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
121	CIC/SM/A/2011/001713/BS & & CIC/SM/A/2012/000239/BS/0284 (125.08 KB)	02 Jul, 2012	Shri. Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui vs CPIO Ministry of Culture Superintending Archaeologist Archaeological survey of India The PIO has furnished the ‘Product Catalogue’ having the details of all the cultural packages mentioning that all these cultural packages are the priced publication of CCRT – the applicant stated that he wanted books free of cost as he falls in the Below Poverty Line Category. CIC held that, the information cannot be supplied to him free of cost under proviso to section 7(5) of the RTI Act as the information is not held by the CPIO and access to this category of information viz. priced publication(s) shall be on the basis of payment of such costs as may be prescribed for the purpose.
122	CIC/LS/A/2011/003739 (33.43 KB)	29 Jun, 2012	P K Srivastava vs Central Ordnance Depot, Kanpur The appellant sought information in the letter head of COD, MajdoorPanchayat, Kanpur – the CPIO had refused to disclose this information on the ground that only a citizen could seek information u/s and not an organisation/union. The order passed by the CPIO set-aside by CIC and directed him to supply the requisite information to the appellant.
123	CIC/DS/A/2011/003245 (92.36 KB)	28 Jun, 2012	Dr. Anshu Agrawal v United India Insurance Co. Ltd Section 25(5) — Recommendation of the CIC to the public authority— The Commission held that it is necessary to strike a fine balance between disclosure of information in larger public interest and simultaneously rnsure that the privacy of the policy holder is protected as per the provisions of section 8(I)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC recommended to the CMD Head Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai to give directions to all Branch Managers to put up on the Company's website the following information: i). Number of the Mediclaim policy (no names are required to be given). ii). Date of issue of Mediclaim Policy Bond. iii). Date of transfer of the said policy bond to the TPA
124	CIC/SS/A/2012/000051 (398.55 KB)	26 Jun, 2012	Subhash Chandra Agrawal v Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi Section 8(1) — Exemption — Constitution of India —Article 74 — Council of Ministers to aid and advise President— The Commission held that it is of the view that the disclosure of the recommendations/comments sent by the MHA to the President in relation to such mercy petitions is expressly barred by Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India and hence, such information cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act. File notings and correspondence in relation to mercy petitions, as sought by the Appellant, reflect the material on the basis of which advice and recommendations are made by the MHA to the President of India and thus, fall under the category of information which is not barred by Article 74(2) of the Constitution of India. Information comprising of file notings and correspondences, as exchanged between MHA and President's Secretariat in relation to mercy petitions, has to be tested on the touchstone of section 8 of the RTI Act and it has to be assessed whether the disclosure of such information is exempted under any of the clauses of section 8 of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the CPIO of the MHA to disclose the copies of the file notings not forming part of the ministerial advice to the President of India, as sought by the Appellant, after severing all the names and other references regarding the identities of the public servants regarding those file notings and making those correspondence. The CPIO is further directed to disclose the copies of the correspondence made by MHA to the President's Secretariat from time to time in connection with the mercy petitions, as sought by the Appellant in his RTI Application, except those correspondences, which in the CPIO's opinion are exempt from disclosure in terms of section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
125	CIC/LS/A/2011/000539 CIC/LS/A/2011/000540 CIC/LS/A/2011/001579 (40.46 KB)	25 Jun, 2012	Ravindra Kumar Sood Vs. NTPC Right to Information Act 2005 Section 7(9) — Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority The Commission held (i) in a series of its decisions, it has• held that DPC proceedings are fully disclosable to the appellant provided that he is one of the candidates considered in these proceedings. Third party rule will not operate if the appellant himself is a candidate. However, if appellant is not a candidate, then third party rule will operate; (ii) secondly, held that the information requested for by the appellant is disclosable to him, if any decision has been taken by the competent authority on his representation; (iii) CIC further held that it would be a herculean task to sort out the medical bills requested for by the appellant for as many as 04 calendar years. Besides, it will lead to disproportionate divergence of the resources of the NTPC.
126	CIC/LS/A/2011/002461 CIC/LS/A/2011/002462 (34.35 KB)	22 Jun, 2012	Sushil Kumar Vs. Caret Export Promotion Council (CEPC) Section 6(1) — Request for information The Commission held that if the information seeker denies to have filed the RTI application, then this should be duly recorded in the order of the CPIO and it is good enough ground to close the matter. Further, if the information seeker do not visit the office of the CPIO on the CPIO's request, it may be noted that the former cannot be compelled to do so and in that eventuality, the CPIO shall decide the case on merits.
127	CIC/DS/A/2011/002122 CIC/DS/A/2011/002176 CIC/DS/A/2011/002178 CIC/DS/A/2011/002292 CIC/DS/A/2011/002290 (90.65 KB)	21 Jun, 2012	Birinder Singh Vs. Estate Office, UT Chandigarh Section 6(1) — Request for information The CPIO clubbed some of the applications and provided information collectively for several RTI applications through one letter — Whether such approach on the part of the CPIO to response RTI applications is justified — the Commission held that the CPIO is to provide information point wise separately for each RTI application.
128	CIC/SG/A/2012/001187/19233 (50.79 KB)	13 Jun, 2012	Yadunandan Bansal v Bank of India, Mumbai Section 3 — Citizens right to information — the RTI application not signed by individual The PIO had stated that the RTI application was not valid since the application had been made by M/S Poddar Udyog Limited and signed by authorized signatory whose name was not given The CIC accepted the PIO's plea that this does not constitute a valid RTI application. Appeal dismissed.
129	CIC/SM/A/2011/001503 (206.78 KB)	24 May, 2012	Rajesh Bindra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi Section 7(9) — Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority The Commission held that while it is admitted that a citizen has every right to get the information held by a public authority, it cannot be anybody's case that the working in the public office be brought to a standstill in the process of collecting and compiling hundreds of pages of information. Therefore, the response of the CPIO appears to be absolutely just and fair and also in accordance with the provisions of section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The Appellant is always free to approach the CPIO and, with prior appointment, visit the office and inspect the relevant records.
130	CIC/SG/A/2012/000880/18723 Penalty (36.90 KB)	24 May, 2012	Harish Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Section 5(4) — PIO may seek the assistance of any other officer to provide 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/SG/A/2012/001040/19071 (47.07 KB)	23 May, 2012	Anil Dutt Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Section 6(1) — Request for information The PIO had refused to give the information since the RTI application had not been signed by the Appellant The Commission held that the RTI application has been signed by the Appellant before the CIC (just then). The PIO is directed to provide the information as per the records to the Appellant within 30 days from now.
132	CIC/DS/A/2011/002072 (209.71 KB)	26 Apr, 2012	Ashok C Prakash Vs. Department of Financial Services, New Delhi Section 6(1) - Request for supply of information- the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005 – the appellant seeking voluminous information The Commission held that while it recognizes the right of the appellant to seek information under the RTI Act, he is cautioned to the careful in not overburdening the system with unnecessary and inconsequential issues which would divert scarce resources of the public authority from their core are of work, to the detriment of the public interest.
133	CIC/SM/A/2011/002212/SG/18598 (57.28 KB)	25 Apr, 2012	Mr. Om Prakash Kashiram vs Mr. S. Padmanabha, CPIO & Dy. Secretary Central Information Commission The Appellant has sought information regarding ONGC from the PIO of the Central Information Commissioner (CIC). The Commission held that it is expected that a citizen should send the RTI application to the appropriate Public Authority.
134	CIC/SG/A/2012/000619/18459 (53.72 KB)	18 Apr, 2012	Mr. Rishikant Gupta vs Mr. G. P. Yadav Public Information Officer & AE Ministry of Information & Broadcasting Appeal to First Appellate Authority- to be filed within 30 days from the reply received from the PIO- the appellant filed an appeal after four months instead of filing within 30 days. the Commission held that there is no reasonable explanation for this delay and therefore FAA had rejected the Appeal. In view of this the second appeal is not maintainable.
135	CIC/SG/C/2011/001506/18287 (54.54 KB)	04 Apr, 2012	Mr. Ajay Kumar T vs Public Information Officer Assistant Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005- Rule 3- Application fee of Rs.10/- shall be accompanied by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or banker cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts officer of the public authority- the complainant had enclosed two IPO(s) of Rs.5/- each with the RTI application instead of one IPO of Rs.10/- denomination. The Commission held that this is not in consonance with the provision of the RTI Act. There is no justification in interfering with the order of the PIO in the refusal to accept the RTI application of the Complainant.

121

CIC/SM/A/2011/001713/BS & & CIC/SM/A/2012/000239/BS/0284
(125.08 KB) pdf icon

02 Jul, 2012

Shri. Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui vs CPIO Ministry of Culture Superintending Archaeologist Archaeological survey of India

The PIO has furnished the ‘Product Catalogue’ having the details of all the cultural packages mentioning that all these cultural packages are the priced publication of CCRT – the applicant stated that he wanted books free of cost as he falls in the Below Poverty Line Category. CIC held that, the information cannot be supplied to him free of cost under proviso to section 7(5) of the RTI Act as the information is not held by the CPIO and access to this category of information viz. priced publication(s) shall be on the basis of payment of such costs as may be prescribed for the purpose.

122

CIC/LS/A/2011/003739
(33.43 KB) pdf icon

29 Jun, 2012

P K Srivastava vs Central Ordnance Depot, Kanpur

The appellant sought information in the letter head of COD, MajdoorPanchayat, Kanpur – the CPIO had refused to disclose this information on the ground that only a citizen could seek information u/s and not an organisation/union. The order passed by the CPIO set-aside by CIC and directed him to supply the requisite information to the appellant.

123

CIC/DS/A/2011/003245
(92.36 KB) pdf icon

28 Jun, 2012

Dr. Anshu Agrawal v United India Insurance Co. Ltd

Section 25(5) — Recommendation of the CIC to the public authority—
The Commission held that it is necessary to strike a fine balance between disclosure of information in larger public interest and simultaneously rnsure that the privacy of the policy holder is protected as per the provisions of section 8(I)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC recommended to the CMD Head Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai to give directions to all Branch Managers to put up on the Company's website the following information:
i). Number of the Mediclaim policy (no names are required to be given).
ii). Date of issue of Mediclaim Policy Bond.
iii). Date of transfer of the said policy bond to the TPA

124

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

26 Jun, 2012

Subhash Chandra Agrawal v Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi

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

125

CIC/LS/A/2011/000539 CIC/LS/A/2011/000540 CIC/LS/A/2011/001579
(40.46 KB) pdf icon

25 Jun, 2012

Ravindra Kumar Sood Vs. NTPC

Right to Information Act 2005
Section 7(9) — Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority
The Commission held (i) in a series of its decisions, it has• held that DPC proceedings are fully disclosable to the appellant provided that he is one of the candidates considered in these proceedings. Third party rule will not operate if the appellant himself is a candidate. However, if appellant is not a candidate, then third party rule will operate; (ii) secondly, held that the information requested for by the appellant is disclosable to him, if any decision has been taken by the competent authority on his representation; (iii) CIC further held that it would be a herculean task to sort out the medical bills requested for by the appellant for as many as 04 calendar years. Besides, it will lead to disproportionate divergence of the resources of the NTPC.

126

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

22 Jun, 2012

Sushil Kumar Vs. Caret Export Promotion Council (CEPC)

Section 6(1) — Request for information
The Commission held that if the information seeker denies to have filed the RTI application, then this should be duly recorded in the order of the CPIO and it is good enough ground to close the matter. Further, if the information seeker do not visit the office of the CPIO on the CPIO's request, it may be noted that the former cannot be compelled to do so and in that eventuality, the CPIO shall decide the case on merits.

127

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

21 Jun, 2012

Birinder Singh Vs. Estate Office, UT Chandigarh

Section 6(1) — Request for information
The CPIO clubbed some of the applications and provided information collectively for several RTI applications through one letter — Whether such approach on the part of the CPIO to response RTI applications is justified — the Commission held that the CPIO is to provide information point wise separately for each RTI application.

128

CIC/SG/A/2012/001187/19233
(50.79 KB) pdf icon

13 Jun, 2012

Yadunandan Bansal v Bank of India, Mumbai

Section 3 — Citizens right to information — the RTI application not signed by individual
The PIO had stated that the RTI application was not valid since the application had been made by M/S Poddar Udyog Limited and signed by authorized signatory whose name was not given
The CIC accepted the PIO's plea that this does not constitute a valid RTI application. Appeal dismissed.

129

CIC/SM/A/2011/001503
(206.78 KB) pdf icon

24 May, 2012

Rajesh Bindra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi

Section 7(9) — Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority
The Commission held that while it is admitted that a citizen has every right to get the information held by a public authority, it cannot be anybody's case that the working in the public office be brought to a standstill in the process of collecting and compiling hundreds of pages of information. Therefore, the response of the CPIO appears to be absolutely just and fair and also in accordance with the provisions of section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The Appellant is always free to approach the CPIO and, with prior appointment, visit the office and inspect the relevant records.

130

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

24 May, 2012

Harish Kumar Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Section 5(4) — PIO may seek the assistance of any other officer to provide 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/SG/A/2012/001040/19071
(47.07 KB) pdf icon

23 May, 2012

Anil Dutt Sharma Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Section 6(1) — Request for information
The PIO had refused to give the information since the RTI application had not been signed by the Appellant
The Commission held that the RTI application has been signed by the Appellant before the CIC (just then). The PIO is directed to provide the information as per the records to the Appellant within 30 days from now.

132

CIC/DS/A/2011/002072
(209.71 KB) pdf icon

26 Apr, 2012

Ashok C Prakash Vs. Department of Financial Services, New Delhi

Section 6(1) - Request for supply of information- the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005 – the appellant seeking voluminous information
The Commission held that while it recognizes the right of the appellant to seek information under the RTI Act, he is cautioned to the careful in not overburdening the system with unnecessary and inconsequential issues which would divert scarce resources of the public authority from their core are of work, to the detriment of the public interest.

133

CIC/SM/A/2011/002212/SG/18598
(57.28 KB) pdf icon

25 Apr, 2012

Mr. Om Prakash Kashiram vs Mr. S. Padmanabha, CPIO & Dy. Secretary Central Information Commission

The Appellant has sought information regarding ONGC from the PIO of the Central Information Commissioner (CIC). The Commission held that it is expected that a citizen should send the RTI application to the appropriate Public Authority.

134

CIC/SG/A/2012/000619/18459
(53.72 KB) pdf icon

18 Apr, 2012

Mr. Rishikant Gupta vs Mr. G. P. Yadav Public Information Officer & AE Ministry of Information & Broadcasting

Appeal to First Appellate Authority- to be filed within 30 days from the reply received from the PIO- the appellant filed an appeal after four months instead of filing within 30 days. the Commission held that there is no reasonable explanation for this delay and therefore FAA had rejected the Appeal. In view of this the second appeal is not maintainable.

135

CIC/SG/C/2011/001506/18287
(54.54 KB) pdf icon

04 Apr, 2012

Mr. Ajay Kumar T vs Public Information Officer Assistant Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005- Rule 3- Application fee of Rs.10/- shall be accompanied by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or banker cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts officer of the public authority- the complainant had enclosed two IPO(s) of Rs.5/- each with the RTI application instead of one IPO of Rs.10/- denomination. The Commission held that this is not in consonance with the provision of the RTI Act. There is no justification in interfering with the order of the PIO in the refusal to accept the RTI application of the Complainant.