RTI Corner

The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking information related to E-FIR regarding a cyber-fraud such as action on the FIR, as per the Citizens Charter, in how many days should HE expect reply on above FIR, the reasons under Sec 4 (1) (d) of the RTI Act for the delay, whether the above FIR contents are found frivolous etc. The appellant submitted before the CIC that the information provided was not clear and satisfactory. If the FIR in question was untraceable then it implies that there is laxity on the part of the organisation/ personnel involved and action should be taken against the erring official (s). The ACP tendered his apology for the ambiguity caused by the PIO’s response and clarified that while mentioning that the E FIR is untraced, the SHO, Sultanpuri implied that the accused are not traceable. The CIC observed that the RTI application has not been attended appropriately as the point wise reply of the SHO, Sultanpuri was poorly drafted causing ambiguity for the Appellant. Therefore, the CIC directed the PIO to provide a clear and cogent point wise reply with the updated factual position to the Appellant by 15.01.2024 under intimation to the Commission.
Comments
Readers would have noted the use of section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act by the appellant to seek the reasons for the delay. A PIO should be careful while sending a reply to ensure an unambiguous reply.
Citation: Ms. Shikha Sharma v. Delhi Police, CIC/DEPOL/A/2022/125152; Date of Decision: 13.12.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The Appellant sought Action Taken Report with corroborative photographs in respect of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Special Task Force (STF) complaint 2020031440075. He said that the RTI Application pertains to the removal of illegal construction and encroachment on roof terrace by his neighbour. The STF was constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for removing the unauthorized construction, and in this particular case no action has been taken by DDA despite many complaints over three to four years. The appellant claimed dereliction of duty on the part of the concerned STF officials, as they have chosen to hide and to provide misleading information. The PIO explained that the complaint was forwarded to the concerned official which is SDMC, who have further booked the said unauthorised construction for removing the said encroachment. He further stated that STF meetings are conducted in every 15 days and this particular matter was taken up after which they have also provided the Action Taken Report to the Appellant. He informed that they are only authorized to direct the SDMC and they are not responsible for removing the encroachment. The appellant replied that an undated ATR has been furnished to him many a times which is of no value. Moreover, the SDMC is not following the directions of the STF, and cannot get away with accountability as well as responsibility by stating that they had forwarded it to some other department. He raised the concern that if the SDMC is not implementing the directions of STF as per directives of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, some actions should be taken against them but no such initiative has been taken even by the STF, which indicates that they are working hand in glove. The CIC directed the CPIO to re-examine the RTI application and furnish correct and detailed information to the Appellant. Further, the CIC observed that unauthorized construction poses a grave threat to both individuals and communities. Therefore, the CIC advised the Principal Commissioner (Housing) DDA, to consider the case of the Appellant in the backdrop of the above facts and take corrective action, if required.
Comments
The RTI Act, 2005 has been used by many applicants to enforce the rule of law. If an authority is not taking action as prescribed under law, the Act may be used to force it to take required action.
Citation: Captain P. J. Ashish v. Delhi Development Authority, CIC/DDATY/A/2023/610212-UM; Date of Decision: 06.11.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Appellant sought copy of nomination form E2 and F2 allegedly executed by her late father with Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited raising concerns regarding the authenticity of a document, executed by her late father. The said document is crucial for the reconstitution of an LPG distributorship associated with BPCL. The respondent stated that the requested information could not be disclosed under the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that the appellant is the daughter and heir of the late Shri Bharatkumar Mohanlal Suchak and has been unwittingly included in the indemnity clause of Annexure E2, which was supposedly executed by her late father. Holding that this clause effectively makes her a party to the document, the CIC directed that she is not considered as third party, and is entitled to request and receive a copy of the same.
Comments
The RTI Act has often been used by individuals in commercial disputes to obtain certain information to build a case. The applicant has to show either the information is not personal or has to establish that there is larger public interest in disclosure.
Citation: Ms. Sharmila Bharatkumar Suchak v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, CIC/BPCLD/A/2022/117952 –UM; Date of Decision: 02.11.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The reimbursement of appellant’s cataract surgery raised with Insurers was restricted to Rs. 30,000 by TPA. The appellant submitted that he is entitled to Rs 50,000/- i.e. 10% of sum insured but the insurers restricted as per GIPSA whereas no such restriction was in the policy and also the insurers failed to share complete details of GIPSA which apparently had lenses of lower specifications than the ones actually installed by the doctor in the surgery. The CIC observed that the Appellant's claim of entitlement to Rs. 50,000 for the cataract surgery as per their insurance policy is a significant matter that deserves immediate attention. Further, it is essential to recognize the larger public interest in this matter. The transparency and accuracy of information related to medical insurance claims and expenses are of great concern to the general public. In an age where healthcare costs are rising, individuals rely on their insurance policies for financial support during medical procedures. The lack of transparency and potential discrepancies in the process can significantly affect public trust in the insurance system. The CIC directed the PIO of United India Insurance Company Limited to furnish the requested information including a detailed breakdown of the medical expenses incurred during the cataract surgery, along with all relevant documents and justifications for the decisions made, free of cost, to the appellant.
Comments This order would pave the way for the transparency in the processing of the insurance claims. Hopefully, the insurers would provide the detailed breakdown to the
Citation: Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., CIC/UIICL/A/2023/632292-UM; Date of Decision: 01.11.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Tax details and GST returns of more than a dozen entities sought by the applicant was denied claiming that it is Third Party Information, and cannot be provided being confidential. The applicant made allegations of tax evasion against all the entities in her RTI Application. The respondent PIO was not present during the hearing. The CIC observed that it is not inclined to adversely question the absence of the Respondent PIO during the hearing in the matter as the facts on record suggest that the case is not filed only against the said PIO but also against multiple other PIOs designated in separate public authorities. Yet, for the record, the Respondent PIO was directed to send a proper written explanation stating the reason for their absence during the hearing without intimating any reasons thereof. The CIC held that the Appellant has far stretched her apprehensions and is merely expressing conjecture against the tax liability of the averred entities. The CIC ruled that the strength of the material on record does not suggest any larger public interest in the disclosure of the personal information as well as information bearing commercial confidence of the third parties, rather the underlying premise of the instant RTI Application and the Appeal has an apparent substance of personal dispute. The appeal was rejected.
CommentsThe details regarding the tax returns and payment are personal information of the individual of commercial confidence. The applicant has to establish larger public interest to seek such information.
Citation: Vinita Nareeshkuamr Biyani v. Asstt. Commissioner CGST Service Tax Div IV, CIC/DGSTX/A/2022/159699; Date of Decision: 18/10/2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. 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 about the steps taken on the certain communications issued by Department of Food of Ministry of Consumer Affairs of Central Government by the Delhi Government. He asked for information regarding the number of new ration card applications pending as on 31/10/2022. He submitted that there are almost 11 lacs new ration card applications pending before the government. And as per the records of September and November, 2021 provided by the central government to the Delhi government it was revealed that almost 5.5 lac ration card holders have duplicate ration cards and 3 lacs of the ration card holders are already deceased whose names are enlisted in the ration card list. Therefore the appellant requested the CIC to direct the respondent authority to provide the complete and detailed information for the benefit of the society. The CIC advised the Chief Minister of Delhi to take appropriate and strict action on the concerned authorities in order to prevent the resource of government going into vain and not letting the needy people avail the benefit of the ration card issued by the government for the weaker sections of the society. Additionally, the CIC advised the Chief Minister to complete the exercise of removing these approx. 8.40 lakh names without delay so that almost 80 percent of the needy people on the ration card list are accommodated and are able to ease their burden of living.
Comments The RTI Act has been used to obtain information which can be utilised for removing inefficiencies in the system. The Public Distribution System is in dire need for improvements to weed out Bogus and duplicate ration cards so that the benefits percolate down to the actual needy persons.
Citation: Mr. Aakash Goel v. Department of Food & Supplies and Consumers Affairs, CIC/FSACA/A/2023/602410-UM Date of Decision: 20.10.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Authors: Dr. R.K. Verma & Dr. Anuradha Verma
Edition: 2nd Edition; 2023
No. of pages: 912
Publisher: M/s Taxmann
Price: INR 2595 / USD 68
ISBN No. 978-93-5778-529-7
Hardbound
The second edition of the “PIO’s Guide to RTI” has been published by M/s Taxmann in October 2023. The first edition came in 2011 and the next edition was much awaited.
The book is essentially a subject wise compilation of the operative part of the CIC orders and judgments of Courts interspersed with explanations of terms and concepts. The listing of content is very detailed and covers 29 pages, which makes it effortless to search for a case law which the reader desires. The plethora of case laws makes the work of the PIO simple to provide information by referring to a similar case law. The minutest of the issue under the RTI Act which one could fathom has been duly covered in the book. The authors have been successful in maintaining the balance between using common language which makes the reader friendly, while retaining the legal aspects of the Act.
The chapter on section 4 is all-encompassing which would enable the public authorities to understand the concepts of pro- active disclosure, duties of nodal officer, third party audit etc. in depth. The specific guidelines in the book would be helpful to the public authorities in the fulfillment of their duties.
The advocates and RTI activists would also find the book interesting for the deep knowledge it offers.
From the publisher’s side, the printing and paper quality is first-rate.
Overall, it is a must have book for all the Public Information Officers and the First Appellate Authorities.
Pros: Extensive case laws, Excellent division into headings, Elaborate examples and tips for PIO/FAA to avoid penalty, Misuse of RTI and ways to deal with it
Cons: Thick, On the costlier side
Disclaimer: The co-author, Dr Anuradha Verma, is a weekly columnist of this site, bringing out the column “DATE WITH RTI” since 2008.

The appellant sought to know whether DDA has any plans for in-situ rehabilitation of families residing at Rangpuri Pahari Malikpur Kohi. If yes, the details of decision, copy of the scheme and other relevant information to be provided. The PIO referred to the in Situ Rehabilitation Policy and advised the application to visit the DDA site. Deliberations between the parties indicated that the response provided by the Respondent is unsatisfactory and generic and fails to address the specific query raised by the Appellant. The CIC directed that a revised reply should be sent clearly stating whether there is any scheme for in-situ rehabilitation of families residing at Rangpuri Pahari Malikpur Kohi or not. Further, an explanation of the PIO was called as to why no penal action should be initiated for the violation of the express provisions of the RTI Act.
Comments
In many cases, the CIC has preferred not to order for disclosure of information on the ground that interrogative questions not beyond the scope of RTI Act. This case law shows that under the RTI Act the PIO must provide specific information failing which he may be liable for imposition of penalty.
Citation:Samay Singh and Ors. v. DDA, CIC/DDATY/A/2022/652023; Date of Decision
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

An application was filed seeking the name of the CPIO and FAA at Central Bureau of Investigation, provisions of law about nondisclosure of name of the CPIO and FAA while disposing of application/ Appeal and related information. The PIO replied that the CBI has been put at Sl. No. 23 of the Second Schedule to RTI Act, 2005, subject to the provisions of Section 24 of the Act. The CIC observed that as the instant RTI Application and Appeal(s) have been filed collectively by two persons, the Appeal is not maintainable. The CIC ruled that since the instant RTI Application is not filed as per the laid down provisions, the appeal(s) are treated as infructuous.
Comments
The order of the CIC is contrary to the decision of another bench of the CIC. In the case of Samir Kumar Haldar v. Employees Provident Fund Organization, Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001429 decision dated 16 July 2010, it was held that there is nothing in the law or the rules preventing more than one citizen from submitting the RTI application. The CIC was hearing an appeal against the order of the FAA which held that it is not proper to disclose the information sought jointly. The CIC should have acted as per judicial discipline and the matter ought to have been referred to a larger bench if there was a contrary view.
Citation: Mr GV Malwad and Mr VN Malwad v. CBI Policy Division, CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/654255 + CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/643367; Date of Decision: 20/09/2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Copy of a CAT order was denied under the RTI Act, 2005 advising the applicant to apply for obtaining copies of judgments/documents etc. of a particular case after providing the complete details of case as provided under Chapter XVIII of C.A.T. Rules of Practice, 1993. The CPIO & FAA relied on a division bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat, CA No(s).1966-1967 of 2020 dated 04.03.2020. The CIC referred to Apex Court judgment dated 11.04.2019 passed by a Division Bench in the matter of Institute of Company Secretaries of India v. Paras Jain, CA No. 5665 of 2014 wherein it was held that the existence of two avenues is not mutually exclusive and it is up to the candidate to choose either of the routes. Thus, if a candidate seeks information under the provisions of the Right to Information, then payment has to be sought under the Rules therein, however, if the information is sought under the Guidelines of the appellant, then the appellant is at liberty to charge the candidates as per its guidelines.
Comments There is confusion on account of varying stands taken on the issue by different benches whether judicial orders should be provided under RTI Act if there is an alternative procedure prescribed under any other rules. The alternate procedure might be lengthier, complex or costly and hence, it should be left to the individual to choose the one which he wishes to use. Till a final word emerges, the confusion unfortunately, is likely to continue.
Citation: Girish Damodar Gole v. Central Administrative Tribunal, CIC/CADMT/A/2022/666640; Date of Decision: 20.09.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Certified copies of the bills raised by the counsels in a petition before the High Court, Name and designation of the officials who approved the counsel fees and related file notings were sought. The respondent bank denied the information on the ground of sub-judice. The CIC observed that more than two years have elapsed and information sought was not provided to the appellant. The then CPIO and present CPIO were show caused as to why penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the information. In spite of the orders of the CIC dated 25.05.2022 and 13.09.2022, the respondent had failed to provide the information as directed. It was informed that the bank had challenged the order dated 13.09.2022 of the CIC. The CIC mention that challenging the order may not be legal ground to circumvent the orders of the Commission. The CIC imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000- (Rupees Ten Thousand) on Shri Anand Joshi, the CPIO.
Comments Just because the case is sub-judice, information cannot be denied to an applicant.
Citation: Durgesh Kuwar v. Punjab & Sind Bank, CIC/PASBK/A/2019/160744; 05.09.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com

Information with respect to the Loan/Mortgage loan/Credit facilities sanctioned to M/s Om Sokhal Builders and Construction Pvt. Ltd including its directors, their spouses, etc. was denied by UCO Bank under section 8 (1) (e) and (j). The appellant argued that they were the buyers and there had been multiple loans on the same property by the builders, their relatives and the directors. The CIC noted that buyers, including the appellant, had booked a flat and because of the apparent malfeasance which had taken place advertently or inadvertently exhibiting lack of due diligence while financing the project as a whole or to the related parties or group industries. The appellant being buyer of one of the flats was not stranger to the subject matter. The CIC observed that the objective of the RTI is to bring transparency and accountability in the functioning of the public authorities. The whole episode had raised doubts on the propriety of the public authority i.e. bank in financing the project. It was also brought on record that there were criminal cases and civil cases pending investigation or final judicial pronouncements. The appellant has only sought information which was in the custody of the public authority and as the affected party, he has a right to the information sought. Public interest demanded that the same may be made available as sought by the appellant for bringing transparency and accountability, as the final rights and obligations will be decided by the respected courts or other authorities. The CIC directed to provide the information.
Comments
It is not uncommon to come across cases where a builder has taken suspicious loans or a bank has granted loans which are being investigated. It is the common buyer who is forced to suffer in silence.
Citation: Radhika Sharma v. UCO Bank, CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/602682, &CIC/UCOBK/A/2022/602617; 05.09.2023
Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com