the insensitivity as established based on the records is appalling to put it most euphemistically.
Citation: Ms. Devki v. Supdt. (South), Department of Social Welfare, New Delhi, CIC/DSWGD/A/2023/119725; Order dated 14.01.2025
Citation: Piyush Sharma v. O/o the Executive Engineer (E), PWD, New Delhi, File No: CIC/PWDDL/A/2023/132711; Date of Decision : 29.10.2024
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought information about installation of Digital Programmable Water Fountain with RGB Lights and other related information. Before the CIC, the appellant contended that the PWD has not informed the amount of photocopy charges which is to be deposited to obtain the information. The CIC observed that it is a serious lacuna on the part of the Respondent in giving incomplete information to the Appellant. Not informing the exact amount of photocopy charges and the process for depositing the same amounts to obstruction of information on the part of the Respondent under the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PWD to be cautious in future and ensure that such lapses do not recur. The CIC further noted that the first appeal of the Appellant was duly received in the office of the Public Authority and directed the Respondent to be careful and sure while making any submissions before the CIC. The CIC directed to inform the exact number of pages which is to be given under the RTI Act along with total amount and mode by which the same is to be deposited by the Appellant. The Respondent was directed to provide information to the Appellant within a week from the date of receipt of payment. The FAA was further directed to ensure compliance of the order.
Comments
The PIO must be cautious and inform the applicant about the quantum of fee to be paid along with the details of calculation how the amount has been arrived at. In this case, the CIC could have taken resort to Section 7(6) of the RTI Act to order providing the information free of cost to the applicant due to the delay. Section 7(6) reads, ‘Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits.
Citation: Piyush Sharma v. O/o the Executive Engineer (E), PWD, New Delhi, File No: CIC/PWDDL/A/2023/132711; Date of Decision : 29.10.2024
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought the cut-off for Environmental Sciences in the context of certain selection. The PIO denied the information claiming that it is spread over many files and not specific too. Providing such information will require huge effort in creation/compliance and therefore, it is not possible to provide the information. Before the CIC, the PIO submitted that NTA is a relatively new body and the delay in replying to the RTI Application is also attributable to the time taken in setting up the RTI mechanism. The CIC observed that the PIO has tendered a baffling submission about the RTI machinery being still under process in NTA even in the year 2023. The NTA formed in the year 2017 cannot as a public authority under the RTI Act claim that it entailed over 5 years for the implementation of the RTI Act in NTA. The CIC directed that a copy of this order be marked to the Director General, NTA to take note of the adverse observations in this regard. The Director General, NTA was directed to take necessary corrective action to ensure that the PIOs and FAAs are instructed strictly to adhere to time stipulations prescribed under the RTI Act and at no point in time will the post of PIO or FAA be left vacant. The PIO was directed to revisit and provide a proper reply to the RTI Application incorporating the available cut-of marks or categorically state the unavailability thereof free of cost. The PIO was strictly warned to ensure in future that any document that is placed on the record of the CIC should be accompanied with a proper covering letter as the CIC cannot be expected to decipher the relevancy of the documents sought to be relied upon by the PIO without any reference or explanation.
Comments
If a public authority has pending RTI Applications and First Appeal(s) without a mechanism to deal with them, it would be a mockery of the statutory right to information enshrined upon the citizens. All pubic authorities must take steps as required under the RTI Act to ensure such strictures are not passed against it.
Citation: Avik Paul v. National Testing Agency, Second Appeal No. CIC/NTAGN/A/2023/625942; Date of Decision: 04.11.2024
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com