welcome to Timely Response | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
1	CIC/IARMY/A/2018/145768 (175.69 KB)	28 Jan, 2020	Narendra Kumar Gupta vs Military Engineer Services, Information sought: The Appellant sought information through 3 points pertaining to amount of purchase from the GeM, Government of India portal in the FY 2017-18; total quotations by open bid carried out in FY 2017-18 and supply order placed in CWE, Pathankot and total quotations have been carried out in FY 2017-18 by closed quotations. Decision: Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing expresses serious displeasure over the conduct of the CPIO in seeking identity proof of the Appellant to prove his antecedents and not providing any reply to the Appellant within the stipulated timeframe specified in the RTI Act. Commission further observes that upon receiving hearing notice of the instant Second Appeal, PIO has provided available information to the Appellant. However, to allay the apprehensions of the Appellant, Commission directs the CPIO to file an appropriate affidavit stating that no open quotations has been issued in the FY 2017-18 and no supply order has been placed in the aforesaid open quotation. The said affidavit should be sent to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant. The aforesaid directions should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
2	CIC/NCCLD/A/2018/622801 (626.05 KB)	22 Nov, 2019	Md. Riyaz Alam Vs. CPIO, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Jharkhand Information Sought The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Jharkhand seeking information on ten points pertaining to the provisions for rehabilitation and compensation for population residing in mining area including, inter-alia, (i) provisions for compensation for dependents of the deceased who lose their lives due to landslides/cave-in due to coal fire, (ii) provisions for subsiding environment degradation caused by coal mining, etc and (iii) details of the minimum distance between proposed coal mines and populated areas to be adhered to while new coal mines are started. Decision The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that due information has been provided to the appellant but after a considerable delay. The Commission notes that the online RTI application was left unattended as the respondent authority was not familiar with the online portal till 10.01.2019. The Commission, however, notes that though the RTI application was received in March 2018, complete reply was not furnished till 31.10.2019 despite the order of the FAA dated 10.05.2019. He Commission takes an adverse view of the inaction on the part of the CPIO, BCCL, Dhanbad in not providing the information sought for within the stipulated time, thereby, deliberately delaying furnishing of information to the appellant. It is expected that the CPIO, on receipt of a request, shall as expeditiously as possible provide the information sought for by the applicant. In this case, the CPIO did not discharge his responsibility properly. The Commission, therefore, would like to counsel the CPIO, BCCL, Dhanbad to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur and that the provisions of the RTI Act are implemented in letter and spirit.
3	CIC/CANBK/A/2018/110832 (158.01 KB)	14 Nov, 2019	Tarapada Jana Vs. CPIO: Canara Bank, Circle Office, 21, Camac Street, Kolkata. Information Sought The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 12.02.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 24.11.2017 and first appeal dated 11.12.2017:- The appellant was an employee of the bank posted at Kolkata. He applied for the promotion process which was held in terms of Canara Bank Office Memo Sub.: Promotion from sub staff to Clerical Cadre for the year 2017. He sought following information in respect of the interview held:- (i) How much marks obtained by the appellant in knowledge out of 10? (ii) How much marks obtained by him in transcription [assessment of ability to write vernacular/regional language) out of 10? (iii) How much marks obtained by him in personality out of 05? (iv) How much marks obtained by him in expression out of 05? Further, the appellant sought information pertaining to written marks obtained by him under points: (i) Confidential Reports (as mentioned under test channel) for last three years out of 6? (ii) Service Record.( as mentioned under test channel) out of 10 ? (iii) Under skill test out of 10?
4	CIC/CBSED/A/2018/115729/00958 (248.87 KB)	01 Jul, 2019	Amar Singh Vs. CPIO, CBSE, Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110 092 Information Sought The appellant has sought the copy of all answer-sheets of all FAs & SAs held in the session- 2016-17 for class X in respect of his daughter Kum. Pooja Singh student of Bharat International School, Hardev Nagar but shown as the student of Radhey Lal Indian Public School, Vrindavan. Decision The answer books of the candidate was destroyed during the pendency of the RTI application which was not proper. However, the Commission is unable to fix the responsibility on the Principal of the School as it is not a public authority as per Sec 2(h) of the Act. The CBSE however should consider this case as an instance of travesty of justice, as the concerned student was not able to access her answer books despite filing the RTI application within the relevant time period for preservation of records. The CPIO CBSE submitted that the RTI application was despatched by the appellant on 22.07.2017 which was received by CBSE Delhi on 24.07.2017 and transferred to CBSE Allahabad on 31.07.2017. The CPIO CBSE Allahabad transferred the RTI application to the School on 11.08.2017. It is pertinent to mention here that the fault was on the part of CPIO, CBSE Allahabad who instead of procuring the information from the School instantly, forwarded the RTI application to the School. The lack of application of mind on the part of CBSE Allahabad deprived the appellant of getting the information. Now the records are destroyed and no relief can be given to the appellant. The then CPIO, CBSE Allahabad, Shri Vijay Singh should have applied his mind and refrained from transferring the RTI application to a school which is not a public authority. The then CPIO, Shri Vijay Singh is issued a strict warning for the casual approach in dealing with the RTI application of the appellant. The present CPIO Allahabad shall serve a copy of this order on the then CPIO under intimation to the Commission. The Commission is constrained to close the case due to destruction of the relevant records as under these circumstances no relief can be provided to the appellant at this stage.
5	CIC/DOEAF/C/2017/105166/ISPNR (170.71 KB)	06 Aug, 2018	Ms Rashi Agrawal Vs CPIO, SPMCIL NEW DELHI, CPIO INDIAN SECURITY PRESS NASHIK ISSUE : Non receipt of reply from the CPIO. DECISION : The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to RTI applications. The Commission directed the Public Authority to depute an officer of a senior rank to seek the explanation to the show cause notice from the concerned CPIOs and furnish the details sought by the complainant within a period of 30 days.
6	CIC/DOEAF/C/2017/105166/ISPNR-BJ (165.00 KB)	06 Aug, 2018	Ms. Rashi Agrawal Vs. CPIO,Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001 Information sought The Complainant vide her RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding the date and diary number under which her First Appeal dated 09.11.2015 sent via speed post was received in the office of the FAA along with the certified copy of the Appellate order, if any,passed in the aforesaid appeal, present status with file noting of the Appeal, certified copies of all the communications exchanged between ISP, Nashik and Corporate Office and other issues related thereto. Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the respondent, it is evident that the transfer of RTI application u/s 6 (3) to the concerned PIO was not made by the Respondent (SPMCIL, New Delhi) vide its initial reply dated 29.07.2016 and that no reply had been furnished by the Respondent (ISP Nashik) subsequent to the transfer of points 03 and 05 of the RTI application by FAA, SPMCIL, vide letter dated 06.09.2016 which was a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, therefore instructs the CMD, SPMCIL to depute an officer of a senior rank to seek the explanation to the show cause notice from the concerned CPIOs and furnish the details sought by the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act,2005, shall be initiated. The CMD, SPMCIL is also directed to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities. The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
7	CIC/MOENF/C/2017/178184 (527.04 KB)	30 Jul, 2018	Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs CPIO, MOEF and Climate Change ISSUE :The appellant sought information relating to “conflicting rules of environment – Ministry aand MIDC puts entrepreneurs in problem” on fourteen points. The appellant was not satisfied by the reply of the CPIO and the FAA on grounds of the same being improper/incomplete. The appellant also sought for compensation for the detriment caused to him for the delay in supply of information to him. DECISION : The CPIO is directed to affirm on affidavit and submit to the Commission, duly endorsed to the appellant that in respect of para 7 of the stated RTI application complete reply was provided vide replies dated 27/6/18 and 17/4/18. Otherwise he should furnish a revised consolidated reply within 10 days from the receipt of this order to the appellant on this point. The Commission is of the opinion that a token amount of Rs 1000/- should be paid as compensation to the appellant u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the detriment caused to him. This amount is to be paid by the Public Authority, MOEF and Climate Change.
8	CIC/IOCLD/A/2017/163417 (45.84 KB)	25 Jun, 2018	Ajay Kumar Vs CPIO, IOC Ltd ISSUE : The applicant had sought the Action Taken Report on his petition regarding fire accident claim arising out of leakage of the gas cylinder. The applicant stated that he did not receive any reply to his petition. DECISION : The respondent stated that they did not receive the RTI application of the appellant. Therefore they could not give a timely reply to the appellant. In fact the RTI application was addressed to their dealer. However they agreed to follow up the matter and provide a formal reply to the appellant as per the RTI Act. The Commission observed that the respondent should take action as agreed to above.
9	CIC/VS/C/2012/000468 (56.24 KB)	20 Oct, 2017	Ramraj Sonkar Vs CPIO, SBI, Kanpur Nagar, UP ISSUE : The complainant sought documents given as address proof by Sh R K Veramati at the time of opening of account in bank, date of opening of account, etc. The response of the CPIO and the FAA are not on record. The complainant filed a complaint on 12/5/17 before the CIC. DECISION : The respondent is directed to give reply to the applicant on his RTI application within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of compliance may be sent to the Commission. The respondent is further directed to show cause in writing that why action should not be taken against him for not attending the hearing in the Commission within 30 days from the receipt of this order.
10	CIC/POSTS/A/2017/312335 (50.99 KB)	31 Jul, 2017	N Chandra Shekara vs PIO, Department of Posts The appellant sought certified copies of Employees Co-operative Housing Societies in Karnataka state which applied for permission to concerned competent authorities and its correspondences with notesheets; Employees Cooperative Housing Societies which approved permission by competent authorities and its correspondences with notesheets; list of Directors of Ministry of Communication Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore etc through six points. CPIO stated that the information sought does not pertain to this CPIO and the same may be obtained from the State Government. FAA provided information on point no. 4 and 6. Being dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Commission. The Commission directs the respondent authority to collect the complete information sought through the RTI application form the concerned authority and furnish that to the appellant, within 15 days from this date. Disposed of.
11	CIC/POSTS/C/2017/309896 (52.36 KB)	31 Jul, 2017	Girish Prasad Gupta Vs. PIO, Department of Posts The appellant sought information regarding the amount that was sanctioned to MNREGA Fund OE-EC, how much was spent in March 2016; name and designation of the officers that spent money from the MNREGA fund as well as a copy of their approvals; copy of quotations presented by shops for computers to the MNREGA Fund panel as well as copy of the bill; copy of the CG-17 signed by shopkeepers after the bill is paid. CPIO replied on 24.05.2016 furnishing point wise information. FAA stated that the information provided on point 2 by the CPIO is insufficient and directed the CPIO to furnish the information within 10 days. The appellant stated that information regarding the funds allocated and spent for computer system under MNREGA scheme was not furnished to him. The officer responded that the appellant was informed earlier that no funds were allocated under category as mentioned by appellant but the expenses were taken from the Miscellaneous Fund. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide a comprehensive note about clarification on point no. 1 and 4 to the appellant, within 10 days from this date. Disposed of.
12	CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299245/BJ (85.82 KB)	31 Jul, 2017	Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy Vs CPIO, Income Tax Department, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand The ground that information was sought for narrow private interest and no larger public interest was going to be served with its disclosure. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission. The Commission observed that the reply of the CPIO reflects palpable prejudice, arbitrariness, biasness and disregard to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. It was felt that the RTI applications were dealt with by the CPIO in most routine, casual and mechanical manner without any application of mind which was a clear violation of the provisions of Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission therefore, directs the CCIT, Ranchi to conduct an enquiry either by himself or through a nominee officer of senior rank and send an enquiry report to the Commission under intimation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
13	CIC/RK/A/2016/001058 (221.95 KB)	26 Jul, 2017	K K Kaushik Vs. CPIO, PIO, Northern Railway, DRM’s Office, State Entry Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi- 110055 The appellant vide RTI application dated 11.08.2015 sought copy of the affidavit submitted by the respondent PIO in compliance with the Commission’s order dated 20.05.2015 in appeal case no. CIC/BS/A/2013/002883. The CPIO’s reply or the First Appellate Authority’s order is not on record. The appellant being aggrieved filed second appeal before this Commission on 04.02.2016. since no reply was provided to the appellant in almost two and half years, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, email etc. free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
14	CIC/RK/A/2016/001063-AB (221.29 KB)	26 Jul, 2017	Suwalal Meena Vs. CPIO, North Central Railway, DRM’s Office, Agra, Cantt. Railway Station, Mall Rd, Agra The appellant sought information relating to seniority of Helper in E.T.L Section. The appellant filed first appeal and the First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal by enclosing an earlier reply. The appellant filed second appeal before this Commission. On perusal of the case record, CIC found that the reply by both respondent CPIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) though proper was deficient to the extent that information on denial of promotion to the appellant had been missed. CIC directed the respondent CPIO to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.
15	CIC/BS/A/2016/001813 (63.78 KB)	25 Jul, 2017	Gangadhar Bajpai Vs. PIO, ESIC The appellant sought to know whether ESIC provides services to hospitals all over India; whether all hospitals are online; number of IP smart card users in ESIC; how many of these IP smart card users donate money to ESIC; etc. CPIO informed that the information was furnished to the appellant and if the appellant submits the medical bills provided by the doctor in Kanpur to the ESIC the medical expenses incurred by him would be reimbursed. The Commission directs earlier CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not furnishing the information sought by the appellant within 30 days.

1

CIC/IARMY/A/2018/145768
(175.69 KB) pdf icon

28 Jan, 2020

Narendra Kumar Gupta vs Military Engineer Services,

Information sought:
The Appellant sought information through 3 points pertaining to amount of purchase from the GeM, Government of India portal in the FY 2017-18; total quotations by open bid carried out in FY 2017-18 and supply order placed in CWE, Pathankot and total quotations have been carried out in FY 2017-18 by closed quotations.

Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing expresses serious displeasure over the conduct of the CPIO in seeking identity proof of the Appellant to prove his antecedents and not providing any reply to the Appellant within the stipulated timeframe specified in the RTI Act. Commission further observes that upon receiving hearing notice of the instant Second Appeal, PIO has provided available information to the Appellant. However, to allay the apprehensions of the Appellant, Commission directs the CPIO to file an appropriate affidavit stating that no open quotations has been issued in the FY 2017-18 and no supply order has been placed in the aforesaid open quotation. The said affidavit should be sent to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant. The aforesaid directions should be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

2

CIC/NCCLD/A/2018/622801
(626.05 KB) pdf icon

22 Nov, 2019

Md. Riyaz Alam Vs. CPIO, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Jharkhand

Information Sought
The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Jharkhand seeking information on ten points pertaining to the provisions for rehabilitation and compensation for population residing in mining area including, inter-alia, (i) provisions for compensation for dependents of the deceased who lose their lives due to landslides/cave-in due to coal fire, (ii) provisions for subsiding environment degradation caused by coal mining, etc and (iii) details of the minimum distance between proposed coal mines and populated areas to be adhered to while new coal mines are started.

Decision
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that due information has been provided to the appellant but after a considerable delay. The Commission notes that the online RTI application was left unattended as the respondent authority was not familiar with the online portal till 10.01.2019. The Commission, however, notes that though the RTI application was received in March 2018, complete reply was not furnished till 31.10.2019 despite the order of the FAA dated 10.05.2019.

He Commission takes an adverse view of the inaction on the part of the CPIO, BCCL, Dhanbad in not providing the information sought for within the stipulated time, thereby, deliberately delaying furnishing of information to the appellant. It is expected that the CPIO, on receipt of a request, shall as expeditiously as possible provide the information sought for by the applicant. In this case, the CPIO did not discharge his responsibility properly. The Commission, therefore, would like to counsel the CPIO, BCCL, Dhanbad to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur and that the provisions of the RTI Act are implemented in letter and spirit.

3

CIC/CANBK/A/2018/110832
(158.01 KB) pdf icon

14 Nov, 2019

Tarapada Jana Vs. CPIO: Canara Bank, Circle Office, 21, Camac Street, Kolkata.

Information Sought
The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 12.02.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 24.11.2017 and first appeal dated 11.12.2017:-

The appellant was an employee of the bank posted at Kolkata. He applied for the promotion process which was held in terms of Canara Bank Office Memo Sub.: Promotion from sub staff to Clerical Cadre for the year 2017. He sought following information in respect of the interview held:-
(i) How much marks obtained by the appellant in knowledge out of 10?
(ii) How much marks obtained by him in transcription [assessment of ability
to write vernacular/regional language) out of 10?
(iii) How much marks obtained by him in personality out of 05?
(iv) How much marks obtained by him in expression out of 05?

Further, the appellant sought information pertaining to written marks obtained by him under points:
(i) Confidential Reports (as mentioned under test channel) for last three years out of 6?
(ii) Service Record.( as mentioned under test channel) out of 10 ?
(iii) Under skill test out of 10?

4

CIC/CBSED/A/2018/115729/00958
(248.87 KB) pdf icon

01 Jul, 2019

Amar Singh Vs. CPIO, CBSE, Shiksha Kendra, 2, Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi-110 092

Information Sought
The appellant has sought the copy of all answer-sheets of all FAs & SAs held in the session- 2016-17 for class X in respect of his daughter Kum. Pooja Singh student of Bharat International School, Hardev Nagar but shown as the student of Radhey Lal Indian Public School, Vrindavan.

Decision
The answer books of the candidate was destroyed during the pendency of the RTI application which was not proper. However, the Commission is unable to fix the responsibility on the Principal of the School as it is not a public authority as per Sec 2(h) of the Act. The CBSE however should consider this case as an instance of travesty of justice, as the concerned student was not able to access her answer books despite filing the RTI application within the relevant time period for preservation of records.

The CPIO CBSE submitted that the RTI application was despatched by the appellant on 22.07.2017 which was received by CBSE Delhi on 24.07.2017 and transferred to CBSE Allahabad on 31.07.2017. The CPIO CBSE Allahabad transferred the RTI application to the School on 11.08.2017. It is pertinent to mention here that the fault was on the part of CPIO, CBSE Allahabad who instead of procuring the information from the School instantly, forwarded the RTI application to the School. The lack of application of mind on the part of CBSE Allahabad deprived the appellant of getting the information. Now the records are destroyed and no relief can be given to the appellant. The then CPIO, CBSE Allahabad, Shri Vijay Singh should have applied his mind and refrained from transferring the RTI application to a school which is not a public
authority.

The then CPIO, Shri Vijay Singh is issued a strict warning for the casual approach in dealing with the RTI application of the appellant. The present CPIO Allahabad shall serve a copy of this order on the then CPIO under intimation to the Commission. The Commission is constrained to close the case due to destruction of the relevant records as under these circumstances no relief can be provided to the appellant at this stage.

5

CIC/DOEAF/C/2017/105166/ISPNR
(170.71 KB) pdf icon

06 Aug, 2018

Ms Rashi Agrawal Vs CPIO, SPMCIL NEW DELHI, CPIO INDIAN SECURITY PRESS NASHIK

ISSUE : Non receipt of reply from the CPIO.
DECISION : The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to RTI applications.
The Commission directed the Public Authority to depute an officer of a senior rank to seek the explanation to the show cause notice from the concerned CPIOs and furnish the details sought by the complainant within a period of 30 days.

6

CIC/DOEAF/C/2017/105166/ISPNR-BJ
(165.00 KB) pdf icon

06 Aug, 2018

Ms. Rashi Agrawal Vs. CPIO,Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Limited16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001

Information sought
The Complainant vide her RTI application sought information on 07 points regarding the date and diary number under which her First Appeal dated 09.11.2015 sent via speed post was received in the office of the FAA along with the certified copy of the Appellate order, if any,passed in the aforesaid appeal, present status with file noting of the Appeal, certified copies of all the communications exchanged between ISP, Nashik and Corporate Office and other issues related thereto.

Decision
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the respondent, it is evident that the transfer of RTI application u/s 6 (3) to the concerned PIO was not made by the Respondent (SPMCIL, New Delhi) vide its initial reply dated 29.07.2016 and that no reply had been furnished by the Respondent (ISP Nashik) subsequent to the transfer of points 03 and 05 of the RTI application by FAA, SPMCIL, vide letter dated 06.09.2016 which was a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, therefore instructs the CMD, SPMCIL to depute an officer of a senior rank to seek the explanation to the show cause notice from the concerned CPIOs and furnish the details sought by the Complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act,2005, shall be initiated. The CMD, SPMCIL is also directed to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.

The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.

7

CIC/MOENF/C/2017/178184
(527.04 KB) pdf icon

30 Jul, 2018

Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs CPIO, MOEF and Climate Change

ISSUE :The appellant sought information relating to “conflicting rules of environment – Ministry aand MIDC puts entrepreneurs in problem” on fourteen points. The appellant was not satisfied by the reply of the CPIO and the FAA on grounds of the same being improper/incomplete. The appellant also sought for compensation for the detriment caused to him for the delay in supply of information to him.
DECISION : The CPIO is directed to affirm on affidavit and submit to the Commission, duly endorsed to the appellant that in respect of para 7 of the stated RTI application complete reply was provided vide replies dated 27/6/18 and 17/4/18. Otherwise he should furnish a revised consolidated reply within 10 days from the receipt of this order to the appellant on this point.
The Commission is of the opinion that a token amount of Rs 1000/- should be paid as compensation to the appellant u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the detriment caused to him. This amount is to be paid by the Public Authority, MOEF and Climate Change.

8

CIC/IOCLD/A/2017/163417
(45.84 KB) pdf icon

25 Jun, 2018

Ajay Kumar Vs CPIO, IOC Ltd

ISSUE : The applicant had sought the Action Taken Report on his petition regarding fire accident claim arising out of leakage of the gas cylinder.
The applicant stated that he did not receive any reply to his petition.
DECISION : The respondent stated that they did not receive the RTI application of the appellant. Therefore they could not give a timely reply to the appellant. In fact the RTI application was addressed to their dealer. However they agreed to follow up the matter and provide a formal reply to the appellant as per the RTI Act.
The Commission observed that the respondent should take action as agreed to above.

9

CIC/VS/C/2012/000468
(56.24 KB) pdf icon

20 Oct, 2017

Ramraj Sonkar Vs CPIO, SBI, Kanpur Nagar, UP

ISSUE : The complainant sought documents given as address proof by Sh R K Veramati at the time of opening of account in bank, date of opening of account, etc. The response of the CPIO and the FAA are not on record. The complainant filed a complaint on 12/5/17 before the CIC.
DECISION : The respondent is directed to give reply to the applicant on his RTI application within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of compliance may be sent to the Commission.
The respondent is further directed to show cause in writing that why action should not be taken against him for not attending the hearing in the Commission within 30 days from the receipt of this order.

10

CIC/POSTS/A/2017/312335
(50.99 KB) pdf icon

31 Jul, 2017

N Chandra Shekara vs PIO, Department of Posts

The appellant sought certified copies of Employees Co-operative Housing Societies in Karnataka state which applied for permission to concerned competent authorities and its correspondences with notesheets; Employees Cooperative Housing Societies which approved permission by competent authorities and its correspondences with notesheets; list of Directors of Ministry of Communication Employees Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore etc through six points. CPIO stated that the information sought does not pertain to this CPIO and the same may be obtained from the State Government. FAA provided information on point no. 4 and 6. Being dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Commission. The Commission directs the respondent authority to collect the complete information sought through the RTI application form the concerned authority and furnish that to the appellant, within 15 days from this date. Disposed of.

11

CIC/POSTS/C/2017/309896
(52.36 KB) pdf icon

31 Jul, 2017

Girish Prasad Gupta Vs. PIO, Department of Posts

The appellant sought information regarding the amount that was sanctioned to MNREGA Fund OE-EC, how much was spent in March 2016; name and designation of the officers that spent money from the MNREGA fund as well as a copy of their approvals; copy of quotations presented by shops for computers to the MNREGA Fund panel as well as copy of the bill; copy of the CG-17 signed by shopkeepers after the bill is paid. CPIO replied on 24.05.2016 furnishing point wise information. FAA stated that the information provided on point 2 by the CPIO is insufficient and directed the CPIO to furnish the information within 10 days. The appellant stated that information regarding the funds allocated and spent for computer system under MNREGA scheme was not furnished to him. The officer responded that the appellant was informed earlier that no funds were allocated under category as mentioned by appellant but the expenses were taken from the Miscellaneous Fund. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide a comprehensive note about clarification on point no. 1 and 4 to the appellant, within 10 days from this date. Disposed of.

12

CIC/CBODT/C/2016/299245/BJ
(85.82 KB) pdf icon

31 Jul, 2017

Mr. Radha Raman Tripathy Vs CPIO, Income Tax Department, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand

The ground that information was sought for narrow private interest and no larger public interest was going to be served with its disclosure. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.

The Commission observed that the reply of the CPIO reflects palpable prejudice, arbitrariness, biasness and disregard to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. It was felt that the RTI applications were dealt with by the CPIO in most routine, casual and mechanical manner without any application of mind which was a clear violation of the provisions of Section 7 (8) (i) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission therefore, directs the CCIT, Ranchi to conduct an enquiry either by himself or through a nominee officer of senior rank and send an enquiry report to the Commission under intimation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

13

CIC/RK/A/2016/001058
(221.95 KB) pdf icon

26 Jul, 2017

K K Kaushik Vs. CPIO, PIO, Northern Railway, DRM’s Office, State Entry Road, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi- 110055

The appellant vide RTI application dated 11.08.2015 sought copy of the affidavit submitted by the respondent PIO in compliance with the Commission’s order dated 20.05.2015 in appeal case no. CIC/BS/A/2013/002883. The CPIO’s reply or the First Appellate Authority’s order is not on record. The appellant being aggrieved filed second appeal before this Commission on 04.02.2016.

since no reply was provided to the appellant in almost two and half years, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, email etc. free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.

14

CIC/RK/A/2016/001063-AB
(221.29 KB) pdf icon

26 Jul, 2017

Suwalal Meena Vs. CPIO, North Central Railway, DRM’s Office, Agra, Cantt. Railway Station, Mall Rd, Agra

The appellant sought information relating to seniority of Helper in E.T.L Section. The appellant filed first appeal and the First Appellate Authority disposed of the first appeal by enclosing an earlier reply. The appellant filed second appeal before this Commission. On perusal of the case record, CIC found that the reply by both respondent CPIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) though proper was deficient to the extent that information on denial of promotion to the appellant had been missed.

CIC directed the respondent CPIO to provide point wise reply complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheet, letters, correspondence, e-mail etc free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of the order.

15

CIC/BS/A/2016/001813
(63.78 KB) pdf icon

25 Jul, 2017

Gangadhar Bajpai Vs. PIO, ESIC

The appellant sought to know whether ESIC provides services to hospitals all over India; whether all hospitals are online; number of IP smart card users in ESIC; how many of these IP smart card users donate money to ESIC; etc. CPIO informed that the information was furnished to the appellant and if the appellant submits the medical bills provided by the doctor in Kanpur to the ESIC the medical expenses incurred by him would be reimbursed. The Commission directs earlier CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not furnishing the information sought by the appellant within 30 days.