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

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
121	CIC/LS/A/2011/002832 (42.68 KB)	04 Jun, 2012	B. B. Singh v Defence Estates Office, Agra Section 7(1) — Supply of information The Appellant sought certain information from the CPIO and copies of certain document as well The Commission held that when inspection has already been given, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever to deny copies of the relevant documents to the appellant. Provisioning of copies of documents is a natural consequence of giving inspection of the records. Thus, the case has been wrongly decided by the CPIO/AA and, therefore, their orders cannot be allowed to stand and they are set aside.
122	CIC/SG/A/2012/000330/18739 Penalty (32.45 KB)	01 Jun, 2012	Ranji Anandan v Indian Bank, Chennai Section 7(1) — Supply of Information The Commission held that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing the information within the time specified under section 7 (1) by not replying within 30 days as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the directions of the Commission and since the delay in providing the information has been for over 100 days the Commission imposed the maximum penalty of 25000/- under section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
123	CIC/LS/A/2011/003767 (37.90 KB)	01 Jun, 2012	Kusuma v KIOCL Section 7(1) — Supply of information within stipulated period — the Appellant had sought information on 26 paras relating to last ten years The Commission held that it cannot be unmindful of the Supreme Court's observations in Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, to the effect that the querists should not exercise their right in such a manner as to compel the public authorities to spend 70% of their time in responding only to the RTI applications, to the detriment of their normal functioning. It have to balance the citizens' right to information with the compulsions of the public authorities. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the ends of justice will be met if the CPIO is cautioned to be careful in future in responding to the RTI applications with due diligence and in prescribed time frame.
124	CIC/LS/A/2011/003355 (27.84 KB)	29 May, 2012	Sulagn Saha v PCDA (P), Allahabad Section 7(1) — Supply of information The Commission held that the appellant has raised frivolous issues in the RTI application- These issues can better be sorted out at the local level. It is open to him to visit the concerned office and seek the requisite information. Appeal dismissed.
125	CIC/SG/A/2012/001098/19125 (59.03 KB)	29 May, 2012	Ashwani Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Section 7(1) — Supply of information The Commission held that the most citizens in the country cannot access website and the PIO may give the information about the information being available on the website, but he should also offer to provide the information in hardcopies. In the instant case the PIO is directed to provide the complete detailed information sought by the Appellant and warned that he must inform citizens of how much additional fee to be paid if they want information in hardcopies.
126	CIC/SS/A/2012/000172 (214.38 KB)	29 May, 2012	D.P. Majhi Vs. National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi Section 7(1) — Supply of information The Commission held that it is unfortunate that such an important file relating to permanent absorption of an Indian Forest Service Officer, Shri V.K. Sharma in NHAI is missing. The citizens’ Right to Information cannot be defeated by claiming that the concerned file containing the information is not traceable. The CPIO is hereby directed to reconstruct the file, in case if it is still not traceable, if necessary by taking feedback from the concerned Ministries and provide complete information to the appellant on each point of his RTI application within six weeks of receipt of this order.
127	CIC/DS/A/2011/001617/RM (89.86 KB)	29 May, 2012	Nargis Mitra v Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai Right to Information Act 2005 — Section 7(1) — Supply of information — Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005 The Commission held that the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005 lays down amount to be paid per page for information under sub-section 1 of section 7. The CPIO, IlT, Mumbai, wrote on two occasions to deposit the prescribed fee for seeking copies of documents- This not Denial of information is justified.
128	CIC/LS/A/2011/003818 (38.09 KB)	28 May, 2012	Ram Shankar Sharma Vs Cantonment Board, Mathura Right to Information Act 2005 — Section 7(l) — Supply of information — The appellant had sought information regarding all kind of tenders floated by the Board during last five years. Besides, he had also sought to know the generator sets and vehicles purchased by the Board without prescribing any time frame for such purchases. Furthermore, he had sought information about the residential premises available in the Cantonment area and the matters related therewith The Commission held that from the nature of information sought by the appellant, it appears to me that this information is of no consequence to him. Importantly, it cannot be forgotten that collection, coalition and transmission of information to the appellant would cost considerable time, resources and money to the public authority.
129	CIC/AD/A/2012/001270 (212.03 KB)	25 May, 2012	Pradeep Kumar Jain Vs. Department of Revenue, New Delhi Right to Information Act 2005 — Section 7(1) — Supply of information — Priced book or publication The Appellant sought a copy of Law book The Commission held that it is a priced book and is available in the market, the Appellant is advised to purchase the same.
130	CIC/SG/A/2012/000880/18723 Penalty (36.90 KB)	24 May, 2012	Harish Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Section 7(1) — Supply of information The PIO had sought the assistance of Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawan, EE(B) under section 5(4) of the RTI Act – Mr. Nihhawan forwarded the RTI application to Mr. Gulshan Kumar, JE who failed to submit the correct and complete information within the prescribed time limit The Commission held that in such circumstances, notwithstanding the default on the part of Mr. Gulshan Kumar, JE and Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawan, EE would be the deemed PIO for the purposes of Section 20 of the RTI Act and therefore, would be liable to be penalised. Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawa, EE(B) & Deemed PIO for the delay in providing the information and the delay is much in excess of 100 days the Commission imposed the maximum penalty of 25000/- under section 20(1) of the RTI Act on him.
131	CIC/AD/C/2012/000614 (310.50 KB)	20 Apr, 2012	Sunita VS. New Delhi Municipal Council, New Delhi Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of third days – The appellant sought the details of GPF of her husband from the PIO of the Public Authority – the Commission held that the Appellant in this case is the legally married wife of the third party and in view of the submission of the appellant that her husband has been refusing to pay her any maintenance allowance although she still remains his wife, directed the PIO to provide the required information to the appellant by 20 May, 2012.
132	CIC/SG/A/2012/000471/18467 (57.77 KB)	18 Apr, 2012	Mr. Sandeep Godika vs Mr. J. K. Sahasmal, PIO & AGM, UCO Bank The appellant sought certain information from the PIO about the name and addresses of NPA borrowers. The CIC held that a fiduciary relationship exists, since all customers of the respondent public authority come to it because of the implicit trust they have and they provide information to the bank for their own benefit Unless a larger public interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure. Section 8(1)(e).
133	CIC/AD/A/2012/000759 (211.85 KB)	11 Apr, 2012	K.P. Singh Vs. Northern Railway, New Delhi Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days – The Commission held that the appellant is not the passenger in this case and that he is seeking details of passengers who had travelled against a certain PNR No. which is information related to third party. The Commission denied disclosure of information to the appellant since it is of the opinion that the disclosure has no relation with any public activity or interest and since the disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the third party.
134	CIC/SS/A/2011/001757 (194.32 KB)	04 Apr, 2012	Shri Prafulla Jojo vs Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs The appellant had filed an application under the RTI Act seeking information pertaining to appointment of Assistant Solicitor General of India and Government Standing Counsels in the High Court of Jharkhand. The CIC held that the information requested by the appellant, cannot be held to be personal information, since the information sought is regarding appointments made by the respondent. Providing such information regarding the appointments by the public authorities cannot be said to be personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of any person. The respondent CPIO is therefore directed to provide complete information as requested for by the appellant, free of cost. Section 7(1) Section 8(1)(j)
135	CIC/LS/A/2011/003580 (36.95 KB)	03 Apr, 2012	V.D. Sharma Vs. MES, Bhopal Section 7(1) – Supply of information The Commission held that the view taken by the CPIO regarding paras (i) & (ii) (two letters of other office) of the RTI application is not sustainable in law. As long as the CPIO is holding/maintaining the requisite information, he has to decide whether it is disclosure to the appellant or not. He simply cannot evade his responsibility by advising the appellant to obtain the requisite information from the originator. The CPIO’s decision is set-aside and he is hereby directed to disclose this information. Departmental enquiry has since been completed, section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act cannot be invoked at this stage.

121

CIC/LS/A/2011/002832
(42.68 KB) pdf icon

04 Jun, 2012

B. B. Singh v Defence Estates Office, Agra

Section 7(1) — Supply of information
The Appellant sought certain information from the CPIO and copies of certain document as well
The Commission held that when inspection has already been given, there is absolutely no justification whatsoever to deny copies of the relevant documents to the appellant. Provisioning of copies of documents is a natural consequence of giving inspection of the records. Thus, the case has been wrongly decided by the CPIO/AA and, therefore, their orders cannot be allowed to stand and they are set aside.

122

CIC/SG/A/2012/000330/18739 Penalty
(32.45 KB) pdf icon

01 Jun, 2012

Ranji Anandan v Indian Bank, Chennai

Section 7(1) — Supply of Information
The Commission held that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing the information within the time specified under section 7 (1) by not replying within 30 days as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the directions of the Commission and since the delay in providing the information has been for over 100 days the Commission imposed the maximum penalty of 25000/- under section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

123

CIC/LS/A/2011/003767
(37.90 KB) pdf icon

01 Jun, 2012

Kusuma v KIOCL

Section 7(1) — Supply of information within stipulated period — the Appellant had sought information on 26 paras relating to last ten years
The Commission held that it cannot be unmindful of the Supreme Court's observations in Central Board of Secondary Education Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, to the effect that the querists should not exercise their right in such a manner as to compel the public authorities to spend 70% of their time in responding only to the RTI applications, to the detriment of their normal functioning. It have to balance the citizens' right to information with the compulsions of the public authorities. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case the ends of justice will be met if the CPIO is cautioned to be careful in future in responding to the RTI applications with due diligence and in prescribed time frame.

124

CIC/LS/A/2011/003355
(27.84 KB) pdf icon

29 May, 2012

Sulagn Saha v PCDA (P), Allahabad

Section 7(1) — Supply of information
The Commission held that the appellant has raised frivolous issues in the RTI application- These issues can better be sorted out at the local level. It is open to him to visit the concerned office and seek the requisite information. Appeal dismissed.

125

CIC/SG/A/2012/001098/19125
(59.03 KB) pdf icon

29 May, 2012

Ashwani Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Section 7(1) — Supply of information
The Commission held that the most citizens in the country cannot access website and the PIO may give the information about the information being available on the website, but he should also offer to provide the information in hardcopies. In the instant case the PIO is directed to provide the complete detailed information sought by the Appellant and warned that he must inform citizens of how much additional fee to be paid if they want information in hardcopies.

126

CIC/SS/A/2012/000172
(214.38 KB) pdf icon

29 May, 2012

D.P. Majhi Vs. National Highways Authority of India, New Delhi

Section 7(1) — Supply of information
The Commission held that it is unfortunate that such an important file relating to permanent absorption of an Indian Forest Service Officer, Shri V.K. Sharma in NHAI is missing. The citizens’ Right to Information cannot be defeated by claiming that the concerned file containing the information is not traceable. The CPIO is hereby directed to reconstruct the file, in case if it is still not traceable, if necessary by taking feedback from the concerned Ministries and provide complete information to the appellant on each point of his RTI application within six weeks of receipt of this order.

127

CIC/DS/A/2011/001617/RM
(89.86 KB) pdf icon

29 May, 2012

Nargis Mitra v Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai

Right to Information Act 2005 — Section 7(1) — Supply of information — Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005
The Commission held that the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005 lays down amount to be paid per page for information under sub-section 1 of section 7. The CPIO, IlT, Mumbai, wrote on two occasions to deposit the prescribed fee for seeking copies of documents- This not Denial of information is justified.

128

CIC/LS/A/2011/003818
(38.09 KB) pdf icon

28 May, 2012

Ram Shankar Sharma Vs Cantonment Board, Mathura

Right to Information Act 2005 — Section 7(l) — Supply of information —
The appellant had sought information regarding all kind of tenders floated by the Board during last five years. Besides, he had also sought to know the generator sets and vehicles purchased by the Board without prescribing any time frame for such purchases. Furthermore, he had sought information about the residential premises available in the Cantonment area and the matters related therewith
The Commission held that from the nature of information sought by the appellant, it appears to me that this information is of no consequence to him. Importantly, it cannot be forgotten that collection, coalition and transmission of information to the appellant would cost considerable time, resources and money to the public authority.

129

CIC/AD/A/2012/001270
(212.03 KB) pdf icon

25 May, 2012

Pradeep Kumar Jain Vs. Department of Revenue, New Delhi

Right to Information Act 2005 — Section 7(1) — Supply of information — Priced book or publication
The Appellant sought a copy of Law book
The Commission held that it is a priced book and is available in the market, the Appellant is advised to purchase the same.

130

CIC/SG/A/2012/000880/18723 Penalty
(36.90 KB) pdf icon

24 May, 2012

Harish Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Section 7(1) — Supply of information
The PIO had sought the assistance of Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawan, EE(B) under section 5(4) of the RTI Act – Mr. Nihhawan forwarded the RTI application to Mr. Gulshan Kumar, JE who failed to submit the correct and complete information within the prescribed time limit
The Commission held that in such circumstances, notwithstanding the default on the part of Mr. Gulshan Kumar, JE and Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawan, EE would be the deemed PIO for the purposes of Section 20 of the RTI Act and therefore, would be liable to be penalised. Since no reasonable cause has been offered by Mr. Manoj Kumar Nijhawa, EE(B) & Deemed PIO for the delay in providing the information and the delay is much in excess of 100 days the Commission imposed the maximum penalty of 25000/- under section 20(1) of the RTI Act on him.

131

CIC/AD/C/2012/000614
(310.50 KB) pdf icon

20 Apr, 2012

Sunita VS. New Delhi Municipal Council, New Delhi

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of third days –

The appellant sought the details of GPF of her husband from the PIO of the Public Authority – the Commission held that the Appellant in this case is the legally married wife of the third party and in view of the submission of the appellant that her husband has been refusing to pay her any maintenance allowance although she still remains his wife, directed the PIO to provide the required information to the appellant by 20 May, 2012.

132

CIC/SG/A/2012/000471/18467
(57.77 KB) pdf icon

18 Apr, 2012

Mr. Sandeep Godika vs Mr. J. K. Sahasmal, PIO & AGM, UCO Bank

The appellant sought certain information from the PIO about the name and addresses of NPA borrowers. The CIC held that a fiduciary relationship exists, since all customers of the respondent public authority come to it because of the implicit trust they have and they provide information to the bank for their own benefit Unless a larger public interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure. Section 8(1)(e).

133

CIC/AD/A/2012/000759
(211.85 KB) pdf icon

11 Apr, 2012

K.P. Singh Vs. Northern Railway, New Delhi

Section 7(1) – Supply of information within stipulated period of thirty days –
The Commission held that the appellant is not the passenger in this case and that he is seeking details of passengers who had travelled against a certain PNR No. which is information related to third party. The Commission denied disclosure of information to the appellant since it is of the opinion that the disclosure has no relation with any public activity or interest and since the disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the third party.

134

CIC/SS/A/2011/001757
(194.32 KB) pdf icon

04 Apr, 2012

Shri Prafulla Jojo vs Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs

The appellant had filed an application under the RTI Act seeking information pertaining to appointment of Assistant Solicitor General of India and Government Standing Counsels in the High Court of Jharkhand. The CIC held that the information requested by the appellant, cannot be held to be personal information, since the information sought is regarding appointments made by the respondent. Providing such information regarding the appointments by the public authorities cannot be said to be personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of any person. The respondent CPIO is therefore directed to provide complete information as requested for by the appellant, free of cost. Section 7(1) Section 8(1)(j)

135

CIC/LS/A/2011/003580
(36.95 KB) pdf icon

03 Apr, 2012

V.D. Sharma Vs. MES, Bhopal

Section 7(1) – Supply of information
The Commission held that the view taken by the CPIO regarding paras (i) & (ii) (two letters of other office) of the RTI application is not sustainable in law. As long as the CPIO is holding/maintaining the requisite information, he has to decide whether it is disclosure to the appellant or not. He simply cannot evade his responsibility by advising the appellant to obtain the requisite information from the originator. The CPIO’s decision is set-aside and he is hereby directed to disclose this information. Departmental enquiry has since been completed, section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act cannot be invoked at this stage.