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

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
76	CIC/CC/A/2015/002240/SA (256.97 KB)	02 Mar, 2016	Yogender Kumar vs Department of Higher Education Section 7(1) Supply of Information. Claim of missing file by the public authority. The Commission held that it cannot accept the claim for non-availability of file. The RTI Act does not provide any exemption from disclosure of information on the ground of missing files unless proved that record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by public authority. Claim of file missing or not traceable is not acceptable. By practice 'missing file' cannot be read into as exception in addition to exceptions prescribed by RTI Act. It also amounts to breach of Public Records Act, 1993 and punishable with imprisonment up to a term of five years or with fine or both. Public Authority has a duty to initiate action for this kind of loss of public record, in the form of 'not traceable' or 'missing'. The Public Authority also has a duty to designate an officer as Records Officer and protect the records. The Commission would be compelled to initiate penal action under section 20 of RTI Act against the Incharge of the custody of the documents, dealing assistant, assistant and CPIO.
77	CIC/SA/A/2015/001408 (310.97 KB)	15 Feb, 2016	Ravinder Kumar vs Tihar Jail, New Delhi Section 7(1) Supply of Information. The Commission held that there is a significant public interest behind the RTI application as accused should be allowed every opportunity to prove his innocence as per the cardinal principles of criminal justice. He believes that the medical records would help him to prove that with visual deficiency he could not have killed his wife as alleged, but that opportunity was denied by not certifying the medial records at first instance, destroying the records at second instance and finally denying him permission to attend the second appeal. The Commission issued the showcause notice to the Supdt., Central Jail-2 as deemed PIO as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him. The Appellant presented documents which showed that the DCP, North District, Civil Lines has destroyed medical record of the appellant 14 days after the receipt of the RTI application. Destruction of records during pendency of RTI application would attract penalty under section 20 of the Act. The Commission further issued show cause notice to Addl. DCPI, North District why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for destruction of medical records of the appellant when the RTI request is pending with them. The Commission also directed the DGP (Prisons) to show cause why suitable compensation should not be awarded to the appellant for delaying, denying and destroying the medical records by the Public Authority.
78	CIC/BS/A/2015/000149 (55.11 KB)	08 Feb, 2016	Hemant Kumar Agarwal vs Department of Post, Raigad Section 7(1) Supply of Information. Record Retention Policy. The Commission held that the RTI Act does not require the public authority to retain records for indefinite period. The information needs to be retained as per the record retention schedule applicable to the concerned public authority. The CPIO's representative has informed that the record relating to the registered article has been weeded out. The CPIO is directed to provide the relevant extract of the record retention policy and the narne of postmaster & beat postman of Ambikapur post office to the appellant.
79	CIC/SA/A/2015/001407 (298.65 KB)	05 Feb, 2016	Swati Babber vs Guru Govind Singh Indra Prastha University, GNCTD Section 7(1) Supply of Information. The Commission held that the retention policy of the University is not a correct practice. They cannot impose additional restrictions over and above those prescribed under section 8 of the RTI Act and deny the answer sheets to the students. The Public Authority is expected to receive the RTI applications and provide information/answer sheets until the records are weeded out as per their policy. If they have retained the answer sheets, even after the prescribed retention period for any reason, they cannot deny if it is not destroyed as on the date of RTI application. The Public Authority is also required to hold the records, if an RTI application/grievance/complaint is pending before the authorities such as, CIC/ PGC/NHRC/Courts, etc. even though the prescribed retention period was exhausted and until the said proceedings before the above authorities, are disposed of finally.
80	CIC/SH/A/2014/000787 (206.49 KB)	30 Mar, 2015	Girish Prasad Gupta Vs. CPIO, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Patna The appellant sought information regarding the customers and related details of M/s Bharat Gas. The Respondents stated that this information is available on their website. The Appellant insisted that regardless of information being available on the website, the Respondents should provide him a hard copy of the same free of cost. The Commission held that the information, that is placed by a public authority on its website is already available in the public domain and is, therefore, not under the control of the public authority. It can be obtained by any interested persons by consulting the relevant website. If public authorities are required to provide hard copies of the information already available on their website as part of suo-motu disclosure, such as suo-motu disclosure will become futile, because the very purpose of such disclosure is to ensure that applicants do not have to approach public authorities to get a good deal of information already placed by them on their website.
81	CIC/SS/A/2013/002927-YA (47.74 KB)	16 Mar, 2015	Shahid Raza Burney Vs.CPIO, Medical Council of India, New Delhi The appellant soughtinformation regarding action taken on his complaint addressed to Chairman, MCI. The CPIO stated that since the complaint filed by appellant was against a hospital, which is under the Maharashtra Medical Council, therefore, they had forwarded the said complaint to Maharashtra Medical Council for necessary action and the same was intimated to the appellant as well. The Commission held that the MCI has the power to look into the conduct of a medical practitioner and take appropriate action to maintain the professional medical ethics. If any doubt is created in the minds of the public, it should be resolved by the appropriate forum so that the faith of the public on the medical profession is maintained. The commission directed the PIO to provide action taken report to the appellant.
82	CIC/BS/A/2014/000532 (69.00 KB)	13 Feb, 2015	Kailash Chandra Panda Vs. CPIO, BSNL The appellant sought information regarding the details of prepaid mobile connections working in Odisha circle in different formats. The CIC upheld decision of the CPIO that it is not possible to compile the details without disproportionately diverting the resources of the Public Authority. It held that the appellant could not establish any larger public interest which would warrant a directive from the Commission.
83	CIC/BS/A/2014/000377 (48.84 KB)	23 Jan, 2015	Nitin Sudhakar Pradhan Vs. CPIO, Department of Telecommunications The appellant sought certified copies from some files. CPIO allowed inspection but denied providing copies on the ground that the documents were provided by a security agency – the third party- objected to the disclosure of the documents. The question is whether documents in respect of which inspection was allowed can be denied when copies of the same were insisted by the applicant. The CIC relying on the judgement of High Court of Bombay (in which the court held that merely because inspection of the said documents was granted to the petitioner it does not take away the right of the respondents to hold that same is secret and contains classified information and therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 8 (1) (a), the authorities are justified in rejecting the application) held that the disclosure of information has no discernible element of larger public interest.
84	CIC/SA/A/2014/000155 (471.72 KB)	16 Jan, 2015	Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Deptt for the Welfare of SC/ST/OBC, Govt of NCT of Delhi The appellant sought to know the action taken on the report of Delhi Lokayuktha indicting former Chief Minister and some other Ministers of Government of Delhi for spending public money on advertisements and certified copies of certain other documents. The CIC directed the Union of India and Government of Delhi to disclose its policy under Section 4 of the Act, on recommendations of Prof. Madhava Menon Committee and Lokayuktha of Delhi regarding usage of photos of political leaders in advertisements issued by the State. As the disclosure of information involves policy decision to be taken by the Higher authorities in Government, it is not just and proper to penalise the PIO for non-disclosure of policy, who does not have any role in decision making process and in view of the observations of Delhi Lokayuktha not to issue advise/recommendation to the lower level officers, the Commission finds no ground for imposing penalty on the PIO.
85	CIC/SA/A/2014/000672 (357.30 KB)	15 Jan, 2015	Surendra Kumar Gupta Vs.. Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Government of NCT of Delhi The appellant sought information with respect to his application for permission/financial assistance to present a paper at a Conference. The CIC directed the respondent to furnish the basis for not giving permission before the appellant proceeding for attending the conference and the basis for saying that ex post facto permission cannot be given. The CIC issued showcause notice to the deemed CPIO as to why penalty cannot be imposed on him for not supplying relevant information to the appellant within the prescribed period.
86	CIC/MP/A/2014/000461 (117.93 KB)	12 Jan, 2015	Prokriti Ranjan Mallick Vs. SBI, Kolkata The appellant sought information on a number of matters including action taken on his complaint, transfer policy, etc. The CPIO replied that the information pertains to different jurisdictions and it may take some more time. The FAA directed the CPIO to provide reply on one point and denied information on other points which were felt to be hypothetical and would require disproportionate diversion of resources to reply. The CIC held that the appellant had sought information on multiple issues through a single RTI application and it would be difficult for the respondents to collect information on such multifarious issues. The appellant was advised to refrain from seeking information on multiple issues in future. The CPIO was directed to provide point-wise, reasoned and clear reply to the appellant within a week of receipt of the order.
87	CIC/SH/A/2014/000163 (242.42 KB)	12 Jan, 2015	Vijay P Khandare Vs. CPIO, Nehru Science Centre, Mumbai The applicant who sought copies of ACRs for the period 2005 to 2013 was provided the gradings/marks awarded. Aggrieved, the applicant filed appeal. The CIC citing Supreme Court judgement in the Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & ors directed the CPIO to provide copies of the ACRs sought by the appellant.
88	CIC/YA/A/2014/000321 (39.18 KB)	07 Jan, 2015	A.K. Singh Vs. SDMC The appellant sought information related to house tax paid/collected in respect of 783 Janata flats in a colony. The CIC held that information sought is voluminous in nature and if provided, it would divert the meagre resources of SDMC affecting the day to day routine work of the Public Authority and therefore concurs with the decision of the PIO/FAA.
89	CIC/YA/A/2014/000046 (43.95 KB)	07 Jan, 2015	Dheeraj Gupta Vs. NDMC The CPIO did not bother see the information the Deemed PIO supplied. It is the responsibility of the CPIO to furnish information to the applicant. He cannot escape his responsibility by merely transferring the application. The CPIO cannot act as a post master transferring applications to subordinates and forwarding information received by them to the applicant. In the instant case, information sought by the appellant could have been provided at the first instance only but was provided after a lapse of one year. The Commission imposed penalty of Rs.10,000 on the CPIO, also giving directions to NDMC to deduct the amount from the salary of CPIO.
90	CIC/MP/A/2014/000472 (117.94 KB)	18 Dec, 2014	Narayan B. Kadgoankar Vs. LIC of India, Mumbai The appellant sought detailed information about vacant class III and class IV staff quarters, including date of vacancy, date of allotment, etc. As the information was exhaustive and not readily available and collecting the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, and therefore cannot be provided. CIC upheld the decision of the respondents.

76

CIC/CC/A/2015/002240/SA
(256.97 KB) pdf icon

02 Mar, 2016

Yogender Kumar vs Department of Higher Education

Section 7(1) Supply of Information. Claim of missing file by the public authority.

The Commission held that it cannot accept the claim for non-availability of file. The RTI Act does not provide any exemption from disclosure of information on the ground of missing files unless proved that record was destroyed as per the prescribed rules of destruction/retention policy, it is deemed that record continues to be held by public authority. Claim of file missing or not traceable is not acceptable. By practice 'missing file' cannot be read into as exception in addition to exceptions prescribed by RTI Act. It also amounts to breach of Public Records Act, 1993 and punishable with imprisonment up to a term of five years or with fine or both. Public Authority has a duty to initiate action for this kind of loss of public record, in the form of 'not traceable' or 'missing'. The Public Authority also has a duty to designate an officer as Records Officer and protect the records.

The Commission would be compelled to initiate penal action under section 20 of RTI Act against the Incharge of the custody of the documents, dealing assistant, assistant and CPIO.

77

CIC/SA/A/2015/001408
(310.97 KB) pdf icon

15 Feb, 2016

Ravinder Kumar vs Tihar Jail, New Delhi

Section 7(1) Supply of Information.

The Commission held that there is a significant public interest behind the RTI application as accused should be allowed every opportunity to prove his innocence as per the cardinal principles of criminal justice. He believes that the medical records would help him to prove that with visual deficiency he could not have killed his wife as alleged, but that opportunity was denied by not certifying the medial records at first instance, destroying the records at second instance and finally denying him permission to attend the second appeal. The Commission issued the showcause notice to the Supdt., Central Jail-2 as deemed PIO as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him. The Appellant presented documents which showed that the DCP, North District, Civil Lines has destroyed medical record of the appellant 14 days after the receipt of the RTI application. Destruction of records during pendency of RTI application would attract penalty under section 20 of the Act. The Commission further issued show cause notice to Addl. DCPI, North District why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for destruction of medical records of the appellant when the RTI request is pending with them.

The Commission also directed the DGP (Prisons) to show cause why suitable compensation should not be awarded to the appellant for delaying, denying and destroying the medical records by the Public Authority.

78

CIC/BS/A/2015/000149
(55.11 KB) pdf icon

08 Feb, 2016

Hemant Kumar Agarwal vs Department of Post, Raigad

Section 7(1) Supply of Information.

Record Retention Policy. The Commission held that the RTI Act does not require the public authority to retain records for indefinite period. The information needs to be retained as per the record retention schedule applicable to the concerned public authority.

The CPIO's representative has informed that the record relating to the registered article has been weeded out. The CPIO is directed to provide the relevant extract of the record retention policy and the narne of postmaster & beat postman of Ambikapur post office to the appellant.

79

CIC/SA/A/2015/001407
(298.65 KB) pdf icon

05 Feb, 2016

Swati Babber vs Guru Govind Singh Indra Prastha University, GNCTD

Section 7(1) Supply of Information.

The Commission held that the retention policy of the University is not a correct practice. They cannot impose additional restrictions over and above those prescribed under section 8 of the RTI Act and deny the answer sheets to the students. The Public Authority is expected to receive the RTI applications and provide information/answer sheets until the records are weeded out as per their policy. If they have retained the answer sheets, even after the prescribed retention period for any reason, they cannot deny if it is not destroyed as on the date of RTI application. The Public Authority is also required to hold the records, if an RTI application/grievance/complaint is pending before the authorities such as, CIC/ PGC/NHRC/Courts, etc. even though the prescribed retention period was exhausted and until the said proceedings before the above authorities, are disposed of finally.

80

CIC/SH/A/2014/000787
(206.49 KB) pdf icon

30 Mar, 2015

Girish Prasad Gupta Vs. CPIO, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Patna

The appellant sought information regarding the customers and related details of M/s Bharat Gas. The Respondents stated that this information is available on their website. The Appellant insisted that regardless of information being available on the website, the Respondents should provide him a hard copy of the same free of cost.

The Commission held that the information, that is placed by a public authority on its website is already available in the public domain and is, therefore, not under the control of the public authority. It can be obtained by any interested persons by consulting the relevant website. If public authorities are required to provide hard copies of the information already available on their website as part of suo-motu disclosure, such as suo-motu disclosure will become futile, because the very purpose of such disclosure is to ensure that applicants do not have to approach public authorities to get a good deal of information already placed by them on their website.

81

CIC/SS/A/2013/002927-YA
(47.74 KB) pdf icon

16 Mar, 2015

Shahid Raza Burney Vs.CPIO, Medical Council of India, New Delhi

The appellant soughtinformation regarding action taken on his complaint addressed to Chairman, MCI. The CPIO stated that since the complaint filed by appellant was against a hospital, which is under the Maharashtra Medical Council, therefore, they had forwarded the said complaint to Maharashtra Medical Council for necessary action and the same was intimated to the appellant as well.

The Commission held that the MCI has the power to look into the conduct of a medical practitioner and take appropriate action to maintain the professional medical ethics. If any doubt is created in the minds of the public, it should be resolved by the appropriate forum so that the faith of the public on the medical profession is maintained. The commission directed the PIO to provide action taken report to the appellant.

82

CIC/BS/A/2014/000532
(69.00 KB) pdf icon

13 Feb, 2015

Kailash Chandra Panda Vs. CPIO, BSNL

The appellant sought information regarding the details of prepaid mobile connections working in Odisha circle in different formats.

The CIC upheld decision of the CPIO that it is not possible to compile the details without disproportionately diverting the resources of the Public Authority. It held that the appellant could not establish any larger public interest which would warrant a directive from the Commission.

83

CIC/BS/A/2014/000377
(48.84 KB) pdf icon

23 Jan, 2015

Nitin Sudhakar Pradhan Vs. CPIO, Department of Telecommunications

The appellant sought certified copies from some files. CPIO allowed inspection but denied providing copies on the ground that the documents were provided by a security agency – the third party- objected to the disclosure of the documents.

The question is whether documents in respect of which inspection was allowed can be denied when copies of the same were insisted by the applicant.

The CIC relying on the judgement of High Court of Bombay (in which the court held that merely because inspection of the said documents was granted to the petitioner it does not take away the right of the respondents to hold that same is secret and contains classified information and therefore, in view of the provisions of Section 8 (1) (a), the authorities are justified in rejecting the application) held that the disclosure of information has no discernible element of larger public interest.

84

CIC/SA/A/2014/000155
(471.72 KB) pdf icon

16 Jan, 2015

Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Deptt for the Welfare of SC/ST/OBC, Govt of NCT of Delhi

The appellant sought to know the action taken on the report of Delhi Lokayuktha indicting former Chief Minister and some other Ministers of Government of Delhi for spending public money on advertisements and certified copies of certain other documents.

The CIC directed the Union of India and Government of Delhi to disclose its policy under Section 4 of the Act, on recommendations of Prof. Madhava Menon Committee and Lokayuktha of Delhi regarding usage of photos of political leaders in advertisements issued by the State.

As the disclosure of information involves policy decision to be taken by the Higher authorities in Government, it is not just and proper to penalise the PIO for non-disclosure of policy, who does not have any role in decision making process and in view of the observations of Delhi Lokayuktha not to issue advise/recommendation to the lower level officers, the Commission finds no ground for imposing penalty on the PIO.

85

CIC/SA/A/2014/000672
(357.30 KB) pdf icon

15 Jan, 2015

Surendra Kumar Gupta Vs.. Directorate of Training and Technical Education, Government of NCT of Delhi

The appellant sought information with respect to his application for permission/financial assistance to present a paper at a Conference.

The CIC directed the respondent to furnish the basis for not giving permission before the appellant proceeding for attending the conference and the basis for saying that ex post facto permission cannot be given.

The CIC issued showcause notice to the deemed CPIO as to why penalty cannot be imposed on him for not supplying relevant information to the appellant within the prescribed period.

86

CIC/MP/A/2014/000461
(117.93 KB) pdf icon

12 Jan, 2015

Prokriti Ranjan Mallick Vs. SBI, Kolkata

The appellant sought information on a number of matters including action taken on his complaint, transfer policy, etc.

The CPIO replied that the information pertains to different jurisdictions and it may take some more time. The FAA directed the CPIO to provide reply on one point and denied information on other points which were felt to be hypothetical and would require disproportionate diversion of resources to reply.

The CIC held that the appellant had sought information on multiple issues through a single RTI application and it would be difficult for the respondents to collect information on such multifarious issues. The appellant was advised to refrain from seeking information on multiple issues in future. The CPIO was directed to provide point-wise, reasoned and clear reply to the appellant within a week of receipt of the order.

87

CIC/SH/A/2014/000163
(242.42 KB) pdf icon

12 Jan, 2015

Vijay P Khandare Vs. CPIO, Nehru Science Centre, Mumbai

The applicant who sought copies of ACRs for the period 2005 to 2013 was provided the gradings/marks awarded. Aggrieved, the applicant filed appeal.

The CIC citing Supreme Court judgement in the Dev Dutt Vs. Union of India & ors directed the CPIO to provide copies of the ACRs sought by the appellant.

88

CIC/YA/A/2014/000321
(39.18 KB) pdf icon

07 Jan, 2015

A.K. Singh Vs. SDMC

The appellant sought information related to house tax paid/collected in respect of 783 Janata flats in a colony.

The CIC held that information sought is voluminous in nature and if provided, it would divert the meagre resources of SDMC affecting the day to day routine work of the Public Authority and therefore concurs with the decision of the PIO/FAA.

89

CIC/YA/A/2014/000046
(43.95 KB) pdf icon

07 Jan, 2015

Dheeraj Gupta Vs. NDMC

The CPIO did not bother see the information the Deemed PIO supplied. It is the responsibility of the CPIO to furnish information to the applicant. He cannot escape his responsibility by merely transferring the application. The CPIO cannot act as a post master transferring applications to subordinates and forwarding information received by them to the applicant. In the instant case, information sought by the appellant could have been provided at the first instance only but was provided after a lapse of one year.

The Commission imposed penalty of Rs.10,000 on the CPIO, also giving directions to NDMC to deduct the amount from the salary of CPIO.

90

CIC/MP/A/2014/000472
(117.94 KB) pdf icon

18 Dec, 2014

Narayan B. Kadgoankar Vs. LIC of India, Mumbai

The appellant sought detailed information about vacant class III and class IV staff quarters, including date of vacancy, date of allotment, etc.

As the information was exhaustive and not readily available and collecting the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, and therefore cannot be provided.

CIC upheld the decision of the respondents.