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

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
106	CIC/LS/A/2012/000794 (29.56 KB)	08 Aug, 2012	Shri Janak Singh vs Garrison Engineer, Gwalior The appellant had sought information about the money spent on purchase of stationery during last 03 years by the office of Garrison Engineer, Gwalior. CIC had given direction to provide information. Section 2 (f)
107	CIC/LS/A/2011/002861/BS/0571 (60.76 KB)	02 Aug, 2012	Mr. S. Mahajan vs Central Public Information Officer MNTL CIC had given direction to provide information. Section 2 (f )
108	CIC/LS/A/2011/000408/BS/0296 Penalty (79.13 KB)	12 Jul, 2012	Desh Raj v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ambala Cantt Section 7(1) — Supply of Information The Commission held that it is unable to accept the contention of the CPIO/other officers that the remaining records containing the information are missing, especially in view of letter dated 04/09/2010 addressed to the appellant offering inspection of the relevant records. The CPIO/other official(s) are directed to carry out a thorough search to locate the said records and furnish the remaining information/document(s) as requested by the appellant. By not furnishing the complete, correct and timely information the concerned CPIO and the above named deemed PIOS have rendered themselves liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Inaction on the part of holders of information is clearly a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. No reasonable cause has been offered by the deemed PIOs for not furnishing complete information within the stipulated time period, they have rendered themselves liable for imposition of maximum penalty (i.e. 25000/-) in terms of the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission concludes that all four officers are jointly responsible for the delay in providing the information. Accordingly the Commission has decided to divide the total penalty amount of Rs. 25000/- equally between the four officers.
109	CIC/SM/A/2011/002286 (207.72 KB)	10 Jul, 2012	Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan The CIC directed the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the copy of the relevant file noting relating to the framing of a particular rule for the empanelment of IAS officers for the post of Additional Secretary and Secretary and the subsequent amendment/relaxation of this rule, as specified by the Appellant in his RTI application. Section 7(1)
110	CIC/LS/A/2011/003384 CIC/LS/A/2011/003385 (41.51 KB)	06 Jul, 2012	Shri K.V.R.K. Raju vs Bharat Electronics Ltd However, the contracts entered into after conclusion of the tendering process cannot be considered as confidential. Such information is not covered u/s 8(1)(d). Similarly, information which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has not been treated as confidential by that third party may be disclosed. Section 2(f)
111	CIC/SS/A/2012/000324 (200.24 KB)	04 Jul, 2012	Mr. C.J. Vali vs Northern Coalfields Ltd, U.P. The appellant sought certain information from the CPIO relating to the transfer of Regional Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners from one station to another station and copies of such order as well as copies of note sheets and copies of letter/letters concurring with the proposal of transfer by the Ministry of Coal. The Commission issued warning-cum-directive to the CPIO as well as the FAA to ensure that they must act in consonance with the mandate and spirit of the RTI Act in future. Section 7(1)
112	CIC/LS/A/2011/003929 (31.81 KB)	02 Jul, 2012	Shri P.C. Ramakrishnaiah vs Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization The appellant had sought copies of his ACRs for the last 07 years – employee of HAL, Lucknow – the information was denied to him – the Commission held that the appellant is an employee of PSU, which, though under MoD, Cannot be said to be military service. Hence, the ratio of the Supreme Court Judgment in DevDutt Case is applicable in this case. Section 8(1)(j)
113	CIC/DS/A/2011/003247 (88.40 KB)	02 Jul, 2012	Shri Ashok Yadav, Jaipur vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd The Appellant submitted his RTI application before the CPIO to obtain information pertaining to the appointment of Hindi officer (AAO) in 1986 and more specifically regarding the appointment of Sh. Jaimal Meena Section 8(1)(e)
114	CIC/LS/A/2011/003987 (30.52 KB)	29 Jun, 2012	Dev Kumar vs Artillery Records, Nashik The appellant is a retired Hawaldar of 312 Medium Regiment – Vide RTI application the appellant had sought a copy of his ACR for the year 2008 etc. – this information was denied to him u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as the appellant was a combatant Section 8(1)(e)
115	CIC/AD/A/2012/001151 (206.66 KB)	28 Jun, 2012	Shri K. Ramesh vs Southern Railway Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Construction, Egmore The Applicant field his RTI application seeking certain information about a contract given by the public authority for construction of new bridge across river palar for the proposed new line between Tinduvanam and Nagari Section 8(1)(d)
116	CIC/SG/A/2012/001433/19367 (55.44 KB)	27 Jun, 2012	Mr. G.R Khare vs Mr. Uday Navalkar PIO & Dy. Zonal Manager Bank of India The appellant wanted the copy of the termination letter dated 06.06.1986 through which clerk Johan Aadila was suspended – the CPIO stated that information sought is 20 years old and so it is against the provision of section 8(3) of the RTI Act – the Commission held that the PIO has completely misread and misunderstood section 8(3) of the RTI Act. Section 6 Section 8(3)
117	CIC/SS/A/2012/000051 (398.55 KB)	26 Jun, 2012	Subhash Chandra Agrawal v Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi Section 7(1) — Supply of Information The Commission held that it is of the view that the disclosure of the recommendations/comments sent by the MHA to the President in relation to such mercy petitions is expressly barred by Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India and hence, such information cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act. File notings and correspondence in relation to mercy petitions, as sought by the Appellant, reflect the material on the basis of which advice and recommendations are made by the MHA to the President of India and thus, fall under the category of information which is not barred by Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. Information comprising of file notings and correspondences, as exchanged between MHA and President's Secretariat in relation to mercy petitions, has to be tested on the touchstone of section 8 of the RTI Act and it has to be assessed whether the disclosure of such information is exempted under any of the clauses of section 8 of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the CPIO of the MHA to disclose the copies of the file notings not forming part of the ministerial advice to the President of India, as sought by the Appellant, after severing all the names and other references regarding the identities of the public servants regarding those file notings and making those correspondence. The CPIO is further directed to disclose the copies of the correspondence made by MHA to the President's Secretariat from time to time in connection with the mercy petitions, as sought by the Appellant in his RTI Application, except those correspondences, which in the CPIO's opinion are exempt from disclosure in terms of section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
118	CIC/LS/A/2011/002461 CIC/LS/A/2011/002462 (34.35 KB)	22 Jun, 2012	Sushil Kumar Vs. Caret Export Promotion Council (CEPC) Section 7 (1) — Supply of information The Commission held that if the information seeker denies to have filed the RTI application, then this should be duly recorded in the order of the CPIO and it is good enough ground to close the matter. Further, if the information seeker do not visit the office of the CPIO on the CPIO's request, it may be noted that the former cannot be compelled to do so and in that eventuality, the CPIO shall decide the case on merits.
119	CIC/DS/A/2011/002122 CIC/DS/A/2011/002176 CIC/DS/A/2011/002178 CIC/DS/A/2011/002292 CIC/DS/A/2011/002290 (90.65 KB)	21 Jun, 2012	Birinder Singh Vs. Estate Office, UT Chandigarh Section 7 (1) — Supply of information the CPIO clubbed some of the applications and provided information collectively for several RTI applications through one letter — Whether such approach on the part of the CPIO to response RTI applications is justified — the Commission held that the CPIO is to provide information point wise separately for each RTI application.
120	CIC/AD/A/2012/000795 (414.61 KB)	18 Jun, 2012	Shiv Kumar Saxena Vs. Department of Women and Child Development, New Delhi Section 7(1) — Supply of information Whether the applicant have the right to get translated copy of documents sought in the RTI application — the Commission held that, since there is no provision for translating documents and then providing them to the Applicant under the RTI Act, as such information cannot be called ‘information' as per its definition in section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

106

CIC/LS/A/2012/000794
(29.56 KB) pdf icon

08 Aug, 2012

Shri Janak Singh vs Garrison Engineer, Gwalior

The appellant had sought information about the money spent on purchase of stationery during last 03 years by the office of Garrison Engineer, Gwalior. CIC had given direction to provide information. Section 2 (f)

107

CIC/LS/A/2011/002861/BS/0571
(60.76 KB) pdf icon

02 Aug, 2012

Mr. S. Mahajan vs Central Public Information Officer MNTL

CIC had given direction to provide information. Section 2 (f )

108

CIC/LS/A/2011/000408/BS/0296 Penalty
(79.13 KB) pdf icon

12 Jul, 2012

Desh Raj v Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ambala Cantt

Section 7(1) — Supply of Information

The Commission held that it is unable to accept the contention of the CPIO/other officers that the remaining records containing the information are missing, especially in view of letter dated 04/09/2010 addressed to the appellant offering inspection of the relevant records. The CPIO/other official(s) are directed to carry out a thorough search to locate the said records and furnish the remaining information/document(s) as requested by the appellant. By not furnishing the complete, correct and timely information the concerned CPIO and the above named deemed PIOS have rendered themselves liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Inaction on the part of holders of information is clearly a gross violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. No reasonable cause has been offered by the deemed PIOs for not furnishing complete information within the stipulated time period, they have rendered themselves liable for imposition of maximum penalty (i.e. 25000/-) in terms of the provisions of section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission concludes that all four officers are jointly responsible for the delay in providing the information. Accordingly the Commission has decided to divide the total penalty amount of Rs. 25000/- equally between the four officers.

109

CIC/SM/A/2011/002286
(207.72 KB) pdf icon

10 Jul, 2012

Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhawan

The CIC directed the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the copy of the relevant file noting relating to the framing of a particular rule for the empanelment of IAS officers for the post of Additional Secretary and Secretary and the subsequent amendment/relaxation of this rule, as specified by the Appellant in his RTI application. Section 7(1)

110

CIC/LS/A/2011/003384 CIC/LS/A/2011/003385
(41.51 KB) pdf icon

06 Jul, 2012

Shri K.V.R.K. Raju vs Bharat Electronics Ltd

However, the contracts entered into after conclusion of the tendering process cannot be considered as confidential. Such information is not covered u/s 8(1)(d). Similarly, information which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has not been treated as confidential by that third party may be disclosed. Section 2(f)

111

CIC/SS/A/2012/000324
(200.24 KB) pdf icon

04 Jul, 2012

Mr. C.J. Vali vs Northern Coalfields Ltd, U.P.

The appellant sought certain information from the CPIO relating to the transfer of Regional Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners from one station to another station and copies of such order as well as copies of note sheets and copies of letter/letters concurring with the proposal of transfer by the Ministry of Coal. The Commission issued warning-cum-directive to the CPIO as well as the FAA to ensure that they must act in consonance with the mandate and spirit of the RTI Act in future. Section 7(1)

112

CIC/LS/A/2011/003929
(31.81 KB) pdf icon

02 Jul, 2012

Shri P.C. Ramakrishnaiah vs Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization

The appellant had sought copies of his ACRs for the last 07 years – employee of HAL, Lucknow – the information was denied to him – the Commission held that the appellant is an employee of PSU, which, though under MoD, Cannot be said to be military service. Hence, the ratio of the Supreme Court Judgment in DevDutt Case is applicable in this case. Section 8(1)(j)

113

CIC/DS/A/2011/003247
(88.40 KB) pdf icon

02 Jul, 2012

Shri Ashok Yadav, Jaipur vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd

The Appellant submitted his RTI application before the CPIO to obtain information pertaining to the appointment of Hindi officer (AAO) in 1986 and more specifically regarding the appointment of Sh. Jaimal Meena Section 8(1)(e)

114

CIC/LS/A/2011/003987
(30.52 KB) pdf icon

29 Jun, 2012

Dev Kumar vs Artillery Records, Nashik

The appellant is a retired Hawaldar of 312 Medium Regiment – Vide RTI application the appellant had sought a copy of his ACR for the year 2008 etc. – this information was denied to him u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, as the appellant was a combatant Section 8(1)(e)

115

CIC/AD/A/2012/001151
(206.66 KB) pdf icon

28 Jun, 2012

Shri K. Ramesh vs Southern Railway Office of the Chief Administrative Officer Construction, Egmore

The Applicant field his RTI application seeking certain information about a contract given by the public authority for construction of new bridge across river palar for the proposed new line between Tinduvanam and Nagari Section 8(1)(d)

116

CIC/SG/A/2012/001433/19367
(55.44 KB) pdf icon

27 Jun, 2012

Mr. G.R Khare vs Mr. Uday Navalkar PIO & Dy. Zonal Manager Bank of India

The appellant wanted the copy of the termination letter dated 06.06.1986 through which clerk Johan Aadila was suspended – the CPIO stated that information sought is 20 years old and so it is against the provision of section 8(3) of the RTI Act – the Commission held that the PIO has completely misread and misunderstood section 8(3) of the RTI Act. Section 6 Section 8(3)

117

CIC/SS/A/2012/000051
(398.55 KB) pdf icon

26 Jun, 2012

Subhash Chandra Agrawal v Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi

Section 7(1) — Supply of Information

The Commission held that it is of the view that the disclosure of the recommendations/comments sent by the MHA to the President in relation to such mercy petitions is expressly barred by Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India and hence, such information cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act. File notings and correspondence in relation to mercy petitions, as sought by the Appellant, reflect the material on the basis of which advice and recommendations are made by the MHA to the President of India and thus, fall under the category of information which is not barred by Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. Information comprising of file notings and correspondences, as exchanged between MHA and President's Secretariat in relation to mercy petitions, has to be tested on the touchstone of section 8 of the RTI Act and it has to be assessed whether the disclosure of such information is exempted under any of the clauses of section 8 of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the CPIO of the MHA to disclose the copies of the file notings not forming part of the ministerial advice to the President of India, as sought by the Appellant, after severing all the names and other references regarding the identities of the public servants regarding those file notings and making those correspondence. The CPIO is further directed to disclose the copies of the correspondence made by MHA to the President's Secretariat from time to time in connection with the mercy petitions, as sought by the Appellant in his RTI Application, except those correspondences, which in the CPIO's opinion are exempt from disclosure in terms of section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.

118

CIC/LS/A/2011/002461 CIC/LS/A/2011/002462
(34.35 KB) pdf icon

22 Jun, 2012

Sushil Kumar Vs. Caret Export Promotion Council (CEPC)

Section 7 (1) — Supply of information
The Commission held that if the information seeker denies to have filed the RTI application, then this should be duly recorded in the order of the CPIO and it is good enough ground to close the matter. Further, if the information seeker do not visit the office of the CPIO on the CPIO's request, it may be noted that the former cannot be compelled to do so and in that eventuality, the CPIO shall decide the case on merits.

119

CIC/DS/A/2011/002122 CIC/DS/A/2011/002176 CIC/DS/A/2011/002178 CIC/DS/A/2011/002292 CIC/DS/A/2011/002290
(90.65 KB) pdf icon

21 Jun, 2012

Birinder Singh Vs. Estate Office, UT Chandigarh

Section 7 (1) — Supply of information
the CPIO clubbed some of the applications and provided information collectively for several RTI applications through one letter — Whether such approach on the part of the CPIO to response RTI applications is justified — the Commission held that the CPIO is to provide information point wise separately for each RTI application.

120

CIC/AD/A/2012/000795
(414.61 KB) pdf icon

18 Jun, 2012

Shiv Kumar Saxena Vs. Department of Women and Child Development, New Delhi

Section 7(1) — Supply of information
Whether the applicant have the right to get translated copy of documents sought in the RTI application — the Commission held that, since there is no provision for translating documents and then providing them to the Applicant under the RTI Act, as such information cannot be called ‘information' as per its definition in section 2(f) of the RTI Act.