welcome to Miscellaneous (Law of Precedence, Compliant and Appeal, Freedom of Speech, Transparency in admission/selection) | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
136	CIC/DS/A/2011/001323 (204.57 KB)	26 Mar, 2012	Satish Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh Section 5 – Designation of Public Information Officer The respondent appointed its official as CPIO who was appointed by public authority on contract basis. The CPIO did not take appropriate action as required under the RTI Act in respect of the RTI application – The Commission directed the respondent to appoint only those officials as CPIO and FAA who are on the regular staff of the corporation so that the obligations mandated under the RTI Act can be discharged faithfully.
137	CIC/SG/C/2011/001535/18037 (46.96 KB)	23 Mar, 2012	Akhilesh Saxena Vs. IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai Section 6(1) – Request for Information The Commission held that the RTI Application has been filed clearly as per the provisions of the RTI Act as the RTI Application bears the ‘name of the applicant’ and additionally mentions his designation and work address. As long as the RTI application is in the name of a particular citizen of India, it is of no consequence where the citizen also furnishes his designation or any such details of any other identities which he may bear.
138	CIC/SM/A/2011/000759 (208.66 KB)	22 Mar, 2012	Raaj Managal Prasad Vs. Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi Section 6(1) – Application fee The Commission did not agree with the views of the Appellate Authority. No request for information can be rejected only on the ground that application fee has not been paid separately for each item.
139	CIC/AD/A/2012/000697 (317.67 KB)	21 Mar, 2012	Birbal Vs. Land & Building Department, New Delhi Section 18(2) – CIC or SIC as the case may be, may initiate an inquiry – 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.
140	CIC/AD/A/2011/002492 (206.57 KB)	14 Mar, 2012	Sanjay Maurya Vs. Nutan Marathi Senior Secondary School, O/o the Manager Walchand Place Aram Bagh, Paharganj, New Delhi Section 7(9) – Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority The Commission held that the information sought is voluminous in nature and held that providing this unreasonable amount of information would disproportionately divert the resource of the Public Authority and therefore cannot be provided in its present form u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act.
141	CIC/SG/C/2011/000760, CIC/SM/A/2011/000926/SG, CIC/SM/A/2011/001111/SG, CIC/SG/A/2011/002909/18137 (81.33 KB)	17 Jan, 2012	S.P. Goyal Vs. Mr. V.C. Ramachandran, PIO & DGM, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, PB No. 3765, 763, Chennai section 19(5) – Onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO or SPIO - Whether any advice which is given by the lawyer, Banker, Doctor is held by the recipient in a fiduciary capacity The Commission held that the information held by the Senior position such as a Lawyer, Banker, Doctor is held in a fiduciary capacity. Such persons are under an obligation not to disclose any of the information received by them in this relationship, however, advice which is given by the lawyer, Banker, Doctor is not held by recipient in a fiduciary capacity. A patient is free to take the doctor’s opinion and show it to anyone he please just as a client can take a lawyer’s advice and present at any forum that he chooses. Hence, the Commission does not accept the plea of the information being exempt under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.
142	CIC/SM/A/2010/001513 (206.28 KB)	26 Sep, 2011	Shri Amit Kumar Rohtak Vs. CPIO, Union Bank of India, Karnal (Haryana). The Appellant had wanted some details regarding the account(s) of the Vaish College of Engineering. The CPIO had denied the information by claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC agreed with the decision of the CPIO. Since the account of the College is maintained in the bank in commercial confidence, ordinarily, details about it cannot be disclosed to anyone. Since there are three signatories to this account who are to operate it jointly, the no objection given by one of the signatories cannot be construed as an authorisation for seeking such details.
143	CIC/SM/A/2010/001233 (207.37 KB)	13 Sep, 2011	Shri Prem Chand Ferozepur City, Punjab. Vs. CPIO, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi The Appellant had wanted to know the details about the transfer of certain amount from a joint account held in the name of two individuals, one of whom had passed away, to another account held by some other individual. The CIC/SM/A/2010/001233 CPIO had informed the Appellant that the desired information could not be parted since the Appellant had not disclosed his relationship with the account holders and that such information was exempt from disclosure in terms of Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC held that, Even if the Appellant is in possession of a will, the bank cannot be expected to disclose the details of the transaction made by one of its customers without a valid direction from a court of law. Appeal dismissed.
144	CIC/AT/A/2010/001124-DS (87.51 KB)	07 Sep, 2011	Shri Krishna Kumar Sinha, Katihar Vs. State Bank of India, Patna Appellant preferred RTI application dated 18 December 2009 before the CPIO, State Bank of India, Patna to obtain information regarding statement of account held in the name of BDO, Barai and NREGA at SBI, Guru Bazar branch, Katihar. CPIO, vide order dated 4 January 2010, disclosure of information was denied under the provisions of section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. The Commission directs respondent to provide statement of account in respect of NREGA funds deposited with the above mentioned branch as these funds are from Govt. account and to be used for development purposes. This information is required to be disclosed as these are public monies for implementation of a national program.
145	CIC/LS/A/2011/001126 (37.19 KB)	06 Sep, 2011	Ishwar Singh Respondent : BSNL, Jaipur It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 29.4.2010, the appellant had sought huge information in regard to the jurisdiction of BSNL Civil Division, Jodhpur, w.e.f. 1.1.2000 till date. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 15.5.2010, informing the appellant that he had sought vague information and that if he sought specific information, the same would be provided to him. The offer was also made to him to visit the office and inspect the relevant documents. CIC upheld the decision of CPIO and dismissed the appeal.
146	CIC/DS/A/2010/000660 (82.88 KB)	06 Sep, 2011	Smt. Tanmayee Ranjan, Ghaziabad Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, New Delhi. Vide Commission’s order number CIC/DS/A/2010/000660 dated 16 July 2010 in the case of Smt. Tanmayee Ranjan vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, respondent had been directed to provide a copy of her own evaluated answer sheets as sought by the appellant in her RTI application. Subsequently Commission was informed that the respondent had obtained stay on the directions in the impugned order from the High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 1917/2011. The apex court has ruled that such access will be given only to that part of the answer book which does not contain any information or signature or initials of the examiners / coordinators / scrutinisers / head examiners, exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act and shall have to be removed, covered or otherwise severed from the non exempted part of the answer books, under section 10 of the RTI Act. 7. Furthermore it has been amply clarified through this order that none of the sections of the RTI Act will override any rules or regulations governing the period for which the record, document or information is required to be preserved by any public authority. 8. Accordinly the respondent is directed to provide copy of answer sheet / inspection of the answer sheet to the appellant subject to the above conditions.
147	CIC/DS/A/2011/000394 (91.25 KB)	01 Sep, 2011	Shri P.rajendran, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Department, New Delhi upholds the order of the first appellate authority that the information sought by the appellant cannot be furnished on the grounds that when there is already an order of the Delhi High Court staying the order of the ITAT for production of all records including those referred to in the RTI application of the appellant, the appellant cannot use an alternate route for gaining the same by making application under the RTI Act. Appeal is dismissed.
148	CIC/SG/C/2010/001567+000047/12193Adjunct (66.63 KB)	01 Jun, 2011	Mr. Dharam Pal Singh, Ghaziabad,U.P. Vs. PIO & Assistant Commissioner (HQ), Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Dept., GNCTD, Delhi. RTI is about pension that is illegally received by Smt. Anaro, New Delhi. CPIO intimated that Mrs. Anaro Devi is only getting Old age pension and not widow pension. Mrs. Anaro Devi had objected in releasing her information hence attested photocopies of documents cannot be supplied. CIC held that, a mere refusal by the third party cannot constitute a reasons for denial of information unless the information is exempt under Section- 8(1) of the RTI Act. Details of beneficiaries of various schemes cannot be considered as exempt under Section-8(1) of the RTI Act.
149	CIC/SG/A/2011/000299/12229 (53.63 KB)	02 May, 2011	Mr. HS Achyutha Vs. Public Information Officer, Employer’s Provident Fund Organisation, Mumbai. The Appellant is seeking information which is not with EPFO but is with exempted organization TCS with whom the Appellant was working. The Respondent has stated that the information is not available with them nor is it required to be filed in any monthly or annual return. CIC held that, the information sought is not held by the Public Authority. The Appeal is disposed.
150	CIC/LS/A/2010/001300 (100.04 KB)	25 Apr, 2011	Lt. Genl.(Retd) Avadhesh Prakash Vs. Indian Army The applicant filed an RTI application for information regarding the file and all relevant noting sheets on which the recommendations on the Court of Inquiry were examined by the relevant branch/directorate in Army HQ and also some other information. CPIO informed him that, the notings and remarks fall in the category of communication made in fiduciary relationship and are protected under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Request for inspection of files shall also have to be denied on the same ground i.e. Under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005. CIC held that, it is difficult to uphold the contention of Shri Chandrashekhar that the Army authorities are holding the MoD letter in a fiduciary capacity. If this contention were to be accepted, then the entire correspondence exchanged between various offices/departments of the Government will become privileged thereby nullifying the beneficial effect of RTI Act. CIC ordered CPIO to provide the information.

136

CIC/DS/A/2011/001323
(204.57 KB) pdf icon

26 Mar, 2012

Satish Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh

Section 5 – Designation of Public Information Officer
The respondent appointed its official as CPIO who was appointed by public authority on contract basis. The CPIO did not take appropriate action as required under the RTI Act in respect of the RTI application – The Commission directed the respondent to appoint only those officials as CPIO and FAA who are on the regular staff of the corporation so that the obligations mandated under the RTI Act can be discharged faithfully.

137

CIC/SG/C/2011/001535/18037
(46.96 KB) pdf icon

23 Mar, 2012

Akhilesh Saxena Vs. IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai

Section 6(1) – Request for Information
The Commission held that the RTI Application has been filed clearly as per the provisions of the RTI Act as the RTI Application bears the ‘name of the applicant’ and additionally mentions his designation and work address. As long as the RTI application is in the name of a particular citizen of India, it is of no consequence where the citizen also furnishes his designation or any such details of any other identities which he may bear.

138

CIC/SM/A/2011/000759
(208.66 KB) pdf icon

22 Mar, 2012

Raaj Managal Prasad Vs. Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi

Section 6(1) – Application fee
The Commission did not agree with the views of the Appellate Authority. No request for information can be rejected only on the ground that application fee has not been paid separately for each item.

139

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

21 Mar, 2012

Birbal Vs. Land & Building Department, New Delhi

Section 18(2) – CIC or SIC as the case may be, may initiate an inquiry –
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.

140

CIC/AD/A/2011/002492
(206.57 KB) pdf icon

14 Mar, 2012

Sanjay Maurya Vs. Nutan Marathi Senior Secondary School, O/o the Manager Walchand Place Aram Bagh, Paharganj, New Delhi

Section 7(9) – Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority
The Commission held that the information sought is voluminous in nature and held that providing this unreasonable amount of information would disproportionately divert the resource of the Public Authority and therefore cannot be provided in its present form u/s 7(9) of the RTI Act.

141

CIC/SG/C/2011/000760, CIC/SM/A/2011/000926/SG, CIC/SM/A/2011/001111/SG, CIC/SG/A/2011/002909/18137
(81.33 KB) pdf icon

17 Jan, 2012

S.P. Goyal Vs. Mr. V.C. Ramachandran, PIO & DGM, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, PB No. 3765, 763, Chennai

section 19(5) – Onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO or SPIO - Whether any advice which is given by the lawyer, Banker, Doctor is held by the recipient in a fiduciary capacity
The Commission held that the information held by the Senior position such as a Lawyer, Banker, Doctor is held in a fiduciary capacity. Such persons are under an obligation not to disclose any of the information received by them in this relationship, however, advice which is given by the lawyer, Banker, Doctor is not held by recipient in a fiduciary capacity. A patient is free to take the doctor’s opinion and show it to anyone he please just as a client can take a lawyer’s advice and present at any forum that he chooses. Hence, the Commission does not accept the plea of the information being exempt under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

142

CIC/SM/A/2010/001513
(206.28 KB) pdf icon

26 Sep, 2011

Shri Amit Kumar Rohtak Vs. CPIO, Union Bank of India, Karnal (Haryana).

The Appellant had wanted some details regarding the account(s) of the Vaish College of Engineering. The CPIO had denied the information by claiming exemption under Section 8(1)(d), (e) and (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

CIC agreed with the decision of the CPIO. Since the account of the College is maintained in the bank in commercial confidence, ordinarily, details about it cannot be disclosed to anyone. Since there are three signatories to this account who are to operate it jointly, the no objection given by one of the signatories cannot be construed as an authorisation for seeking such details.

143

CIC/SM/A/2010/001233
(207.37 KB) pdf icon

13 Sep, 2011

Shri Prem Chand Ferozepur City, Punjab. Vs. CPIO, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi

The Appellant had wanted to know the details about the transfer of certain amount from a joint account held in the name of two individuals, one of whom had passed away, to another account held by some other individual. The CIC/SM/A/2010/001233 CPIO had informed the Appellant that the desired information could not be parted since the Appellant had not disclosed his relationship with the account holders and that such information was exempt from disclosure in terms of Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC held that, Even if the Appellant is in possession of a will, the bank cannot be expected to disclose the details of the transaction made by one of its customers without a valid direction from a court of law. Appeal dismissed.

144

CIC/AT/A/2010/001124-DS
(87.51 KB) pdf icon

07 Sep, 2011

Shri Krishna Kumar Sinha, Katihar Vs. State Bank of India, Patna

Appellant preferred RTI application dated 18 December 2009 before the CPIO, State Bank of India, Patna to obtain information regarding statement of account held in the name of BDO, Barai and NREGA at SBI, Guru Bazar branch, Katihar. CPIO, vide order dated 4 January 2010, disclosure of information was denied under the provisions of section 8 (1) (j) of the Act.
The Commission directs respondent to provide statement of account in respect of NREGA funds deposited with the above mentioned branch as these funds are from Govt. account and to be used for development purposes. This information is required to be disclosed as these are public monies for implementation of a national program.

145

CIC/LS/A/2011/001126
(37.19 KB) pdf icon

06 Sep, 2011

Ishwar Singh Respondent : BSNL, Jaipur

It is noticed that vide RTI application dated 29.4.2010, the appellant had sought huge information in regard to the jurisdiction of BSNL Civil Division, Jodhpur, w.e.f. 1.1.2000 till date. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 15.5.2010, informing the appellant that he had sought vague information and that if he sought specific information, the same would be provided to him. The offer was also made to him to visit the office and inspect the relevant documents.
CIC upheld the decision of CPIO and dismissed the appeal.

146

CIC/DS/A/2010/000660
(82.88 KB) pdf icon

06 Sep, 2011

Smt. Tanmayee Ranjan, Ghaziabad Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, New Delhi.

Vide Commission’s order number CIC/DS/A/2010/000660 dated 16 July 2010 in the case of Smt. Tanmayee Ranjan vs The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, respondent had been directed to provide a copy of her own evaluated answer sheets as sought by the appellant in her RTI application. Subsequently Commission was informed that the respondent had obtained stay on the directions in the impugned order from the High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 1917/2011.

The apex court has ruled that such access will be given only to that part of the answer book which does not contain any information or signature or initials of the examiners / coordinators / scrutinisers / head examiners, exempted from disclosure under section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act and shall have to be removed, covered or otherwise severed from the non exempted part of the answer books, under section 10 of the RTI Act. 7. Furthermore it has been amply clarified through this order that none of the sections of the RTI Act will override any rules or regulations governing the period for which the record, document or information is required to be preserved by any public authority. 8. Accordinly the respondent is directed to provide copy of answer sheet / inspection of the answer sheet to the appellant subject to the above conditions.

147

CIC/DS/A/2011/000394
(91.25 KB) pdf icon

01 Sep, 2011

Shri P.rajendran, New Delhi Vs. Income Tax Department, New Delhi

upholds the order of the first appellate authority that the information sought by the appellant cannot be furnished on the grounds that when there is already an order of the Delhi High Court staying the order of the ITAT for production of all records including those referred to in the RTI application of the appellant, the appellant cannot use an alternate route for gaining the same by making application under the RTI Act. Appeal is dismissed.

148

CIC/SG/C/2010/001567+000047/12193Adjunct
(66.63 KB) pdf icon

01 Jun, 2011

Mr. Dharam Pal Singh, Ghaziabad,U.P. Vs. PIO & Assistant Commissioner (HQ), Consumer Affairs, Food and Civil Supplies Dept., GNCTD, Delhi.

RTI is about pension that is illegally received by Smt. Anaro, New Delhi. CPIO intimated that Mrs. Anaro Devi is only getting Old age pension and not widow pension. Mrs. Anaro Devi had objected in releasing her information hence attested photocopies of documents cannot be supplied.
CIC held that, a mere refusal by the third party cannot constitute a reasons for denial of information unless the information is exempt under Section- 8(1) of the RTI Act. Details of beneficiaries of various schemes cannot be considered as exempt under Section-8(1) of the RTI Act.

149

CIC/SG/A/2011/000299/12229
(53.63 KB) pdf icon

02 May, 2011

Mr. HS Achyutha Vs. Public Information Officer, Employer’s Provident Fund Organisation, Mumbai.

The Appellant is seeking information which is not with EPFO but is with exempted organization TCS with whom the Appellant was working. The Respondent has stated that the information is not available with them nor is it required to be filed in any monthly or annual return.
CIC held that, the information sought is not held by the Public Authority. The Appeal is disposed.

150

CIC/LS/A/2010/001300
(100.04 KB) pdf icon

25 Apr, 2011

Lt. Genl.(Retd) Avadhesh Prakash Vs. Indian Army

The applicant filed an RTI application for information regarding the file and all relevant noting sheets on which the recommendations on the Court of Inquiry were examined by the relevant branch/directorate in Army HQ and also some other information.
CPIO informed him that, the notings and remarks fall in the category of communication made in fiduciary relationship and are protected under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Request for inspection of files shall also have to be denied on the same ground i.e. Under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005.
CIC held that, it is difficult to uphold the contention of Shri Chandrashekhar that the Army authorities are holding the MoD letter in a fiduciary capacity. If this contention were to be accepted, then the entire correspondence exchanged between various offices/departments of the Government will become privileged thereby nullifying the beneficial effect of RTI Act. CIC ordered CPIO to provide the information.