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
151	CIC/SM/A/2010/000932 (205.97 KB)	19 Apr, 2011	Shri B B Shukla, Allahabad Vs. CPIO, UCO Bank The Appellant had sought the copies of a number of papers relating to his suspension and to some preliminary enquiry done by a superior officer of the Bank. CIC held that, the argument offered by the public authority that since the Appellant had approached the High Court in these matters, the information could not be disclosed is not acceptable as this is not one of the exemption provisions in the Act and therefore directed the CPIO to provide the information.
152	CIC/SG/A/2010/001213/11928 (44.74 KB)	09 Apr, 2011	Mr. Yogender Kumar Vivekananda College, Delhi Vs. Mr. Jay Chanda CPIO University of Delhi. CIC held that, The PIO has given all the information available as per records. The Appellant is seeking answer to hypothetical situations. The PIO is expected to give information that is available on the records and not expected to give decision and opinions on his own. Decision: The Appeal is disposed.
153	CIC/WB/A/2009/000645-SM (204.62 KB)	06 Apr, 2011	Shri Devendra S Doctor, Mumbai. Vs. CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Mumbai. The Appellant had wanted to know a few details about the further raids CIC/WB/A/2009/000645¬SM conducted by the CBI in connection with the raid conducted on one Ajaykumar Rameshwarprasad Singh. The CPIO had not disclosed the information however. CIC observed that there is no particular reason why such purely factual information as the names of those who had been raided in connection with the raid conducted on Ajaykumar Rameshwarprasad Singh should not be disclosed or if FIRs had been registered or not. Therefore, directed the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the desired information.
154	CIC/SS/A/2010/001167 (171.88 KB)	31 Mar, 2011	Shri Anshu Kumar Vs. National Archives of India. The appellant filed RTI-request dated 13.9.2010 addressed to Ministry of Home Affairs, which was transferred to National Archives of India, seeking information on eight RTI-queries pertaining to assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The CPIO, vide letter No. 63-2(XLI)2010/RTI Cell dated 2.11.2010 has replied to the appellant stating that National Archives of India is the custodian of permanent records of GOI and advised the appellant to visit the Department or depute someone to undertake a search among the records for the desired information. CIC, after hearing the parties and on perusal of the relevant documents on file, the appellant or his authorized representative is advised to inspect the relevant records/files/data and identify the documents, which he wants to get, on mutually convenient date and time.
155	CIC/SG/C/2010/001539/11779 (49.29 KB)	31 Mar, 2011	Mr. Rakesh Chandra Agarwal Vs. CPIO & Director, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi The Complainant had filed an RTI application with the aforementioned Respondent on 07/09/2010 asking for certain information. On not having received any information within the mandated time the Complainant filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. As per Rule 3 of The Right to Information (Regulation of the Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005, the IPO should be addressed to the Accounts Officer of the Public Authority. In this case the Complainant had addressed the IPO to the Directorate General of Employment and Training. As per Rule 3, the Complainant should have addressed the IPO to the accounts officer. In this regard the response sent by the Directorate General of Employment and Training is correct. Page 1 of 2 The Complainant is advised to send the IPO to the Accounts Officer as per Rule (3) of The Right to Information (Regulation of the Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005.
156	CIC/SG/A/2011/000253/11759 (47.54 KB)	31 Mar, 2011	Mr. Daya Ram Badalia, New Delhi Vs. Mr. Hetesh Saxena Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (SUR) Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi The PIO has provided certain information. As regards query-2 the PIO states that the file is lost/stolen. The PIO is directed to file a police complaint regarding the loss/theft of the said file and send a copy to the Appellant.
157	CIC/AT/C/2010/001271-DS (120.66 KB)	31 Mar, 2011	Shri Rakesh Sharma, Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh). Vs. State Bank of India, Agra. On perusing the papers submitted by the complainant / appellant, it is observed that he/she has not availed the first-appellate channel u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act and has approached the Commission directly. 3. In view of above, the complainant / appellant is advised to file his first-appeal before the First Appellate Authority, under section 19(1) of the RTI Act.
158	CIC/SS/A/2010/001121 (177.37 KB)	31 Mar, 2011	Shri Manoj Agrawal Vs. O/O the Registrar General of India The appellant filed RTI-request dated 17.10.2010, seeking information on ten RTI queries relating to employees of Office of Registrar General. The appellant with his RTI request has remitted currency note of Rs. 10/- towards RTI-fee, which is not prescribed mode of payment. Accordingly the CPIO vide letter No. G-RTI-2005/422/2010 dated 29.10.2010 has returned the currency note of Rs. 10/- with the advice to remit the prescribed RTI-fee i.e. by way of cash against receipt, Bankers’ cheque/DD or IPO. After hearing the respondents and on perusal of the relevant documents on file, the Commission observed that the appellant has not remitted the RTI-fee in prescribed mode, as laid down in Rule 3 Rule of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost), Rules, 2005, which necessitates that RTI requests should be accompanied by an application fee of Rs. 10/- by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers’ cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the Public Authority. 5. The instant appeal fails the maintainability test because the prescribed RTI-fee has not been paid by the appellant to start the RTI-proceeding. The currency note of Rs.10/- , which was sent with his appeal, is returned to the appellant.
159	CIC/SG/A/2011/000179/11746 (53.07 KB)	31 Mar, 2011	Mr. Mahir Raza Delhi Vs. Mr. Bhagwan Singh Public Information Officer & Dy. Municipal Secretary Municipal Corporation of Delhi The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the Deemed PIO within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the deemed PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission why penalty should not be levied on him.
160	CIC/SG/A/2010/000215/11740 (45.77 KB)	30 Mar, 2011	Mr. Suresh Singh, Ranchi Vs. Ms. Sarojini Rane Public Information Officer & RPFC-II Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, New Delhi. The Appellant had asked for a photocopy of his own answersheet as well as of on other person. The PIO states that the answersheet of the Appellant has been provided but the answersheets of other candidates has not been provided since the department does not have adequate man powers and facilities. The RTI Act has been made by Parliament and all PIOs have to provide information as per the act. Unless any specific exemption of Section-8(1) of the RTI Act applies information has to be provided. Not providing information on the claim that facilities are not available is a denial of the fundamental right of citizens. The PIO is warned to ensure that unless any information is exempt under Section-8(1) of the RTI Act it has to be provided within the 30 days period mandated in the RTI Act. The PIO will represent to the head of the department in case she feels that she does not have adequate resources.
161	CIC/SG/C/2010/001462/11737 (50.69 KB)	30 Mar, 2011	Mr. Aman Kumar, New Delhi Vs. PIO & Deputy Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi The Complainant filed an RTI application with Respondent No. 1 on 20/10/2010 asking for certain information. On not having received any information within the mandated time the Complainant filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by law. The PIO’s action clearly amounts to denial of information without any reasons. The PIO appears to be guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under subsection (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the actions of the PIO attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action of Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act.
162	CIC/WB/A/2010/000033, 37 & 300-SM (210.64 KB)	29 Mar, 2011	Shri Ashok Golas, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat. the Appellant had sought a number of information regarding the selection and appointment of the Member (Services) and Member (Technology) of the Telecom Commission and Chairman,TRAI. By and large, the CPIO had declined the information by claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC held that, Selection and appointment to certain posts in the government are part of the administrative decision¬making process and must be placed in the public domain as soon as possible in order to ensure transparency. It is for this reason that even Section 8(1) (i) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act which ordinarily exempts Cabinet papers from disclosure provides that a number of information about the decision-making by the Council of Ministers would have to be disclosed after the decision is taken and the matter is complete and over. If the CIC/WB/A/2010/000033, 37 & 300¬SM information regarding selection and appointment to any public office is not disclosed by claiming it to be personal information, it would be nothing but a travesty of the exemption provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC directed the CPIO to invite the Appellant on any mutually convenient date within 20 working days from the receipt of this order and to show him the entire file, as available with the Cabinet Secretariat, regarding the selection to the post of the Chairman, TRAI in response to the advertisement dated 5 February 2009 but excluding all information in respect of the ACRs of all candidates other than the Appellant himself. If after inspecting the file, the Appellant would choose to get the photocopies of some of the records and documents, the CPIO shall provide the same to him free of charge.
163	CIC/WB/A/2010/000022-SM (206.47 KB)	29 Mar, 2011	Shri Harender Delhi. Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat. CIC observed that, it is a fact that the public authority from which the information has been sought has been included in the second schedule. Ordinarily, the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act would not apply to it. However, in terms of the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, all information relating to the allegations of corruption and human rights violation will have to be provided. In this case, the Appellant, a member of the Schedule Caste alleged that the public authority had been extremely unfair to him in respect of his promotion and that it denied him promotion for a long period of time without explaining him the reasons thereby violating his human rights. In the special circumstances of this case wherein the information seeker is a member of the SC community alleging to have been deprived of his rights in a matter of promotion in the job place, we are inclined to treat this case as covered by the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and allow the information to be disclosed. We, therefore, direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the desired information.
164	CIC/WB/A/2010/000772-DS (87.55 KB)	29 Mar, 2011	Sh. Samir Bhatt, Mumbai Vs. Dept. of Administration Reforms & Public Grievance, N.Delhi. The CPIO informed him vide order dated 6 April 2010 that the subject matter of letters referred to by the appellant in his RTI application pertained to the Government of Madhya Pradesh and provided the name and designation of the officer in the State government to whom the letters had been forwarded. After hearing the averments of the respondent the Commission is satisfied that action had been taken as per the provisions of the RTI Act by the CPIO. The appellant is free to move the State Information Commission in exercise of his rights as given under the RTI Act. Appeal is dismissed.
165	CIC/AD/C/2010/000453 (206.49 KB)	26 Mar, 2011	Mr. Asit Kumar Verma Advocate Jharkhand Vs. PIO Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi The Commission upholds the direction of the Respondent and advises the Complainant to file a fresh RTI application and submit the same alongwith the fees in the appropriate form of DD/IPO/BC of Rs. 10/¬ drawn in favour of the Accounts Officer, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as prescribed under Rule 3 of the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005, in order to procure the information under the RTI Act 2005.

151

CIC/SM/A/2010/000932
(205.97 KB) pdf icon

19 Apr, 2011

Shri B B Shukla, Allahabad Vs. CPIO, UCO Bank

The Appellant had sought the copies of a number of papers relating to his suspension and to some preliminary enquiry done by a superior officer of the Bank.
CIC held that, the argument offered by the public authority that since the Appellant had approached the High Court in these matters, the information could not be disclosed is not acceptable as this is not one of the exemption provisions in the Act and therefore directed the CPIO to provide the information.

152

CIC/SG/A/2010/001213/11928
(44.74 KB) pdf icon

09 Apr, 2011

Mr. Yogender Kumar Vivekananda College, Delhi Vs. Mr. Jay Chanda CPIO University of Delhi.

CIC held that, The PIO has given all the information available as per records. The Appellant is seeking answer to hypothetical situations. The PIO is expected to give information that is available on the records and not expected to give decision and opinions on his own. Decision: The Appeal is disposed.

153

CIC/WB/A/2009/000645-SM
(204.62 KB) pdf icon

06 Apr, 2011

Shri Devendra S Doctor, Mumbai. Vs. CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Mumbai.

The Appellant had wanted to know a few details about the further raids CIC/WB/A/2009/000645¬SM conducted by the CBI in connection with the raid conducted on one Ajaykumar Rameshwarprasad Singh. The CPIO had not disclosed the information however. CIC observed that there is no particular reason why such purely factual information as the names of those who had been raided in connection with the raid conducted on Ajaykumar Rameshwarprasad Singh should not be disclosed or if FIRs had been registered or not. Therefore, directed the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the desired information.

154

CIC/SS/A/2010/001167
(171.88 KB) pdf icon

31 Mar, 2011

Shri Anshu Kumar Vs. National Archives of India.

The appellant filed RTI-request dated 13.9.2010 addressed to Ministry of Home Affairs, which was transferred to National Archives of India, seeking information on eight RTI-queries pertaining to assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The CPIO, vide letter No. 63-2(XLI)2010/RTI Cell dated 2.11.2010 has replied to the appellant stating that National Archives of India is the custodian of permanent records of GOI and advised the appellant to visit the Department or depute someone to undertake a search among the records for the desired information.
CIC, after hearing the parties and on perusal of the relevant documents on file, the appellant or his authorized representative is advised to inspect the relevant records/files/data and identify the documents, which he wants to get, on mutually convenient date and time.

155

CIC/SG/C/2010/001539/11779
(49.29 KB) pdf icon

31 Mar, 2011

Mr. Rakesh Chandra Agarwal Vs. CPIO & Director, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi

The Complainant had filed an RTI application with the aforementioned Respondent on 07/09/2010 asking for certain information. On not having received any information within the mandated time the Complainant filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission.
As per Rule 3 of The Right to Information (Regulation of the Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005, the IPO should be addressed to the Accounts Officer of the Public Authority. In this case the Complainant had addressed the IPO to the Directorate General of Employment and Training. As per Rule 3, the Complainant should have addressed the IPO to the accounts officer. In this regard the response sent by the Directorate General of Employment and Training is correct. Page 1 of 2 The Complainant is advised to send the IPO to the Accounts Officer as per Rule (3) of The Right to Information (Regulation of the Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005.

156

CIC/SG/A/2011/000253/11759
(47.54 KB) pdf icon

31 Mar, 2011

Mr. Daya Ram Badalia, New Delhi Vs. Mr. Hetesh Saxena Public Information Officer & Dy. Director (SUR) Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, Govt. of NCT of Delhi

The PIO has provided certain information. As regards query-2 the PIO states that the file is lost/stolen. The PIO is directed to file a police complaint regarding the loss/theft of the said file and send a copy to the Appellant.

157

CIC/AT/C/2010/001271-DS
(120.66 KB) pdf icon

31 Mar, 2011

Shri Rakesh Sharma, Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh). Vs. State Bank of India, Agra.

On perusing the papers submitted by the complainant / appellant, it is observed that he/she has not availed the first-appellate channel u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act and has approached the Commission directly. 3. In view of above, the complainant / appellant is advised to file his first-appeal before the First Appellate Authority, under section 19(1) of the RTI Act.

158

CIC/SS/A/2010/001121
(177.37 KB) pdf icon

31 Mar, 2011

Shri Manoj Agrawal Vs. O/O the Registrar General of India

The appellant filed RTI-request dated 17.10.2010, seeking information on ten RTI queries relating to employees of Office of Registrar General. The appellant with his RTI request has remitted currency note of Rs. 10/- towards RTI-fee, which is not prescribed mode of payment. Accordingly the CPIO vide letter No. G-RTI-2005/422/2010 dated 29.10.2010 has returned the currency note of Rs. 10/- with the advice to remit the prescribed RTI-fee i.e. by way of cash against receipt, Bankers’ cheque/DD or IPO.
After hearing the respondents and on perusal of the relevant documents on file, the Commission observed that the appellant has not remitted the RTI-fee in prescribed mode, as laid down in Rule 3 Rule of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost), Rules, 2005, which necessitates that RTI requests should be accompanied by an application fee of Rs. 10/- by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers’ cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the Public Authority. 5. The instant appeal fails the maintainability test because the prescribed RTI-fee has not been paid by the appellant to start the RTI-proceeding. The currency note of Rs.10/- , which was sent with his appeal, is returned to the appellant.

159

CIC/SG/A/2011/000179/11746
(53.07 KB) pdf icon

31 Mar, 2011

Mr. Mahir Raza Delhi Vs. Mr. Bhagwan Singh Public Information Officer & Dy. Municipal Secretary Municipal Corporation of Delhi

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the Deemed PIO within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it appears that the deemed PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the deemed PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission why penalty should not be levied on him.

160

CIC/SG/A/2010/000215/11740
(45.77 KB) pdf icon

30 Mar, 2011

Mr. Suresh Singh, Ranchi Vs. Ms. Sarojini Rane Public Information Officer & RPFC-II Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, New Delhi.

The Appellant had asked for a photocopy of his own answersheet as well as of on other person. The PIO states that the answersheet of the Appellant has been provided but the answersheets of other candidates has not been provided since the department does not have adequate man powers and facilities. The RTI Act has been made by Parliament and all PIOs have to provide information as per the act. Unless any specific exemption of Section-8(1) of the RTI Act applies information has to be provided. Not providing information on the claim that facilities are not available is a denial of the fundamental right of citizens. The PIO is warned to ensure that unless any information is exempt under Section-8(1) of the RTI Act it has to be provided within the 30 days period mandated in the RTI Act. The PIO will represent to the head of the department in case she feels that she does not have adequate resources.

161

CIC/SG/C/2010/001462/11737
(50.69 KB) pdf icon

30 Mar, 2011

Mr. Aman Kumar, New Delhi Vs. PIO & Deputy Director of Education, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi

The Complainant filed an RTI application with Respondent No. 1 on 20/10/2010 asking for certain information. On not having received any information within the mandated time the Complainant filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission.

The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by law. The PIO’s action clearly amounts to denial of information without any reasons. The PIO appears to be guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under subsection (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the actions of the PIO attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action of Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act.

162

CIC/WB/A/2010/000033, 37 & 300-SM
(210.64 KB) pdf icon

29 Mar, 2011

Shri Ashok Golas, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat.

the Appellant had sought a number of information regarding the selection and appointment of the Member (Services) and Member (Technology) of the Telecom Commission and Chairman,TRAI. By and large, the CPIO had declined the information by claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
CIC held that, Selection and appointment to certain posts in the government are part of the administrative decision¬making process and must be placed in the public domain as soon as possible in order to ensure transparency. It is for this reason that even Section 8(1) (i) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act which ordinarily exempts Cabinet papers from disclosure provides that a number of information about the decision-making by the Council of Ministers would have to be disclosed after the decision is taken and the matter is complete and over. If the CIC/WB/A/2010/000033, 37 & 300¬SM information regarding selection and appointment to any public office is not disclosed by claiming it to be personal information, it would be nothing but a travesty of the exemption provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. CIC directed the CPIO to invite the Appellant on any mutually convenient date within 20 working days from the receipt of this order and to show him the entire file, as available with the Cabinet Secretariat, regarding the selection to the post of the Chairman, TRAI in response to the advertisement dated 5 February 2009 but excluding all information in respect of the ACRs of all candidates other than the Appellant himself. If after inspecting the file, the Appellant would choose to get the photocopies of some of the records and documents, the CPIO shall provide the same to him free of charge.

163

CIC/WB/A/2010/000022-SM
(206.47 KB) pdf icon

29 Mar, 2011

Shri Harender Delhi. Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat.

CIC observed that, it is a fact that the public authority from which the information has been sought has been included in the second schedule. Ordinarily, the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act would not apply to it. However, in terms of the first proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, all information relating to the allegations of corruption and human rights violation will have to be provided. In this case, the Appellant, a member of the Schedule Caste alleged that the public authority had been extremely unfair to him in respect of his promotion and that it denied him promotion for a long period of time without explaining him the reasons thereby violating his human rights. In the special circumstances of this case wherein the information seeker is a member of the SC community alleging to have been deprived of his rights in a matter of promotion in the job place, we are inclined to treat this case as covered by the proviso to Section 24(1) of the RTI Act and allow the information to be disclosed. We, therefore, direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the desired information.

164

CIC/WB/A/2010/000772-DS
(87.55 KB) pdf icon

29 Mar, 2011

Sh. Samir Bhatt, Mumbai Vs. Dept. of Administration Reforms & Public Grievance, N.Delhi.

The CPIO informed him vide order dated 6 April 2010 that the subject matter of letters referred to by the appellant in his RTI application pertained to the Government of Madhya Pradesh and provided the name and designation of the officer in the State government to whom the letters had been forwarded.
After hearing the averments of the respondent the Commission is satisfied that action had been taken as per the provisions of the RTI Act by the CPIO. The appellant is free to move the State Information Commission in exercise of his rights as given under the RTI Act. Appeal is dismissed.

165

CIC/AD/C/2010/000453
(206.49 KB) pdf icon

26 Mar, 2011

Mr. Asit Kumar Verma Advocate Jharkhand Vs. PIO Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi

The Commission upholds the direction of the Respondent and advises the Complainant to file a fresh RTI application and submit the same alongwith the fees in the appropriate form of DD/IPO/BC of Rs. 10/¬ drawn in favour of the Accounts Officer, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as prescribed under Rule 3 of the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005, in order to procure the information under the RTI Act 2005.