welcome to Timely Response | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
31	CIC/LS/A/2011/001558 (27.17 KB)	10 Aug, 2011	Shri Subodh Swami vs IOCL, Bhopal – Overriding effect of RTI Act – Companies Act 1956 – the appellant had sought a copy of the note of the Board of Directors vide which medical scheme for retired employees was introduced
32	CIC/AD/A/2011/000111 (206.90 KB)	14 Mar, 2011	Smt. Sushila Munda vs Prasar Bharati O/o Asst. Director Doordarshan Kendra Ranchi The Commission held that as per section 7(8)(iii) of the RTI Act, it is mandatory for the PIO to provide the name and details of the First Appellant Authority while disposing of the RTI Applications.
33	CIC/SG/A/2011/000080/11534 (52.93 KB)	07 Jan, 2011	Mr. Vijender Gupta vs Ms. Akanksha Sharma The PIO & Welfare Officer Department of Social Welfare District North, Hall no. 20-21, Gulabi Bagh, New Delhi, 110007 The appellant sought certain information from PIO which was not provided. CIC directed that the Information be provided free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified.
34	CIC/WB/C/2010/000351-AD (207.05 KB)	22 Dec, 2010	Shri Shah Mohd.Faisal vs Aligarh Muslim University The applicant filed RTI application - the Deputy Registrar (Legal) & CAPIO forwarded the RTI application to various sections of Aligarh Muslim University for providing the information and they provided pointwise reply/information to the applicant. CIC agreed with CPIO.
35	CIC/SG/C/2010/001281/10582 (47.91 KB)	22 Dec, 2010	Ms. Geeta vs PIO & District Social Welfare Officer (North – East), Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi The complainant sought certain information from the CPIO who stated to have sent it to the complainant but attached no postal receipt as a proof of having sent the information through speed post or regular mail. The PIO is directed to ensure that all responses to RTI application are sent through Speed Post in the future.
36	CIC/SM/A/2010/000043 (304.32 KB)	08 Nov, 2010	Shri Satendra Kumar vs CPIO, Central Bank of India, RegionalOffice, Speaker Chowk, Post Box 58, Muzaffarpur, Bihar The Appellant sought certain information from CPIO, which was accompanied with prescribed Indian Postal Order. CIC directed CPIO to provide the information.
37	CIC/SG/A/2010/002951/11427 (54.81 KB)	18 Oct, 2010	Mr. P C Ramakrishnayya vs Central Public Information Officer, Regional Commissioner, Office of The Coal Mines, Provident fund Commissioner , Near Police Line, Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad - 826014, Jharkhand The appellant sought certain information from the CPIO vide his RTI application.The CIC held that the PIO has denied the information without giving any reason or justification for the denial under any of the clauses of section 8(1) of the RTI Act – the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. Show cause notice under section 20(1) of the RTI Act issued.
38	CIC/WB/A/2008/00426 (38.94 KB)	01 Jun, 2009	Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Supreme Court of India The CPIO of Supreme Court of India to provide him a copy of the Resolution dated 7.5.2007 passed by all the judges of the Supreme Court which required every judge to make a declaration of assets in form of real estate or investments held in their names or in the name of their spouses and any person dependent on them to the Chief Justice. The appellant also requested the CPIO to provide him information on any such declaration of assets etc ever filed by the Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court. The CPIO of the Supreme Court is directed to provide the information asked for by the appellant in his RTI application as to whether such declaration of assets etc. has been filed by the Hon’ble judges of the Supreme Court or not within ten working days from the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
39	CIC/WB/A/2007/00422 (52.56 KB)	19 Feb, 2009	Shri P.K. Sarin vs Directorate General of Works Central Public Works Department (CPWD) Delhi The appellant submitted an RTI application on 7th September, 2006 under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking the following information:- 1) Please state the C.R. pertaining to which years considered for clearing Efficiency Bar; 2) Please state the C.R. pertaining to which years considered for the ad hoc promotion from the post of A.E. to the post of EE issued vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I dated 21.4.2006 and also vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I (Voll-II) dated 12.5.2006; 3) What is the minimum criteria (i.e. minimum number of C.R. with grading good) fixed for ad hoc promotion from the post of A.E. to the post of EE issued videNo.28/10/2006-EC-I dated 21.4.2006 and also vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I (Voll-II) dated 12.5.2006; 4) Vacancies of the ad hoc promotion from the post of A.E. to the post of EE issued vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I dated 21.4.2006 and also vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I (Voll-II) dated 12.5.2006 pertains to which period. 5) Certified copy of the C.R. of P.K. Sarin from 1st April 2003 to 31srt March, 2004. The respondent Public Authority is directed to communicate the entries in the ACRs to the appellant for the period asked for by him in his RTI application within a period of 10 working days from the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.
40	CIC/PB/C/2008/00723 (21.59 KB)	26 Nov, 2008	Ms Suman Bakshi Vs. Directorate of Health Services Complainant is an ex-employee of the Family Planning Association (FPA) of India as Extension Educator submitted an RTI application dated 7.1.2008 to Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karol Bagh Zone. The Office of Commissioner, MCD informed the complainant that the information sought therein, to the best of their knowledge, pertains to the PIO, Directorate of Family Welfare and, therefore, the matter should be pursued with them. The Commission feels that there may be similar such cases where an NGOI which is being substantially financed by the Government has not set up a mechanism and have thereby evaded compliance with provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission, therefore, recommends that Ministries and Departments of the Central Government should make an assessment as to whether the NGOs who are being financed by them have set up a mechanism to provide information to the citizens who wish to obtain information under the RTI Act. If such a mechanism has not been set up by any of the NGOs receiving funds from the Central Government, it is recommended that the Government should not release any fund till the time such mechanism is set up and other obligations as contemplated under the Act are complied with. A copy of this order should be sent to all Ministries and Departments of the Government of India for taking further necessary action in regard to this matter.
41	CIC/PB/A/2008/01011 (21.12 KB)	26 Nov, 2008	Shri Upender Vs. Directorate of Health Services The appellant submitted an RTI application to PIO Directorate of Health Services, GNCT Delhi and asked for supply of all papers pertaining to his son’s selection and appointment for the post of Radiographer and present status. He also asked for basis of selection of all six candidates and copies of all letters pertaining thereto. He stated in his RTI application that although his son’s selection has been made on the basis of certificates which are all recognized by Central as well as Delhi Government, he asked why, nevertheless so much time is being taken in his appointment. From the facts above, it appears that this is a case of malafide denial of Information by the PIO. However since it is the responsibility of the First Appellate Authority to ensure that the orders passed by it are duly complied with by the PIO, the Commission, therefore, has decided to remand the case back to the Director Health Services, first Appellate Authority to ensure that its orders under section 19(1) are duly complied with and the requested information furnished in terms of the order so passed, with the qualification that now, in accordance with Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005, no fees will be charged.
42	CIC/MA/A/2008/1233/AD (56.13 KB)	05 Aug, 2008	Mr. A. L. Motwani Vs. ITI Limited The appellant requested the following information: i) Documents (Official, Demi official) statements of witnesses if any furnished by CBI for according sanction, the correspondence between CBI and ITI including record of discussion. ii) Documents (Official, Demi official) between ITI and Ministry of Communication(DoT) including record of discussion. iii) Correspondence (Official, Demi official) between ITI and CVC including the record of discussion. iv) Agenda papers along with minutes of Board meetings of ITI, reference to various letters, etc. indicated in the agenda/minutes, copies of these referred letters etc. to be included v) The documents referred to while framing the sanction order along with annexures eg. Instruction /manual on procurement of material followed in ITI and any other documents, copies of those references to be supplied. vi) Notes/letters (Official and Demi Official) sent by CVO(ITI) to CMD ITI, ITI Board, CVC, Ministry of Communications(DoT) or any other agency like CBI, Department of Personnel etc. along with replies received from them. vii) Any correspondence /communication/letters by ITI with any other agency like with CBI, CVC, Department of Personnel affairs in connection with the case RC ii(A)/94-CBI Bangalore The Commission hereby directs the Respondents ITI, Bengaluru and CBI to disclose the information asked for by the Appellant within fifteen working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. As inordinate delay has already been caused for no fault of the Appellant, providing of copies of the documents shall be free of cost in accordance with Sec 7 sub-section (6).
43	CIC/MA/A/2006/00204, 207 & 208 (74.84 KB)	12 Jun, 2008	Shri Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Department of Personnel & Training The Appellant seeking information relating to empanelment of officers in the Government of India each at the levels of (i)Deputy Secretary and Director; (ii)Joint Secretary; (iii)Additional Secretary and above. The Commission, therefore, directs the DoPT and the Cabinet Secretariat to allow inspection of the relevant files concerning empanelment of Additional Secretaries and Secretaries to the Government of India and to provide copies of the documents and records, as might be the specified by the Appellant after inspection. As inordinate delay has already been caused for no fault of the Appellant, providing of copies of the documents shall be free of cost.
44	CIC/WB/A/2007/01243 (30.28 KB)	10 Dec, 2007	Dr. Asha Singh Vs. Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) The CPIO, CRPF seeking information on 14 points, stemming from the following basis: “The information relates to repeated transfer & harassment in male battalion without any another female in unit, without proper privacy for female, against request and all the guidelines laid down by the CRPF, MHA and also ignoring grievances faced in the male battalion by the hands of male officer.” This issue of opening or otherwise of an organization excluded u/s 24(1) to the operation of Right to Information Act is new and the definition of what will fall under Human Rights Violation still debated, we find no reason for holding CPIO in violation on the time limit mandated u/s 7(1). We also find that the DG Shri S.I.S. Ahmed of CRPF in his circular Order No. 01/2007 dated 4.4.07 has clearly assigned duties in servicing the RTI Act to different levels of Officers in the CRPF. This is to be commended.

31

CIC/LS/A/2011/001558
(27.17 KB) pdf icon

10 Aug, 2011

Shri Subodh Swami vs IOCL, Bhopal

– Overriding effect of RTI Act – Companies Act 1956 – the appellant had sought a copy of the note of the Board of Directors vide which medical scheme for retired employees was introduced

32

CIC/AD/A/2011/000111
(206.90 KB) pdf icon

14 Mar, 2011

Smt. Sushila Munda vs Prasar Bharati O/o Asst. Director Doordarshan Kendra Ranchi

The Commission held that as per section 7(8)(iii) of the RTI Act, it is mandatory for the PIO to provide the name and details of the First Appellant Authority while disposing of the RTI Applications.

33

CIC/SG/A/2011/000080/11534
(52.93 KB) pdf icon

07 Jan, 2011

Mr. Vijender Gupta vs Ms. Akanksha Sharma The PIO & Welfare Officer Department of Social Welfare District North, Hall no. 20-21, Gulabi Bagh, New Delhi, 110007

The appellant sought certain information from PIO which was not provided. CIC directed that the Information be provided free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified.

34

CIC/WB/C/2010/000351-AD
(207.05 KB) pdf icon

22 Dec, 2010

Shri Shah Mohd.Faisal vs Aligarh Muslim University

The applicant filed RTI application - the Deputy Registrar (Legal) & CAPIO forwarded the RTI application to various sections of Aligarh Muslim University for providing the information and they provided pointwise reply/information to the applicant. CIC agreed with CPIO.

35

CIC/SG/C/2010/001281/10582
(47.91 KB) pdf icon

22 Dec, 2010

Ms. Geeta vs PIO & District Social Welfare Officer (North – East), Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of NCT of Delhi

The complainant sought certain information from the CPIO who stated to have sent it to the complainant but attached no postal receipt as a proof of having sent the information through speed post or regular mail. The PIO is directed to ensure that all responses to RTI application are sent through Speed Post in the future.

36

CIC/SM/A/2010/000043
(304.32 KB) pdf icon

08 Nov, 2010

Shri Satendra Kumar vs CPIO, Central Bank of India, RegionalOffice, Speaker Chowk, Post Box 58, Muzaffarpur, Bihar

The Appellant sought certain information from CPIO, which was accompanied with prescribed Indian Postal Order. CIC directed CPIO to provide the information.

37

CIC/SG/A/2010/002951/11427
(54.81 KB) pdf icon

18 Oct, 2010

Mr. P C Ramakrishnayya vs Central Public Information Officer, Regional Commissioner, Office of The Coal Mines, Provident fund Commissioner , Near Police Line, Jagjivan Nagar, Dhanbad - 826014, Jharkhand

The appellant sought certain information from the CPIO vide his RTI application.The CIC held that the PIO has denied the information without giving any reason or justification for the denial under any of the clauses of section 8(1) of the RTI Act – the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. Show cause notice under section 20(1) of the RTI Act issued.

38

CIC/WB/A/2008/00426
(38.94 KB) pdf icon

01 Jun, 2009

Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Supreme Court of India

The CPIO of Supreme Court of India to provide him a copy of the Resolution dated 7.5.2007 passed by all the judges of the Supreme Court which required every judge to make a declaration of assets in form of real estate or investments held in their names or in the name of their spouses and any person dependent on them to the Chief Justice. The appellant also requested the CPIO to provide him information on any such declaration of assets etc ever filed by the Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court.

The CPIO of the Supreme Court is directed to provide the information asked for by the appellant in his RTI application as to whether such declaration of assets etc. has been filed by the Hon’ble judges of the Supreme Court or not within ten working days from the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.

39

CIC/WB/A/2007/00422
(52.56 KB) pdf icon

19 Feb, 2009

Shri P.K. Sarin vs Directorate General of Works Central Public Works Department (CPWD) Delhi

The appellant submitted an RTI application on 7th September, 2006 under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking the following information:-
1) Please state the C.R. pertaining to which years considered for clearing Efficiency Bar;
2) Please state the C.R. pertaining to which years considered for the ad hoc promotion from the post of A.E. to the post of EE issued vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I dated 21.4.2006 and also vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I (Voll-II) dated 12.5.2006;
3) What is the minimum criteria (i.e. minimum number of C.R. with grading good) fixed for ad hoc promotion from the post of A.E. to the post of EE issued videNo.28/10/2006-EC-I dated 21.4.2006 and also vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I (Voll-II) dated 12.5.2006;
4) Vacancies of the ad hoc promotion from the post of A.E. to the post of EE issued vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I dated 21.4.2006 and also vide No.28/10/2006-EC-I (Voll-II) dated 12.5.2006 pertains to which period.
5) Certified copy of the C.R. of P.K. Sarin from 1st April 2003 to 31srt March, 2004.
The respondent Public Authority is directed to communicate the entries in the ACRs to the appellant for the period asked for by him in his RTI application within a period of 10 working days from the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.

40

CIC/PB/C/2008/00723
(21.59 KB) pdf icon

26 Nov, 2008

Ms Suman Bakshi Vs. Directorate of Health Services

Complainant is an ex-employee of the Family Planning Association (FPA) of India as Extension Educator submitted an RTI application dated 7.1.2008 to Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karol Bagh Zone. The Office of Commissioner, MCD informed the complainant that the information sought therein, to the best of their knowledge, pertains to the PIO, Directorate of Family Welfare and, therefore, the matter should be pursued with them.

The Commission feels that there may be similar such cases where an NGOI which is being substantially financed by the Government has not set up a mechanism and have thereby evaded compliance with provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission, therefore, recommends that Ministries and Departments of the Central Government should make an assessment as to whether the NGOs who are being financed by them have set up a mechanism to provide information to the citizens who wish to obtain information under the RTI Act. If such a mechanism has not been set up by any of the NGOs receiving funds from the Central Government, it is recommended that the Government should not release any fund till the time such mechanism is set up and other obligations as contemplated under the Act are complied with. A copy of this order should be sent to all Ministries and Departments of the Government of India for taking further necessary action in regard to this matter.

41

CIC/PB/A/2008/01011
(21.12 KB) pdf icon

26 Nov, 2008

Shri Upender Vs. Directorate of Health Services

The appellant submitted an RTI application to PIO Directorate of Health Services, GNCT Delhi and asked for supply of all papers pertaining to his son’s selection and appointment for the post of Radiographer and present status. He also asked for basis of selection of all six candidates and copies of all letters pertaining thereto. He stated in his RTI application that although his son’s selection has been made on the basis of certificates which are all recognized by Central as well as Delhi Government, he asked why, nevertheless so much time is being taken in his appointment.

From the facts above, it appears that this is a case of malafide denial of Information by the PIO. However since it is the responsibility of the First Appellate Authority to ensure that the orders passed by it are duly complied with by the PIO, the Commission, therefore, has decided to remand the case back to the Director Health Services, first Appellate Authority to ensure that its orders under section 19(1) are duly complied with and the requested information furnished in terms of the order so passed, with the qualification that now, in accordance with Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005, no fees will be charged.

42

CIC/MA/A/2008/1233/AD
(56.13 KB) pdf icon

05 Aug, 2008

Mr. A. L. Motwani Vs. ITI Limited

The appellant requested the following information:
i) Documents (Official, Demi official) statements of witnesses if any furnished by CBI for according sanction, the correspondence between CBI and ITI including record of discussion.
ii) Documents (Official, Demi official) between ITI and Ministry of Communication(DoT) including record of discussion.
iii) Correspondence (Official, Demi official) between ITI and CVC including the record of discussion.
iv) Agenda papers along with minutes of Board meetings of ITI, reference to various letters, etc. indicated in the agenda/minutes, copies of these referred letters etc. to be included
v) The documents referred to while framing the sanction order along with annexures eg. Instruction /manual on procurement of material followed in ITI and any other documents, copies of those references to be supplied.
vi) Notes/letters (Official and Demi Official) sent by CVO(ITI) to CMD ITI, ITI Board, CVC, Ministry of Communications(DoT) or any other agency like CBI, Department of Personnel etc. along with replies received from them.
vii) Any correspondence /communication/letters by ITI with any other agency like with CBI, CVC, Department of Personnel affairs in connection with the case RC ii(A)/94-CBI Bangalore

The Commission hereby directs the Respondents ITI, Bengaluru and CBI to disclose the information asked for by the Appellant within fifteen working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice. As inordinate delay has already been caused for no fault of the Appellant, providing of copies of the documents shall be free of cost in accordance with Sec 7 sub-section (6).

43

CIC/MA/A/2006/00204, 207 & 208
(74.84 KB) pdf icon

12 Jun, 2008

Shri Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Department of Personnel & Training

The Appellant seeking information relating to empanelment of officers in the Government of India each at the levels of (i)Deputy Secretary and Director; (ii)Joint Secretary; (iii)Additional Secretary and above.

The Commission, therefore, directs the DoPT and the Cabinet Secretariat to allow inspection of the relevant files concerning empanelment of Additional Secretaries and Secretaries to the Government of India and to provide copies of the documents and records, as might be the specified by the Appellant after inspection. As inordinate delay has already been caused for no fault of the Appellant, providing of copies of the documents shall be free of cost.

44

CIC/WB/A/2007/01243
(30.28 KB) pdf icon

10 Dec, 2007

Dr. Asha Singh Vs. Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)

The CPIO, CRPF seeking information on 14 points, stemming from the following basis: “The information relates to repeated transfer & harassment in male battalion without any another female in unit, without proper privacy for female, against request and all the guidelines laid down by the CRPF, MHA and also ignoring grievances faced in the male battalion by the hands of male officer.”

This issue of opening or otherwise of an organization excluded u/s 24(1) to the operation of Right to Information Act is new and the definition of what will fall under Human Rights Violation still debated, we find no reason for holding CPIO in violation on the time limit mandated u/s 7(1). We also find that the DG Shri S.I.S. Ahmed of CRPF in his circular Order No. 01/2007 dated 4.4.07 has clearly assigned duties in servicing the RTI Act to different levels of Officers in the CRPF. This is to be commended.