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
76	CIC/SH/C/2015/000456 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000457 (134.01 KB)	27 Oct, 2016	Shri M. P. Gupta vs Central Public Information Officer, Indian Agricultural Research Institute Pusa Campus, New Delhi The complainant filed complaint before the Commission regarding the format for filing RTI applications prescribed by the Respondents. Section 6(3)
77	CIC/MP/A/2016/000850 (32.86 KB)	27 Oct, 2016	J. Aggarwal vs Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh Section 7(9) Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. The Commission held that the information sought relates to pensioners and is third party information held by the bank in its fiduciary capacity, therefore, is not disclosable u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The public authority is also not obligated to collect or collate non-available information for the appellant's perusal. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents.
78	CIC/BS/A/2015/001422/11606 (105.18 KB)	26 Oct, 2016	Mr. Rajesh Singh vs PIO BSNL The Commission held that the RTI application though made on the Union’s letter head cannot be rejected if the same is signed by an individual indicating his name and such individual is a citizen of India and directed the CPIO to furnish the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application.
79	CIC/VS/A/2015/003419 (58.38 KB)	21 Oct, 2016	Biplab Kumar Chowdhury Vs. High Court of Jammu & Kashmir Section 1 Applicability of Act to the State of Jammu and Kashmir the Commission relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 28.072010, in the matter of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Mrs. Veena Kohli, wherein, it was held that “This is a clear misinterpretation of the provisions of Section 1 of the RTI Act. This law does not extend of the State of Jammu and Kashmir implying that the public authorities of that State Government would not be governed by this law. It also does not mean that the Central Government public authorities located within the geographical limits of that state would be outside the purview of this law." In view of the above decision, the respondent is directed to provide to the appellant information in context of the RTI application.
80	CIC/CC/A/2014/001770-SA (106.77 KB)	27 Sep, 2016	Ram Kishan Sharma Vs. UGC Section 4(1)(b) Obligation of the Public Authorities the Commission held that the RTI Act mandates under sections 4(l)(c) & (d) UGC to voluntarily disclose such aspects of educational policy to the affected people including the appellant in this case. The Public Authorities generally plead that section 4 is not directly enforceable by the Commission, but the information sought in this appeal is supposed to be voluntarily disclosed under section 4 of the RTI Act and they denied when same was sought under section 3. A citizen's RTI request necessitates enforcement of the right by the Commission, thus, the UGC or any public authority cannot refuse to give clarifications if it is part of their duty. The Commission further held that section 4(1)(b), (c) and (d) will become enforceable and has every authority to initiate penal proceedings under section 20, if the information disclosable under three sub-clauses of section 4 was sought under an RTI application under section 3 read with section 6 of RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to show-cause why penalty should not be imposed against him for refusing to inform and abdication of responsibility both under the UGC Act and the RTI Act.
81	CIC/VS/A/2014/001882/BJ (86.08 KB)	19 Sep, 2016	Sudhir Rathod Vs. Central Railway, Pune Section 22 — Overriding effect of RTI Act — RTI Rules, 2012 — Rule 4 — Application Fee — the Commission held that the matter involves issue of whether executive instruction, if in violation of the statutory rules under the RTI Act, 2005 could yield to the statutory rule. In this context, the Commission noted that similar issues involving the matter of charging fees on answer scripts as per executive instruction has been pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India where the Division Bench in ICSI v Paras Jain, SLP (C) No. 12692/2014 vide order dated 09/05/2014 had stayed the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA. 275/2014 dated 26/04/2014 wherein the demand of the respondents from the petitioner to pay a fee of Rs. 500/- per subject/answer book copy was held not to be sustainable. The matter is adjourned sine-die with a direction that it would be open to the appellant to agitate the matter before the Commission again after final pronouncement of judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
82	CIC/SA/A/2016/001483 (427.34 KB)	01 Aug, 2016	R S. Gupta Vs. LG Office Section 6(1) Request for Information the Commission held that the appellant's RTI request has nothing to do with LG office. He is asking about absorption of his employment with Directorate of Education, which is straight away a matter to be decided by the Directorate of Education. Filing such an RTI petition with LG office knowing full well that it is not concerned with LG office is not correct. If the subject matter of RTI application is 'more closely connected with the functioning of another public authority', that has to be transferred. Here the case is totally different. The applicant is not an illiterate person. He knows that Education Department has to address his grievance and re- dress if possible under rules. He also knows that LG office is not at all concerned with it. It is not reasonable to process or transfer such an application. This is sheer waste of public money and time of public authority including that of this Commission.
83	CIC/BJ/A/2016/000185 (343.61 KB)	27 Jul, 2016	Geeta Devi vs Air India Limited Section 4 Obligation of the Public Authorities. The Commission held that the issue relates to grant of compassionate appointment to the legal heir of the appellant which needs to be resolved at an appropriate forum. The Commission observed that compassionate appointments policy is being dealt with in an arbitrary manner and requires greater attention and clarity in order to reduce the level of dissatisfaction amongst the affected employees. The Commission instructed the public authority to make this policy public under section 4 of the RTI Act for the benefit of all concerned. It is also directed that the names of employees granted compassionate appointments be made public so that the criteria adopted by the public authority is displayed in a transparent manner for all the employees reflecting the true spirit of the RTI Act.
84	CIC/CC/A/2015/003026+003360/BS/10851 (52.69 KB)	19 Jul, 2016	Ram Pher Singh Vs. 0/0 the DDO Central Range — 3, Mumbai Section 8(3) Any Information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the later on which any requests is made the Commission held that the RTI Act does not prescribe a record retention schedule. The records are to be retained by a public authority as per the record retention schedule applicable to that public authority. The above referred provision of the Act requires furnishing of information so available after the lapse of 20 years even if such information was exempt from disclosure under sub-section (1) of Section 8. It means that the information which, in normal course is exempt from disclosure under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act would cease to be exempted if 20 years have lapsed after occurrence of the incident to which the information relates.
85	CIC/CC/A/2014/001028/SD (136.46 KB)	20 Jun, 2016	Sanjay Khanna vs Chief Quality and Assurance Estt. (WE) DGQA Complex, Mambai Section 7 (9) — Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority — the Appellant sought information with respect to Human Rights violation which took place in QA T& C Wing, Ahmadabad between the period from 2010 to 2013 — the Commission held that after perusal of the case records it is of the view that the information sought comes under the purview of section 7 (9) of the RTI Act.
86	CIC/SA/A/2016/000951 (257.69 KB)	15 Jun, 2016	Pavan Rana Vs. SDM, Delhi Section 6(1) Request for Information Department of Personnel and Training by its Office Memorandum No. 10/1/20131R dated 06th October 2015 had issued the following guidelines for giving information to the applicants under RTI Act: The reply should essentially contain the following information: (i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority. (ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO. (iii) ln case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned. (iv) (v) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given. (vi) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO. (vii) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and email ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned. The Commission held that the PIO has to clearly specify his/her name and designation. The Commission directed the PIO/SDM (HQ) to forward this Order to all the concerned SDM with a direction that they should follow the format as specified in the DoPT Circular dated 06.10.2015 while replying to any RTI application.
87	CIC/CC/A/2014/000549-YA (98.83 KB)	03 Jun, 2016	Joginder Kumar Kangra vs Bhakra Beas Management Board, Mandi Section 8(3) Any Information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the later on which any requests is made. The Hon'ble Commission held that the information on matters more than 20 years old is necessarily to be provided, if such information is not exempted from disclosure under clauses (a), (c) and (i) of the section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
88	CIC/RM/A/2014/000409/SD (91.71 KB)	02 Jun, 2016	Shemmer Babu vs IHQ of MOD (Army), Sena Bhawan, 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 exempt under section 7 (9) of RTI Act because compiling information will disproportionately divert the resources of Public Authority.
89	CIC/VS/A/2015/000801/SB (486.55 KB)	02 Jun, 2016	S. Kumar vs Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi Section 6(3) To transfer of the RTI application to another appropriate public authority not later than 5 days. The Commission held that as per section 6(3) of the RTI Act, where an application is made to a public authority for an information which is held by another public authority, the CPIO has to transfer it to that public authority. However, the respondent requested the appellant to consider making an application separately to the PIOs of the State Government in view of the DOPT's 0M no. 10/2/20081R dated 1206.2008. Hence, there was no malafide intention of the CPIO in not transferring the RTI application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
90	CIC/SS/A/2014/00312/SB (345.94 KB)	26 May, 2016	Arjit Mondal Vs. Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi Section 7(9) — Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority The appellant filed RTI application before the CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) seeking copies of the RTI applications filed by Prof. Rajeev Kumar of Computer Science & Engineering Department of IIT Kharagpur and responses given to these RTIS — the respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant is available in individual files and its retrieval involves the deployment of additional manpower that would disproportionately divert the limited human resources available with the respondent organization. Hence, the information sought cannot be provided to the appellant in accordance with the provision of section 7 (9) of the RTI Act — the Commission upheld that the stand of the respondent that the information sought cannot be provided to the appellant as collating such information would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization.

76

CIC/SH/C/2015/000456 & CIC/SH/C/2015/000457
(134.01 KB) pdf icon

27 Oct, 2016

Shri M. P. Gupta vs Central Public Information Officer, Indian Agricultural Research Institute Pusa Campus, New Delhi

The complainant filed complaint before the Commission regarding the format for filing RTI applications prescribed by the Respondents.
Section 6(3)

77

CIC/MP/A/2016/000850
(32.86 KB) pdf icon

27 Oct, 2016

J. Aggarwal vs Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh

Section 7(9) Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.

The Commission held that the information sought relates to pensioners and is third party information held by the bank in its fiduciary capacity, therefore, is not disclosable u/s 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act. The public authority is also not obligated to collect or collate non-available information for the appellant's perusal. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents.

78

CIC/BS/A/2015/001422/11606
(105.18 KB) pdf icon

26 Oct, 2016

Mr. Rajesh Singh vs PIO BSNL

The Commission held that the RTI application though made on the Union’s letter head cannot be rejected if the same is signed by an individual indicating his name and such individual is a citizen of India and directed the CPIO to furnish the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application.

79

CIC/VS/A/2015/003419
(58.38 KB) pdf icon

21 Oct, 2016

Biplab Kumar Chowdhury Vs. High Court of Jammu & Kashmir

Section 1 Applicability of Act to the State of Jammu and Kashmir the Commission relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi order dated 28.072010, in the matter of Union of India & Anr. Vs. Mrs. Veena Kohli, wherein, it was held that “This is a clear misinterpretation of the provisions of Section 1 of the RTI Act. This law does not extend of the State of Jammu and Kashmir implying that the public authorities of that State Government would not be governed by this law. It also does not mean that the Central Government public authorities located within the geographical limits of that state would be outside the purview of this law." In view of the above decision, the respondent is directed to provide to the appellant information in context of the RTI application.

80

CIC/CC/A/2014/001770-SA
(106.77 KB) pdf icon

27 Sep, 2016

Ram Kishan Sharma Vs. UGC

Section 4(1)(b) Obligation of the Public Authorities the Commission held that the RTI Act mandates under sections 4(l)(c) & (d) UGC to voluntarily disclose such aspects of educational policy to the affected people including the appellant in this case. The Public Authorities generally plead that section 4 is not directly enforceable by the Commission, but the information sought in this appeal is supposed to be voluntarily disclosed under section 4 of the RTI Act and they denied when same was sought under section 3. A citizen's RTI request necessitates enforcement of the right by the Commission, thus, the UGC or any public authority cannot refuse to give clarifications if it is part of their duty. The Commission further held that section 4(1)(b), (c) and (d) will become enforceable and has every authority to initiate penal proceedings under section 20, if the information disclosable under three sub-clauses of section 4 was sought under an RTI application under section 3 read with section 6 of RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to show-cause why penalty should not be imposed against him for refusing to inform and abdication of responsibility both under the UGC Act and the RTI Act.

81

CIC/VS/A/2014/001882/BJ
(86.08 KB) pdf icon

19 Sep, 2016

Sudhir Rathod Vs. Central Railway, Pune

Section 22 — Overriding effect of RTI Act — RTI Rules, 2012 — Rule 4 — Application Fee — the Commission held that the matter involves issue of whether executive instruction, if in violation of the statutory rules under the RTI Act, 2005 could yield to the statutory rule. In this context, the Commission noted that similar issues involving the matter of charging fees on answer scripts as per executive instruction has been pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India where the Division Bench in ICSI v Paras Jain, SLP (C) No. 12692/2014 vide order dated 09/05/2014 had stayed the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in LPA. 275/2014 dated 26/04/2014 wherein the demand of the respondents from the petitioner to pay a fee of Rs. 500/- per subject/answer book copy was held not to be sustainable. The matter is adjourned sine-die with a direction that it would be open to the appellant to agitate the matter before the Commission again after final pronouncement of judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

82

CIC/SA/A/2016/001483
(427.34 KB) pdf icon

01 Aug, 2016

R S. Gupta Vs. LG Office

Section 6(1) Request for Information the Commission held that the appellant's RTI request has nothing to do with LG office. He is asking about absorption of his employment with Directorate of Education, which is straight away a matter to be decided by the Directorate of Education. Filing such an RTI petition with LG office knowing full well that it is not concerned with LG office is not correct. If the subject matter of RTI application is 'more closely connected with the functioning of another public authority', that has to be transferred. Here the case is totally different. The applicant is not an illiterate person. He knows that Education Department has to address his grievance and re- dress if possible under rules. He also knows that LG office is not at all concerned with it. It is not reasonable to process or transfer such an application. This is sheer waste of public money and time of public authority including that of this Commission.

83

CIC/BJ/A/2016/000185
(343.61 KB) pdf icon

27 Jul, 2016

Geeta Devi vs Air India Limited

Section 4 Obligation of the Public Authorities.

The Commission held that the issue relates to grant of compassionate appointment to the legal heir of the appellant which needs to be resolved at an appropriate forum.

The Commission observed that compassionate appointments policy is being dealt with in an arbitrary manner and requires greater attention and clarity in order to reduce the level of dissatisfaction amongst the affected employees.

The Commission instructed the public authority to make this policy public under section 4 of the RTI Act for the benefit of all concerned. It is also directed that the names of employees granted compassionate appointments be made public so that the criteria adopted by the public authority is displayed in a transparent manner for all the employees reflecting the true spirit of the RTI Act.

84

CIC/CC/A/2015/003026+003360/BS/10851
(52.69 KB) pdf icon

19 Jul, 2016

Ram Pher Singh Vs. 0/0 the DDO Central Range — 3, Mumbai

Section 8(3) Any Information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the later on which any requests is made the Commission held that the RTI Act does not prescribe a record retention schedule. The records are to be retained by a public authority as per the record retention schedule applicable to that public authority. The above referred provision of the Act requires furnishing of information so available after the lapse of 20 years even if such information was exempt from disclosure under sub-section (1) of Section 8. It means that the information which, in normal course is exempt from disclosure under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act would cease to be exempted if 20 years have lapsed after occurrence of the incident to which the information relates.

85

CIC/CC/A/2014/001028/SD
(136.46 KB) pdf icon

20 Jun, 2016

Sanjay Khanna vs Chief Quality and Assurance Estt. (WE) DGQA Complex, Mambai

Section 7 (9) — Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority — the Appellant sought information with respect to Human Rights violation which took place in QA T& C Wing, Ahmadabad between the period from 2010 to 2013 — the Commission held that after perusal of the case records it is of the view that the information sought comes under the purview of section 7 (9) of the RTI Act.

86

CIC/SA/A/2016/000951
(257.69 KB) pdf icon

15 Jun, 2016

Pavan Rana Vs. SDM, Delhi

Section 6(1) Request for Information

Department of Personnel and Training by its Office Memorandum No. 10/1/20131R dated 06th October 2015 had issued the following guidelines for giving information to the applicants under RTI Act:
The reply should essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) ln case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv)
(v) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(vi) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vii) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and email ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned.
The Commission held that the PIO has to clearly specify his/her name and designation. The Commission directed the PIO/SDM (HQ) to forward this Order to all the concerned SDM with a direction that they should follow the format as specified in the DoPT Circular dated 06.10.2015 while replying to any RTI application.

87

CIC/CC/A/2014/000549-YA
(98.83 KB) pdf icon

03 Jun, 2016

Joginder Kumar Kangra vs Bhakra Beas Management Board, Mandi

Section 8(3) Any Information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the later on which any requests is made.

The Hon'ble Commission held that the information on matters more than 20 years old is necessarily to be provided, if such information is not exempted from disclosure under clauses (a), (c) and (i) of the section 8(1) of the RTI Act.

88

CIC/RM/A/2014/000409/SD
(91.71 KB) pdf icon

02 Jun, 2016

Shemmer Babu vs IHQ of MOD (Army), Sena Bhawan, 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 exempt under section 7 (9) of RTI Act because compiling information will disproportionately divert the resources of Public Authority.

89

CIC/VS/A/2015/000801/SB
(486.55 KB) pdf icon

02 Jun, 2016

S. Kumar vs Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi

Section 6(3) To transfer of the RTI application to another appropriate public authority not later than 5 days.

The Commission held that as per section 6(3) of the RTI Act, where an application is made to a public authority for an information which is held by another public authority, the CPIO has to transfer it to that public authority.

However, the respondent requested the appellant to consider making an application separately to the PIOs of the State Government in view of the DOPT's 0M no. 10/2/20081R dated 1206.2008. Hence, there was no malafide intention of the CPIO in not transferring the RTI application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act.

90

CIC/SS/A/2014/00312/SB
(345.94 KB) pdf icon

26 May, 2016

Arjit Mondal Vs. Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi

Section 7(9) — Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority

The appellant filed RTI application before the CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) seeking copies of the RTI applications filed by Prof. Rajeev Kumar of Computer Science & Engineering Department of IIT Kharagpur and responses given to these RTIS — the respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant is available in individual files and its retrieval involves the deployment of additional manpower that would disproportionately divert the limited human resources available with the respondent organization. Hence, the information sought cannot be provided to the appellant in accordance with the provision of section 7 (9) of the RTI Act — the Commission upheld that the stand of the respondent that the information sought cannot be provided to the appellant as collating such information would disproportionately divert the resources of the respondent organization.