welcome to Appeal | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
16	CIC/BS/A/2015/001223/11292 (66.89 KB)	19 Sep, 2016	Rajesh Onakrdas Agrawal Vs. BSNL, Khamgaon Section 19(1) Appeal to First Appellate Authority Opportunity of hearing the Commission held that it is needless to say that rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is conducive to fairness and transparency and accords with the principles of natural justice. An opportunity of hearing to the parties also brings greater clarity to the adjudicating authorities. This Commission always gives an opportunity of hearing to the parties but this does not appear to be usually done by the FAAs, as probably there are practical difficulties therein, partly arising out of the number of appeals involved and partly due to the limited time frame in which the matters are required to be decided. In view of this, we would only like to suggest that the FAA should, as far as possible give the appellant including third party, if any, an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant.
17	CIC/MP/A/2015/002067 (43.32 KB)	28 Apr, 2016	Rajan Kumar Gupta vs Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh Section 19(3) Second appeal to the CIC and SIC Scope The Commission held and agreed with the Appellate Authority that the appellant may file a separate RTI application if he to obtain additional information. It is not open for an information seeker to enlarge the scope of his RTI at appeal stage.
18	CIC/KY/C/2016/000008 CIC/KY/A/2016/000009 (178.07 KB)	22 Apr, 2016	Akshay Kr. Malhotra vs DDA, New Delhi Section 19(3) Second Appeal to CIC or SIC. The Commission held that the petitioner has filed petitions in composite nature whereby, the petitioner has sought relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act and also the penal action along with disciplinary action against the respondents under sections 20(1) & 20(2) of the RTI Act. Thus, these petitions may be legally construed as composite petitions. The composite petition of such nature is not legally tenable, simply because, if the relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) is allowed on such composite petition, the incorporation of section 19(3) of the RTI Act would be rendered as redundant and meaningless. The relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act, is legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/ s 19(3) of the RTI Act i.e. second appeal only before this Commission. Similarly, the reliefs provided under sub-clause (1) & sub-clause (2) of section 20 of the RTI Act, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise. Composite petitions are devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed.
19	CIC/RM/A/2014/004572-SA CIC/RM/A/2014/004573-SA (357.65 KB)	21 Apr, 2016	Anil Kumar Gupta vs National Institute of Open Schooling Section 19(1) Appeal to First Appellate Authority. Not to be heard by if he is interested party. The Commission held that the NIOS has breached the law and the settled principles of natural justice by allowing party like Joint Director, to hear appeal of the appellant as FAA resulting in unjustified and biased The principle is that one who has made the decision having a judicial flavor should not participate in arising from such a decision. There is a strong prima facie case that the concerned Joint Director might tampered with the documents to wrongfully to show that the appellant was not performing well. The Commission directed the CPIO and the concerned Joint Director to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them for misleading the Commission and making allegations that the appellant was misusing the Act. The Commission also directed the concerned Joint Director to show cause why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him for hearing first appeal being an interested party and directed the public authority to explain why compensation of Rs. 50,000/ should not be paid to the appellant.
20	CIC/KY/A/2015/000857 (208.11 KB)	22 Feb, 2016	A. M. Attar Vs. Haj Committee of India, Mumbai Section 19(3) Second appeal to the Commission Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty Section 20(2) Recommendation of disciplinary action against the CPIO Composite Petition the Commission held that the relief provided under section 19(3) of the RTI Act, is legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act i.e. second appeal only before this Commission. Similarly, the reliefs provided under sub clause (1) & sub clause (2) of section 20 of the RTI Act, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise. In the absence of expressed & enabling provisions under the RTI Act to file the Composite Petition, the instant composite petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
21	CIC/RM/A/2014/000014-SA (483.91 KB)	03 Dec, 2015	Vijay Kumar Mishra v. CBSE directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) The applicant sought copies of answer sheets of his son for class 12 (Maths and Science) exams held in 2013. The CIC held that CBSE created several unreasonable conditions to limit/delay and deny right to information of the students. The CBSE has no authority to deny information sought by father/natural guardian on behalf of minor. Hence father of the student is entitled to copies of answer sheets. The condition imposed by CBSE of signing an undertaking relinquishing right to re-evaluation is restricting the right to information but also insulating itself from accountability. CIC directed CBSE to put in place such system with conducive practices by which the Right to information of the appellants is not limited but facilitated, by removing the obstacles. CBSE was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/ to the appellant within 15 days.
22	CIC/SA/A/2013/000101-YA (123.14 KB)	20 Feb, 2015	Layak Ram Vs. NDMC The appellant sought information regarding his application for regularisation of construction on his property; reasons for rejection; the basis on which the property was demolished; copies of various orders in this connection, etc. Through a series of RTI Applications. CIC directed the CPIO to provide information along with relevant note sheets within four weeks. The CIC observed that the 96 applications dealt with queries in general information in respect of which could have been provided to the applicant. The Commission took serious view of the casual approach of the FAA. Such deliberate act of not discharging his role as FAA and passing the buck to the PIO and to the Commission is an act which cannot be condoned. In this background, the Commission directed the Commissioner, NDMC to take appropriate action against the FAA for displaying flagrant disregard to the RTI regime and to the role of the FAA.
23	CIC/DS/A/2011/002753 (310.09 KB)	26 Mar, 2013	Anil Malik Vs. House Allotment Committee, Estate Office, Chandigarh Section 19(3)- Appeal to the first appellate authority The Commission held that the CPIO has also signed on the order of the FA which upholds the order of CPIO. This action is in contravention of the RTI Act, which provides different tiers to the appellant from making appeal and this action of the CPIO has negated the letter and spirit of the Act and also denied the appellant his right to take recourse to the second tier of adjudication on his appeal. The CPIO is warned to desist from such action in future.
24	CIC/DS/A/2011/001494/RM (76.36 KB)	01 Jun, 2012	Subodh Sagar Johari v National Council of Education Research & Training, New Delhi Section 19(1) — Appeal to First Appellate Authority The First Appellate Authority was directed by the CIC earlier to dispose of the case within two weeks the Commission held that the Appellate Authority has failed to discharge his legal obligation. He is directed to present himself before the Commission and explain as to why the appeal could not be disposed of.
25	CIC/SG/A/2012/000619/18459 (53.72 KB)	18 Apr, 2012	Mr. Rishikant Gupta vs Mr. G. P. Yadav Public Information Officer & AE Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Appeal to First Appellate Authority- to be filed within 30 days from the reply received from the PIO- the appellant filed an appeal after four months instead of filing within 30 days. the Commission held that there is no reasonable explanation for this delay and therefore FAA had rejected the Appeal. In view of this the second appeal is not maintainable.

16

CIC/BS/A/2015/001223/11292
(66.89 KB) pdf icon

19 Sep, 2016

Rajesh Onakrdas Agrawal Vs. BSNL, Khamgaon

Section 19(1) Appeal to First Appellate Authority Opportunity of hearing the Commission held that it is needless to say that rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is conducive to fairness and transparency and accords with the principles of natural justice. An opportunity of hearing to the parties also brings greater clarity to the adjudicating authorities. This Commission always gives an opportunity of hearing to the parties but this does not appear to be usually done by the FAAs, as probably there are practical difficulties therein, partly arising out of the number of appeals involved and partly due to the limited time frame in which the matters are required to be decided. In view of this, we would only like to suggest that the FAA should, as far as possible give the appellant including third party, if any, an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant.

17

CIC/MP/A/2015/002067
(43.32 KB) pdf icon

28 Apr, 2016

Rajan Kumar Gupta vs Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh

Section 19(3) Second appeal to the CIC and SIC Scope

The Commission held and agreed with the Appellate Authority that the appellant may file a separate RTI application if he to obtain additional information. It is not open for an information seeker to enlarge the scope of his RTI at appeal stage.

18

CIC/KY/C/2016/000008 CIC/KY/A/2016/000009
(178.07 KB) pdf icon

22 Apr, 2016

Akshay Kr. Malhotra vs DDA, New Delhi

Section 19(3) Second Appeal to CIC or SIC.

The Commission held that the petitioner has filed petitions in composite nature whereby, the petitioner has sought relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act and also the penal action along with disciplinary action against the respondents under sections 20(1) & 20(2) of the RTI Act. Thus, these petitions may be legally construed as composite petitions. The composite petition of such nature is not legally tenable, simply because, if the relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) is allowed on such composite petition, the incorporation of section 19(3) of the RTI Act would be rendered as redundant and meaningless. The relief provided under section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act, is legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/ s 19(3) of the RTI Act i.e. second appeal only before this Commission.

Similarly, the reliefs provided under sub-clause (1) & sub-clause (2) of section 20 of the RTI Act, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise. Composite petitions are devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed.

19

CIC/RM/A/2014/004572-SA CIC/RM/A/2014/004573-SA
(357.65 KB) pdf icon

21 Apr, 2016

Anil Kumar Gupta vs National Institute of Open Schooling

Section 19(1) Appeal to First Appellate Authority. Not to be heard by if he is interested party.

The Commission held that the NIOS has breached the law and the settled principles of natural justice by allowing party like Joint Director, to hear appeal of the appellant as FAA resulting in unjustified and biased The principle is that one who has made the decision having a judicial flavor should not participate in arising from such a decision. There is a strong prima facie case that the concerned Joint Director might tampered with the documents to wrongfully to show that the appellant was not performing well. The Commission directed the CPIO and the concerned Joint Director to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon each of them for misleading the Commission and making allegations that the appellant was misusing the Act. The Commission also directed the concerned Joint Director to show cause why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him for hearing first appeal being an interested party and directed the public authority to explain why compensation of Rs. 50,000/ should not be paid to the appellant.

20

CIC/KY/A/2015/000857
(208.11 KB) pdf icon

22 Feb, 2016

A. M. Attar Vs. Haj Committee of India, Mumbai

Section 19(3) Second appeal to the Commission Section 20(1) Levy of Penalty Section 20(2) Recommendation of disciplinary action against the CPIO Composite Petition the Commission held that the relief provided under section 19(3) of the RTI Act, is legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act i.e. second appeal only before this Commission. Similarly, the reliefs provided under sub clause (1) & sub clause (2) of section 20 of the RTI Act, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise. In the absence of expressed & enabling provisions under the RTI Act to file the Composite Petition, the instant composite petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

21

CIC/RM/A/2014/000014-SA
(483.91 KB) pdf icon

03 Dec, 2015

Vijay Kumar Mishra v. CBSE directed the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)

The applicant sought copies of answer sheets of his son for class 12 (Maths and Science) exams held in 2013.

The CIC held that CBSE created several unreasonable conditions to limit/delay and deny right to information of the students.

The CBSE has no authority to deny information sought by father/natural guardian on behalf of minor. Hence father of the student is entitled to copies of answer sheets.

The condition imposed by CBSE of signing an undertaking relinquishing right to re-evaluation is restricting the right to information but also insulating itself from accountability.

CIC directed CBSE to put in place such system with conducive practices by which the Right to information of the appellants is not limited but facilitated, by removing the obstacles.
CBSE was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/ to the appellant within 15 days.

22

CIC/SA/A/2013/000101-YA
(123.14 KB) pdf icon

20 Feb, 2015

Layak Ram Vs. NDMC

The appellant sought information regarding his application for regularisation of construction on his property; reasons for rejection; the basis on which the property was demolished; copies of various orders in this connection, etc. Through a series of RTI Applications.

CIC directed the CPIO to provide information along with relevant note sheets within four weeks.

The CIC observed that the 96 applications dealt with queries in general information in respect of which could have been provided to the applicant. The Commission took serious view of the casual approach of the FAA. Such deliberate act of not discharging his role as FAA and passing the buck to the PIO and to the Commission is an act which cannot be condoned. In this background, the Commission directed the Commissioner, NDMC to take appropriate action against the FAA for displaying flagrant disregard to the RTI regime and to the role of the FAA.

23

CIC/DS/A/2011/002753
(310.09 KB) pdf icon

26 Mar, 2013

Anil Malik Vs. House Allotment Committee, Estate Office, Chandigarh

Section 19(3)- Appeal to the first appellate authority
The Commission held that the CPIO has also signed on the order of the FA which upholds the order of CPIO. This action is in contravention of the RTI Act, which provides different tiers to the appellant from making appeal and this action of the CPIO has negated the letter and spirit of the Act and also denied the appellant his right to take recourse to the second tier of adjudication on his appeal. The CPIO is warned to desist from such action in future.

24

CIC/DS/A/2011/001494/RM
(76.36 KB) pdf icon

01 Jun, 2012

Subodh Sagar Johari v National Council of Education Research & Training, New Delhi

Section 19(1) — Appeal to First Appellate Authority
The First Appellate Authority was directed by the CIC earlier to dispose of the case within two weeks the Commission held that the Appellate Authority has failed to discharge his legal obligation. He is directed to present himself before the Commission and explain as to why the appeal could not be disposed of.

25

CIC/SG/A/2012/000619/18459
(53.72 KB) pdf icon

18 Apr, 2012

Mr. Rishikant Gupta vs Mr. G. P. Yadav Public Information Officer & AE Ministry of Information & Broadcasting

Appeal to First Appellate Authority- to be filed within 30 days from the reply received from the PIO- the appellant filed an appeal after four months instead of filing within 30 days. the Commission held that there is no reasonable explanation for this delay and therefore FAA had rejected the Appeal. In view of this the second appeal is not maintainable.