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

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
91	CIC/AD/A/2012/002887/DS (90.84 KB)	22 Oct, 2013	Amrita Chaudhary vs Dy. Commissioner (North), New Delhi The Appellant sought certain information from the CPIO/SDM Civil Line Zone - the information was not supplied to the appellant within stipulated period by the CPIO- the CPIO contended that he was during April-May, 2012 was designated as Returning Officer for elections to the North Delhi Municipal Corporation and after the election he was busy with three election petitions filed by the losing candidates and that he could only properly attend to his official duties as SDM during the third week of May 2012 in real earnest. Decision The Commission held that the CPIO has not been able to explain the reasons for not having provided the requested information to the appellant during the period 15 May 2012 onward when by his own admission he had become free of election related work by that time and was attending to his normal work. Even subsequently after receiving the order of the First Appellate Authority, the former CPIO had clear three weeks before he handed over charge to join his new place of posting. Even during this period he made no attempt to provide the requested information to the appellant. As per provision of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed on the CPIO.
92	CIC/DS/A/2012/001333 (207.64 KB)	21 Jan, 2013	Grish Dhawan V.S. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi(Sh. Panna Lal, EE/CPIO, Sh. S.C. AE.II) Information Disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority – Section 19(8)(b)- Award of Compensation to the applicant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him- the appellant filed RTI application before the CPIO, MCD, Civill Lines Zone, New Delhi to obtain information regarding all jobs awarded during the year 1st March 2011 to March 2012 in Ward number 13 as per 16 subcategories identified by him- the CPIO had denied disclosure of information on the plea that the information sought by the appellant was voluminous. The CPIO also had asked the appellant to visit on another more convenient occasion The Commission held that it cannot accept the plea of the CPIO that the information was voluminous directing the appellant to inspect the available documents in his office in a routine type of answer which is violative of the spirit of the RTI Act. The Commission awarded amount of Rs. 3000/- to compensate the appellant for the loss suffered by him.
93	CIC/LS/A/2012/000356/BS/1/1666 (42.48 KB)	11 Jan, 2013	Narendra Tulsidas Bhatia V.S. CPIO & Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts, Navi Mumbai Division, Panvel- 410206 Demand of further fees for supply of information by the CPIO- the appellant sought certain information form the CPIO in his earlier RTI application to which the CPIO asked the appellant to deposit sum of Rs. 19000/- for supplying the information- The Commission held that the issue of levy of further fees has been settled by the Commission vide Full Bench order in appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2008/01085, dated 30/10/2009 holding that the fee as prescribed under section 7(1) & 7(5) of the RTI Act can only be charged and there is no provision for levy of any further fee. The CPIOs had wrongly demanded the fee of Rs. 19000/- from the appellant towards the cost of engaging the services of a clerk for compiling the information requested by the appellant.
94	CIC/DS/A/2012/001283 (313.32 KB)	10 Jan, 2013	Devraj Manav V.S. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi(Sh. K.K. Lohat, CSI/DEMS, SP Zone, Sh. J.K. Sharma, SS, DEMS, North HO, Sh. Naresh Kumar, SS/KBZ, Sh. Hoshier Singh, SS/RZ, DEMS, Sh. Mohan Singh, SS/DAEMS/CZ, Sh. Abhinesh Kumar UDS/DEMS, CL Zone) Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority- section 8(1)(j) personal information Relating to deceased person- the applicant filed RTI application before the CPIO, MCD, New Delhi to obtain information for the period January 1994 to December 2011 pertaining to names of applicants who had applied for employment on compassionate grounds pursuant to the death of the deceased employees along with their personal information- The FAA held that the information sought by the appellant is extremely voluminous and scattered over various zones of MCD and also not available in a compiled form. Compiling of this information would disproportionately divert resources of the public authority in terms of section 7(9) of the RTI Act- Commission agreed with the order of the FAA and held that the appellant has not established any larger public interest in the disclosure of information which is voluminous and requires to be compiled from large number of files across several departments of MCD. It is an established fact that the privacy of all persons including those deceased must be respected and all the personal details pertaining to the deceased can certainly not be disclosed to the appellant in the absence of any larger public interest.
95	CIC/DS/A/2012/001898 (211.15 KB)	09 Jan, 2013	R.S. Mehta V.S. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi(Sh. A.K. Mathur, Jr. Officer/CPIO) Award of Compensation to the applicant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him- Section 20(1)- Issue of show cause notice for Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information within stipulated period- the applicant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi to obtain information pertaining to the reasons for non-release of his pensionary benefits. Appellant was provided with partial information primarily relating to the non-availability of the information with the CPIO-the CPIO submitted that the concerned file was not available and it was apprehended that the said file had been wrongly destroyed/misplaced by the then dealing officer in the Law Department for which misdemeanour he had been removed from service The Commission held that it is the responsibility of ever public authority to maintain and preserve that official record and any laxity in this regard cannot be cited as valid reason for denying information to the applicant for detriment suffered by him and further issued the show cause notice to the CPIO as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not having provide the information.
96	CIC/DS/A/2011/002565 (207.46 KB)	08 Jan, 2013	Sr. Ravindra Nath Khera V.S. United Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigah/Chennai(Sh. Roop Singh Singh Azad, CPIO & Sh. B.L. Narsimha Rao, CPIO/FAA- through videoconferencing) Supply of information –Issue of Show Cause notice for not suppling the information- the appellant filed RTI application before the CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited, Kurukshetra, seeking status in respect of the second claim in policy – the CPIO had directed appellant to access information directly form the TPA (who by itself is not a public authority) whereas the representative of the TPA had informed the appellant that information can be disclosed only at the behest of the insurer and cannot be parted with to any other person- The Commission held that the CPIO has denied information to the appellant without any application of mind when he is fully aware of the fact that the TPA is a creature of the Company and created through an agreement/contract between the two parties for rendering service to policy holders on behalf of the Company. Therefore, it is only natural to conclude that all documents held by the TPA pertaining to the medi claim policies can be accessed by the insurer. Show cause notice issued to CPIO as to why penalty should not be imposed.
97	CIC/DS/A/2012/001245 (207.68 KB)	08 Jan, 2013	M.L. Gupta V.S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai/Bhopal (Sh. Pauly Shiv Kumar, DGM, Sh. Raj Kumar, RM, Sh. Sanjay Khare, Ms. Sunita Nair, AA, Sh. B.L. Narsimha Rao, FAA-through videoconferencing) The appellant filed RTI application before the CPIOP, United India Insurance Company Limited, Bhopal, seeking details in respect of the Officers Pre- Promotional Exam 2011 through multiple points – the CPIO did not provide any reply and submitted that the subject matter of the RTI application is pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and that the court had issued certain directions for setting up of expert committee to examine the question papers and to come out with a scientific way of solving the problem and that all the promotions to come out with a scientific way of solving the problem and that all the promotion would be subject to the orders to be passed by the court in future. Therefore, information had been withheld from the appellant till the final orders of the court were passed in this regard- the Commission held that we do not see any merit in the argument of the CPIO that by disclosing the question the question booklet, the question bank of the NIA would be depleted with resultant detriment to the employer namely the United India Insurance Company Limited. In our view, the insurance business is indeed very technical and very vast in its scope. Therefore, even if the question bank were to hold about hundred question and these are disclosed in response to RTI applications from time to time, then the examinees would be required to learn the answers of most of these hundred questions which if be the case, would be to the advantage and not to the detriment of the insurer employer.
98	CIC/SM/A/2012/000075 (211.71 KB)	15 Oct, 2012	Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal vs CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training The Appellant sought certain information from the CPIO, DoPT, who advised the appellant to approach the State Government of Maharashtra since that Government had set up the Justice PB Sawant Commission to enquire into the charges against Anna Hazare. CIC held that, as both the appropriate governments, the Central and the State, are two distinct bodies and, under different jurisdictions, the former under the CIC while the latter under the SIC, indiscriminate and mandatory transfer of RTI applications to public authorities outside the appropriate government would, raise issues of jurisdiction and the citizen would find it difficult to approach, in complaint or second appeal, to any particular Information Commission.
99	CIC/SM/A/2011/002673 (206.30 KB)	24 Sep, 2012	Shri K.B. Bhasin vs CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training The Appellant sought a number of details. Almost all the information was disclosed except some personal information relating to the medical condition of the employee concerned. CIC directed to provide part of the information which is disclosable. Section 8(1)(j)
100	CIC/SS/A/2012/001487 (215.21 KB)	24 Sep, 2012	Shri Mohit Bhatnagar vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd The Commission directed the CPIO to provide appellant’s own marks obtained by him in interview and Group Discussion Section 8(1) (j)
101	CIC/SM/A/2011/002052 (208.81 KB)	07 Sep, 2012	Shri Bhasco De Saikia vs CPIO, North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd. CIC directed the CPIO to provide the information. Section 8
102	CIC/LS/A/2012/001258 (74.09 KB)	05 Sep, 2012	Dr Jitendra Kumar Jain vs Central Drugs Research Institute CIC directed the CPIO to provide the information. Section 19(8)(b)
103	CIC/LS/A/2012/000978 (34.35 KB)	21 Aug, 2012	Shri Jai Singh vs DRDO The appellant was JSO in DRDO. He was given compulsory retirement way back in 1993. Vide RTI application dated 12.9.2011, He had sought to know the detailed reasons for his compulsory retirement. CIC had given direction to provide information. Section 24(1)
104	CIC/LS/A/2012/000523 (31.95 KB)	09 Aug, 2012	Vijoy Kumar Das vs 570 Army Base Workshop, Meerut Cantt., Meeurt The appellant has appeared in Telecom Mechanic Examination in 2011. Vide RTI application dated 9.11.2010, he had sought photocopy of his answer-scripts. CIC had given direction to provide information. Section 2 (f)
105	CIC/LS/A/2012/000519 (34.15 KB)	09 Aug, 2012	Ravi Shankar vs Director General of Quality Assurance The appellant is a retired employee. Vide RTI application dated 28.5.2011, he had sought copies of his ACRs for the years 1998 to 2008. CIC had given direction to provide information. Section 2 (f )

91

CIC/AD/A/2012/002887/DS
(90.84 KB) pdf icon

22 Oct, 2013

Amrita Chaudhary vs Dy. Commissioner (North), New Delhi

The Appellant sought certain information from the CPIO/SDM Civil Line Zone - the information was not supplied to the appellant within stipulated period by the CPIO- the CPIO contended that he was during April-May, 2012 was designated as Returning Officer for elections to the North Delhi Municipal Corporation and after the election he was busy with three election petitions filed by the losing candidates and that he could only properly attend to his official duties as SDM during the third week of May 2012 in real earnest.
Decision
The Commission held that the CPIO has not been able to explain the reasons for not having provided the requested information to the appellant during the period 15 May 2012 onward when by his own admission he had become free of election related work by that time and was attending to his normal work. Even subsequently after receiving the order of the First Appellate Authority, the former CPIO had clear three weeks before he handed over charge to join his new place of posting. Even during this period he made no attempt to provide the requested information to the appellant. As per provision of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed on the CPIO.

92

CIC/DS/A/2012/001333
(207.64 KB) pdf icon

21 Jan, 2013

Grish Dhawan V.S. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi(Sh. Panna Lal, EE/CPIO, Sh. S.C. AE.II)

Information Disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority – Section 19(8)(b)- Award of Compensation to the applicant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him- the appellant filed RTI application before the CPIO, MCD, Civill Lines Zone, New Delhi to obtain information regarding all jobs awarded during the year 1st March 2011 to March 2012 in Ward number 13 as per 16 subcategories identified by him- the CPIO had denied disclosure of information on the plea that the information sought by the appellant was voluminous. The CPIO also had asked the appellant to visit on another more convenient occasion

The Commission held that it cannot accept the plea of the CPIO that the information was voluminous directing the appellant to inspect the available documents in his office in a routine type of answer which is violative of the spirit of the RTI Act. The Commission awarded amount of Rs. 3000/- to compensate the appellant for the loss suffered by him.

93

CIC/LS/A/2012/000356/BS/1/1666
(42.48 KB) pdf icon

11 Jan, 2013

Narendra Tulsidas Bhatia V.S. CPIO & Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts, Navi Mumbai Division, Panvel- 410206

Demand of further fees for supply of information by the CPIO- the appellant sought certain information form the CPIO in his earlier RTI application to which the CPIO asked the appellant to deposit sum of Rs. 19000/- for supplying the information-

The Commission held that the issue of levy of further fees has been settled by the Commission vide Full Bench order in appeal No. CIC/MA/A/2008/01085, dated 30/10/2009 holding that the fee as prescribed under section 7(1) & 7(5) of the RTI Act can only be charged and there is no provision for levy of any further fee. The CPIOs had wrongly demanded the fee of Rs. 19000/- from the appellant towards the cost of engaging the services of a clerk for compiling the information requested by the appellant.

94

CIC/DS/A/2012/001283
(313.32 KB) pdf icon

10 Jan, 2013

Devraj Manav V.S. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi(Sh. K.K. Lohat, CSI/DEMS, SP Zone, Sh. J.K. Sharma, SS, DEMS, North HO, Sh. Naresh Kumar, SS/KBZ, Sh. Hoshier Singh, SS/RZ, DEMS, Sh. Mohan Singh, SS/DAEMS/CZ, Sh. Abhinesh Kumar UDS/DEMS, CL Zone)

Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority- section 8(1)(j) personal information Relating to deceased person- the applicant filed RTI application before the CPIO, MCD, New Delhi to obtain information for the period January 1994 to December 2011 pertaining to names of applicants who had applied for employment on compassionate grounds pursuant to the death of the deceased employees along with their personal information-

The FAA held that the information sought by the appellant is extremely voluminous and scattered over various zones of MCD and also not available in a compiled form. Compiling of this information would disproportionately divert resources of the public authority in terms of section 7(9) of the RTI Act-

Commission agreed with the order of the FAA and held that the appellant has not established any larger public interest in the disclosure of information which is voluminous and requires to be compiled from large number of files across several departments of MCD. It is an established fact that the privacy of all persons including those deceased must be respected and all the personal details pertaining to the deceased can certainly not be disclosed to the appellant in the absence of any larger public interest.

95

CIC/DS/A/2012/001898
(211.15 KB) pdf icon

09 Jan, 2013

R.S. Mehta V.S. North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi(Sh. A.K. Mathur, Jr. Officer/CPIO)

Award of Compensation to the applicant for the detriment and inconveniences suffered by him- Section 20(1)- Issue of show cause notice for Levy of Penalty for not supplying the information within stipulated period- the applicant submitted RTI application before the CPIO, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New Delhi to obtain information pertaining to the reasons for non-release of his pensionary benefits. Appellant was provided with partial information primarily relating to the non-availability of the information with the CPIO-the CPIO submitted that the concerned file was not available and it was apprehended that the said file had been wrongly destroyed/misplaced by the then dealing officer in the Law Department for which misdemeanour he had been removed from service

The Commission held that it is the responsibility of ever public authority to maintain and preserve that official record and any laxity in this regard cannot be cited as valid reason for denying information to the applicant for detriment suffered by him and further issued the show cause notice to the CPIO as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not having provide the information.

96

CIC/DS/A/2011/002565
(207.46 KB) pdf icon

08 Jan, 2013

Sr. Ravindra Nath Khera V.S. United Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigah/Chennai(Sh. Roop Singh Singh Azad, CPIO & Sh. B.L. Narsimha Rao, CPIO/FAA- through videoconferencing)

Supply of information –Issue of Show Cause notice for not suppling the information- the appellant filed RTI application before the CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited, Kurukshetra, seeking status in respect of the second claim in policy – the CPIO had directed appellant to access information directly form the TPA (who by itself is not a public authority) whereas the representative of the TPA had informed the appellant that information can be disclosed only at the behest of the insurer and cannot be parted with to any other person-

The Commission held that the CPIO has denied information to the appellant without any application of mind when he is fully aware of the fact that the TPA is a creature of the Company and created through an agreement/contract between the two parties for rendering service to policy holders on behalf of the Company. Therefore, it is only natural to conclude that all documents held by the TPA pertaining to the medi claim policies can be accessed by the insurer. Show cause notice issued to CPIO as to why penalty should not be imposed.

97

CIC/DS/A/2012/001245
(207.68 KB) pdf icon

08 Jan, 2013

M.L. Gupta V.S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai/Bhopal (Sh. Pauly Shiv Kumar, DGM, Sh. Raj Kumar, RM, Sh. Sanjay Khare, Ms. Sunita Nair, AA, Sh. B.L. Narsimha Rao, FAA-through videoconferencing)

The appellant filed RTI application before the CPIOP, United India Insurance Company Limited, Bhopal, seeking details in respect of the Officers Pre- Promotional Exam 2011 through multiple points – the CPIO did not provide any reply and submitted that the subject matter of the RTI application is pending before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and that the court had issued certain directions for setting up of expert committee to examine the question papers and to come out with a scientific way of solving the problem and that all the promotions to come out with a scientific way of solving the problem and that all the promotion would be subject to the orders to be passed by the court in future. Therefore, information had been withheld from the appellant till the final orders of the court were passed in this regard- the Commission held that we do not see any merit in the argument of the CPIO that by disclosing the question the question booklet, the question bank of the NIA would be depleted with resultant detriment to the employer namely the United India Insurance Company Limited. In our view, the insurance business is indeed very technical and very vast in its scope. Therefore, even if the question bank were to hold about hundred question and these are disclosed in response to RTI applications from time to time, then the examinees would be required to learn the answers of most of these hundred questions which if be the case, would be to the advantage and not to the detriment of the insurer employer.

98

CIC/SM/A/2012/000075
(211.71 KB) pdf icon

15 Oct, 2012

Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal vs CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training

The Appellant sought certain information from the CPIO, DoPT, who advised the appellant to approach the State Government of Maharashtra since that Government had set up the Justice PB Sawant Commission to enquire into the charges against Anna Hazare. CIC held that, as both the appropriate governments, the Central and the State, are two distinct bodies and, under different jurisdictions, the former under the CIC while the latter under the SIC, indiscriminate and mandatory transfer of RTI applications to public authorities outside the appropriate government would, raise issues of jurisdiction and the citizen would find it difficult to approach, in complaint or second appeal, to any particular Information Commission.

99

CIC/SM/A/2011/002673
(206.30 KB) pdf icon

24 Sep, 2012

Shri K.B. Bhasin vs CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training

The Appellant sought a number of details. Almost all the information was disclosed except some personal information relating to the medical condition of the employee concerned. CIC directed to provide part of the information which is disclosable. Section 8(1)(j)

100

CIC/SS/A/2012/001487
(215.21 KB) pdf icon

24 Sep, 2012

Shri Mohit Bhatnagar vs Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd

The Commission directed the CPIO to provide appellant’s own marks obtained by him in interview and Group Discussion Section 8(1) (j)

101

CIC/SM/A/2011/002052
(208.81 KB) pdf icon

07 Sep, 2012

Shri Bhasco De Saikia vs CPIO, North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Ltd.

CIC directed the CPIO to provide the information. Section 8

102

CIC/LS/A/2012/001258
(74.09 KB) pdf icon

05 Sep, 2012

Dr Jitendra Kumar Jain vs Central Drugs Research Institute

CIC directed the CPIO to provide the information. Section 19(8)(b)

103

CIC/LS/A/2012/000978
(34.35 KB) pdf icon

21 Aug, 2012

Shri Jai Singh vs DRDO

The appellant was JSO in DRDO. He was given compulsory retirement way back in 1993. Vide RTI application dated 12.9.2011, He had sought to know the detailed reasons for his compulsory retirement. CIC had given direction to provide information. Section 24(1)

104

CIC/LS/A/2012/000523
(31.95 KB) pdf icon

09 Aug, 2012

Vijoy Kumar Das vs 570 Army Base Workshop, Meerut Cantt., Meeurt

The appellant has appeared in Telecom Mechanic Examination in 2011. Vide RTI application dated 9.11.2010, he had sought photocopy of his answer-scripts. CIC had given direction to provide information. Section 2 (f)

105

CIC/LS/A/2012/000519
(34.15 KB) pdf icon

09 Aug, 2012

Ravi Shankar vs Director General of Quality Assurance

The appellant is a retired employee. Vide RTI application dated 28.5.2011, he had sought copies of his ACRs for the years 1998 to 2008. CIC had given direction to provide information. Section 2 (f )