welcome to Disposal of Request | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
136	CIC/DS/A/2011/000501 (206.55 KB)	02 Apr, 2012	Rajpal Vs. LIC of India, Bareilly Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days – The PIO submitted that he joined as CPIO in August 2010 and hence, was not having the knowledge of the RTI Act at the time of the receipt of the RTI application – Whether sufficient cause for not imposing the penalty – the Commission held that the CPIO has furnished reply to the Appellant stating that the information cannot be provided u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act clearly shows the basic understanding of RTI Act prevailing with the CPIO. Thus, the submissions made by the CPIO are not credible in nature and attracts penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Penalty of Rs 25000/- imposed.
137	CIC/SG/A/2011/003705/17381 (62.65 KB)	28 Mar, 2012	Pappu Gautam Vs. PIO & AGM, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office Lakhimpur – Kheri Radhey Complex, Lakhimpur – Kheri, UP Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days The Commission held that the PIO had raised an extortionist demand of Rs. 15000/- without giving any calculations as per the requirement of the RTI Act. The FAA had also not passed any order within the time frame provided in the Act. The PIO stated that that he through he could charge the fees of the cost of salary of officers who would be involved in getting the information. The Commission further held that fee has to be calculated as per the central rules and the PIO cannot arbitrarily demand any fee to discourage the applicants from getting the information. Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed upon to the CPIO.
138	CIC/SG/A/2011/003750/17452 (53.71 KB)	26 Mar, 2012	Syed Waqar Ali Vs. Deemed PIO & AZI Municipal Corporation of India, Delhi Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of 30 days The Commission held that the PIO has provided false information to the Appellant. The appellant has received the information only on 06/01/2012 after a delay of 50 days. In view of this the commission imposed a penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act on the Deemed PIO at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day of delay for 50 days i.e. Rs. 250 X 50 days = 12500/-.
139	CIC/AD/A/2012/900701 (212.99 KB)	23 Mar, 2012	Kirpal Kumar Gambhir Vs. D/o Revenue, O/o the Sub Registrar V, New Delhi Section 7(1) – Supply to information The commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the GPA to the appellant. The Commission further directed the public authority that a copy of the order related to registration of GPA/SPA be put on the website under section 4(2) of the RTI Act in the interest of the general public.
140	CIC/DS/A/2011/001580 (209.89 KB)	21 Mar, 2012	Santosh Kumar Kaushal Vs. SBI, Shimla/Chandigarh Section 7(1) – Supply of information within specified period of thirty days The Commission held that the appellant is an employee of the bank and was available to provide clarification to the CPIO / First Appellant Authority did not understand the nature of information sought by the appellant. The Commission is not at all satisfied with the explanation provided by the former CPIO for having denied information to the appellant in response to the RTI application. Accordingly as per the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act, penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the former CPIO is imposed.
141	CIC/AD/A/2012/000697 (317.67 KB)	21 Mar, 2012	Birbal Vs. Land & Building Department, New Delhi Section 7(1) – Supply of information The Commission recommended to the Appellant Authority (Land & Building Department) / Appellant Authority, Chief Minister’s Office enquire into the matter of so called “Institutional organized racket” and take a appropriate action in this matter and further directed the PIO/AA to restructure the file as per existing provisions. (Which the Respondent too admitted that they do exist) and provide a copy of the file to the Appellant definitely by end of May 2012. Simultaneously, the appellant authority, Land & Building department is also directed u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act, to enquire into the matter of the missing file and fix the responsibility and take appropriate action on the officials found guilty of having misplaced the file.
142	CIC/SM/A/2011/000627 (303.63 KB)	19 Mar, 2012	Laxmi Narain Sharma Vs. PNB, Rohtak Section 7(1) – Supply of Information The Commission held that for mechanically transferring the RTI application to another CPIO and not providing the information about the action taken in the head office on the letter of 16 March 2010, the CPIO of the head office of the bank has rendered himself liable for penalty in terms of the provisions of sub section 1 of section 20 of the RTI Act.
143	CIC/SG/A/2011/003539/17278 Adjunct (79.40 KB)	15 Mar, 2012	K.K. Swami Vs. PIO, Food Safety and Standards, Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Pragati Vihar, Delhi Section 7(1) – Supply of information within specified period of thirty days The Commission held that the appellant was pursuing this matter and hence sought information whether anything concrete had been done by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India. It is unfortunate that the PIO has not provided simple information sought by the Appellant. If the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India has taken no steps about specifying the safe level trans fats percentages in Ghee and Edible Oil they should atleast admit this. The Appellant has been unnecessarily harassed in pursuing this matter. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. The Commission under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI act awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursuing the appeal. The penalty proceeding however is dropped giving benefit of doubt to the respondents and accepting their plea that they have not been able to understand the queries properly.
144	CIC/SG/A/2011/003558/17224 (36.02 KB)	09 Mar, 2012	Khageswar Pardhan Vs. Mr. Ram Dev, Accounts Officer & the then PIO, National Institute of Malaria and Research, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi Section 7(1) – Supply of information within specified period of thirty days The Commission held that it is very clear that Mr. Ram Dev was responsible as the then PIO. The commission held that it is fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Ram Dev, the then PIO of Rs. 25,000/- which is maximum penalty under the RTI Act.
145	CIC/SM/C/2011/000818 & 1565 (300.60 KB)	29 Feb, 2012	Subhash Chandra Agrawal v Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan Section 7(1) — Supply of Information The Commission held that the order of the CIC in second appeal is final and must be carried out unless specifically stayed by the High Court or the Supreme Court of India. Even after four months of the decision, the government has not gone before the Supreme Court of India or the High Court and obtained any stay. They cannot defy the directions merely because they are contemplating challenging our order before the High Court. Show cause notice under section 20(1) of the RTI Act issued to the respondent for levy of penalty.
146	CIC/SM/A/2010/001131 (208.70 KB)	28 Sep, 2011	Shri Yogesh Mahajan vs CPIO, Punjab National Bank South Circle, 4th Floor, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi The appellant sought certain information. CPIO denied the information. However, before the CIC, it was admitted that it was on account of a complete misunderstanding of the provisions of the RTI Act that they had taken such a view. CIC imposed maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- the information having been denied for nearly one year.
147	CIC/LS/A/2011/000644 (29.56 KB)	06 Sep, 2011	Smt T Madhvi vs Department of Posts, Tenali The appellant had appeared in Postman examination held in February, 2010. She had requested for evaluated answer scripts for Paper-A, Paper-B & Paper-C — this information was, denied to her both by the CPIO and AA u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. CIC held that, the exemption under section 18(1)(e) of the RTI Act is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer-books. The CPIO is directed to provide the copies of the evaluated answer scripts to the appellant.
148	CIC/SG/A/2011/000095/11518 (56.34 KB)	17 Mar, 2011	Mr. Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar Asstt. Commissioner & PIO Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o Asstt. Commissioner, Shahdara (North Zone), Keshav Chowk, Near Shyam Lal College, Shahdara, Delhi-110093 The Appellant sought certain information from the CPIO regarding details of balance tehabazari dues. The Commission held that the First Appellate Authority appears to be guilty of dereliction of duty since he does not appear to have passed any order in the matter. Showcause notice issued to PIO for levy of penalty for not furnishing information within specified period.
149	CIC/AT/A/2010/000785DS (87.56 KB)	11 Mar, 2011	Shri Anand Vardhan vs State Bank of India The applicant filed the RTI application before the CPIO, State Bank of India, New Delhi, vide which he sought opportunity of inspection of the accounts of his late father and submitted documents to prove that he was the legal heir. The matter was adjudicated upon vide FAA vide which the appellant was informed that the bank was under no obligation to disclose information pertaining to any third party and information was denied under section 8(1)(d)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act – the Respondent also presented a copy of the order of the High Court of Delhi in which the will of late father of the appellant is the matter of dispute – the Commission upholds the order of the FAA. Section 6(1)
150	CIC/AD/A/2010/001654 (211.30 KB)	30 Dec, 2010	Mrs. Kavita vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences The applicant filed RTI application with the PIO, AIIMS, New Delhi seeking information with regard to her husband - complete history of treatment of patient and documents thereof and provide the intimation in writing regarding the nature and name of the diseases of which her husband is suffering from. The PIO denied the information u/s 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act. The Commission also denied the information u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act since the information is being held by the doctor in fiduciary relationship. The Appellant is advised either to get a court order declaring the wife as the legal guardian. Section 7(1)

136

CIC/DS/A/2011/000501
(206.55 KB) pdf icon

02 Apr, 2012

Rajpal Vs. LIC of India, Bareilly

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days –
The PIO submitted that he joined as CPIO in August 2010 and hence, was not having the knowledge of the RTI Act at the time of the receipt of the RTI application – Whether sufficient cause for not imposing the penalty – the Commission held that the CPIO has furnished reply to the Appellant stating that the information cannot be provided u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act clearly shows the basic understanding of RTI Act prevailing with the CPIO. Thus, the submissions made by the CPIO are not credible in nature and attracts penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Penalty of Rs 25000/- imposed.

137

CIC/SG/A/2011/003705/17381
(62.65 KB) pdf icon

28 Mar, 2012

Pappu Gautam Vs. PIO & AGM, Allahabad Bank, Zonal Office Lakhimpur – Kheri Radhey Complex, Lakhimpur – Kheri, UP

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days
The Commission held that the PIO had raised an extortionist demand of Rs. 15000/- without giving any calculations as per the requirement of the RTI Act. The FAA had also not passed any order within the time frame provided in the Act. The PIO stated that that he through he could charge the fees of the cost of salary of officers who would be involved in getting the information. The Commission further held that fee has to be calculated as per the central rules and the PIO cannot arbitrarily demand any fee to discourage the applicants from getting the information. Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed upon to the CPIO.

138

CIC/SG/A/2011/003750/17452
(53.71 KB) pdf icon

26 Mar, 2012

Syed Waqar Ali Vs. Deemed PIO & AZI Municipal Corporation of India, Delhi

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of 30 days
The Commission held that the PIO has provided false information to the Appellant. The appellant has received the information only on 06/01/2012 after a delay of 50 days. In view of this the commission imposed a penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act on the Deemed PIO at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day of delay for 50 days i.e. Rs. 250 X 50 days = 12500/-.

139

CIC/AD/A/2012/900701
(212.99 KB) pdf icon

23 Mar, 2012

Kirpal Kumar Gambhir Vs. D/o Revenue, O/o the Sub Registrar V, New Delhi

Section 7(1) – Supply to information
The commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the GPA to the appellant. The Commission further directed the public authority that a copy of the order related to registration of GPA/SPA be put on the website under section 4(2) of the RTI Act in the interest of the general public.

140

CIC/DS/A/2011/001580
(209.89 KB) pdf icon

21 Mar, 2012

Santosh Kumar Kaushal Vs. SBI, Shimla/Chandigarh

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within specified period of thirty days
The Commission held that the appellant is an employee of the bank and was available to provide clarification to the CPIO / First Appellant Authority did not understand the nature of information sought by the appellant. The Commission is not at all satisfied with the explanation provided by the former CPIO for having denied information to the appellant in response to the RTI application. Accordingly as per the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act, penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the former CPIO is imposed.

141

CIC/AD/A/2012/000697
(317.67 KB) pdf icon

21 Mar, 2012

Birbal Vs. Land & Building Department, New Delhi

Section 7(1) – Supply of information
The Commission recommended to the Appellant Authority (Land & Building Department) / Appellant Authority, Chief Minister’s Office enquire into the matter of so called “Institutional organized racket” and take a appropriate action in this matter and further directed the PIO/AA to restructure the file as per existing provisions. (Which the Respondent too admitted that they do exist) and provide a copy of the file to the Appellant definitely by end of May 2012. Simultaneously, the appellant authority, Land & Building department is also directed u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act, to enquire into the matter of the missing file and fix the responsibility and take appropriate action on the officials found guilty of having misplaced the file.

142

CIC/SM/A/2011/000627
(303.63 KB) pdf icon

19 Mar, 2012

Laxmi Narain Sharma Vs. PNB, Rohtak

Section 7(1) – Supply of Information
The Commission held that for mechanically transferring the RTI application to another CPIO and not providing the information about the action taken in the head office on the letter of 16 March 2010, the CPIO of the head office of the bank has rendered himself liable for penalty in terms of the provisions of sub section 1 of section 20 of the RTI Act.

143

CIC/SG/A/2011/003539/17278 Adjunct
(79.40 KB) pdf icon

15 Mar, 2012

K.K. Swami Vs. PIO, Food Safety and Standards, Authority of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Pragati Vihar, Delhi

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within specified period of thirty days
The Commission held that the appellant was pursuing this matter and hence sought information whether anything concrete had been done by the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India. It is unfortunate that the PIO has not provided simple information sought by the Appellant. If the Food Safety and Standard Authority of India has taken no steps about specifying the safe level trans fats percentages in Ghee and Edible Oil they should atleast admit this. The Appellant has been unnecessarily harassed in pursuing this matter. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. The Commission under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI act awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursuing the appeal. The penalty proceeding however is dropped giving benefit of doubt to the respondents and accepting their plea that they have not been able to understand the queries properly.

144

CIC/SG/A/2011/003558/17224
(36.02 KB) pdf icon

09 Mar, 2012

Khageswar Pardhan Vs. Mr. Ram Dev, Accounts Officer & the then PIO, National Institute of Malaria and Research, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within specified period of thirty days
The Commission held that it is very clear that Mr. Ram Dev was responsible as the then PIO. The commission held that it is fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Ram Dev, the then PIO of Rs. 25,000/- which is maximum penalty under the RTI Act.

145

CIC/SM/C/2011/000818 & 1565
(300.60 KB) pdf icon

29 Feb, 2012

Subhash Chandra Agrawal v Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan

Section 7(1) — Supply of Information

The Commission held that the order of the CIC in second appeal is final and must be carried out unless specifically stayed by the High Court or the Supreme Court of India. Even after four months of the decision, the government has not gone before the Supreme Court of India or the High Court and obtained any stay. They cannot defy the directions merely because they are contemplating challenging our order before the High Court. Show cause notice under section 20(1) of the RTI Act issued to the respondent for levy of penalty.

146

CIC/SM/A/2010/001131
(208.70 KB) pdf icon

28 Sep, 2011

Shri Yogesh Mahajan vs CPIO, Punjab National Bank South Circle, 4th Floor, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, New Delhi

The appellant sought certain information. CPIO denied the information. However, before the CIC, it was admitted that it was on account of a complete misunderstanding of the provisions of the RTI Act that they had taken such a view. CIC imposed maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- the information having been denied for nearly one year.

147

CIC/LS/A/2011/000644
(29.56 KB) pdf icon

06 Sep, 2011

Smt T Madhvi vs Department of Posts, Tenali

The appellant had appeared in Postman examination held in February, 2010. She had requested for evaluated answer scripts for Paper-A, Paper-B & Paper-C — this information was, denied to her both by the CPIO and AA u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. CIC held that, the exemption under section 18(1)(e) of the RTI Act is not available to the examining bodies with reference to evaluated answer-books. The CPIO is directed to provide the copies of the evaluated answer scripts to the appellant.

148

CIC/SG/A/2011/000095/11518
(56.34 KB) pdf icon

17 Mar, 2011

Mr. Murlidhar Tiwari vs Mr. Ravideep Singh Chahar Asstt. Commissioner & PIO Municipal Corporation of Delhi O/o Asstt. Commissioner, Shahdara (North Zone), Keshav Chowk, Near Shyam Lal College, Shahdara, Delhi-110093

The Appellant sought certain information from the CPIO regarding details of balance tehabazari dues. The Commission held that the First Appellate Authority appears to be guilty of dereliction of duty since he does not appear to have passed any order in the matter. Showcause notice issued to PIO for levy of penalty for not furnishing information within specified period.

149

CIC/AT/A/2010/000785DS
(87.56 KB) pdf icon

11 Mar, 2011

Shri Anand Vardhan vs State Bank of India

The applicant filed the RTI application before the CPIO, State Bank of India, New Delhi, vide which he sought opportunity of inspection of the accounts of his late father and submitted documents to prove that he was the legal heir. The matter was adjudicated upon vide FAA vide which the appellant was informed that the bank was under no obligation to disclose information pertaining to any third party and information was denied under section 8(1)(d)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act – the Respondent also presented a copy of the order of the High Court of Delhi in which the will of late father of the appellant is the matter of dispute – the Commission upholds the order of the FAA. Section 6(1)

150

CIC/AD/A/2010/001654
(211.30 KB) pdf icon

30 Dec, 2010

Mrs. Kavita vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences

The applicant filed RTI application with the PIO, AIIMS, New Delhi seeking information with regard to her husband - complete history of treatment of patient and documents thereof and provide the intimation in writing regarding the nature and name of the diseases of which her husband is suffering from. The PIO denied the information u/s 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act. The Commission also denied the information u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act since the information is being held by the doctor in fiduciary relationship. The Appellant is advised either to get a court order declaring the wife as the legal guardian. Section 7(1)