welcome to Miscellaneous (Exemption) | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
16	CIC/DS/A/2011/003989/RM (28.58 KB)	12 Nov, 2012	Shri R.B. Singh Rohela, Solan, H.P vs IGNOU, Regional Centre, Shimla and New Delhi The Appellant had sought the names and other details of candidates admitted in B.Ed courses of IGNOU from 1.1.2007 till date — huge information sought by the appellant. CPIO rejected the request. The Commission upholds the decision of the PIO.
17	CIC/SS/A/2012/0001470 (207.56 KB)	17 Oct, 2012	Shri Arun Dixit vs Ministry of Law & Justice Legislative Department The Appellant sought information about the number of Acts in force in whole of India upto the date of supplying the information; name of the above cited Acts and extent of their application; and purpose of the Acts and the date of their commencement. The Commission held that the respondent have no obligation to provide such information to the appellant, as the same is already available in the public domain. Neither are the respondent expected to create information as per provisions of the RTI Act.
18	CIC/DS/A/2011/001126/RM (77.80 KB)	11 Jul, 2012	Mr. Yatinder Babu Sharma, Mathura vs Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh The appellant sought: 1. Details of candidates admitted in MCA courses from 2001 to 2010 along with a format containing four columns. 2. Details of candidates issued chance memo for MCA courses but were not given admission for the period 2001-2010 along with a format containing five columns. As it amounts to disproportionate diversion of information CPIO denied the information. CIC agreed with CPIO.
19	CIC/AT/A/2010/000708, CIC/AT/A/2010/000709, CIC/AT/A/2010/000710 (129.20 KB)	27 Sep, 2011	Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. The Appellant had asked for information regarding labourer dismissed from service i.e. grounds for such dismissal, disbursement of CMPF and gratuity to such dismissed labourer, if not disbursed the reasons for non-disbursement CMPF and gratuity etc. The information is requested for the past 20 years.The Commission held that the appellant instead of making specific request has reiterated his request for information spanning a period of 20 years. Under the circumstances, the Commission finds no reason to interfere in the reply of the Respondent.
20	CIC/LS/A/2011/001126 (37.19 KB)	06 Sep, 2011	Ishwar Singh vs BSNL, Jaipur 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 respondent contended that the appellant is misusing and abusing the process of law and the appellant's request for supply of information would disproportionately divert the resources of the organisation — the Commission held that provisioning of the requested information would disproportionately divert the recourses of the public authority.
21	CIC/AD/A/2011/000354 (206.16 KB)	17 Mar, 2011	Anant Kumar vs Chittaranjan Locomotive Works Chittranjan The applicant sought certain information like, how any candidates have finally been selected by the public authority against certain notification dated 14.04.2006; 2. photocopy of the verification report in full submitted by the concerned Board of the different states in respect of these selected candidates; and 3. by which mode the said verification report had been sent to all candidates. The PIO, on 19.08.2010, furnished the required information to the Applicant in respect of item nos. 1 and 3 of the application. He, however, declined to disclose the verification report under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTIAct as according to him it was confidential in nature and related to the 3rd party(s). It is noted that the Respondents’ decision that disclosure of the verification report attracts exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTIAct is not convincing because on the basis of this very document one receives appointment as a government entity. This document therefore, cannot be categorized as an exempt one under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
22	CIC/SS/A/2010/000341 (222.65 KB)	07 Mar, 2011	Shri C.L. Suman vs Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, U.P The Appellant in his RTI application seek to know the name of the vaccine, months of vaccine used prior to Food and Mouth disease, Cost of vaccine used prior to FMD, total affected cattleand buffaloes due to FMD etc. Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.The CIC deems it fit to direct the PIO to allow inspection of the files and to provide photo copies of the documents up to 60 pages, free of cost, to the Appellant.

16

CIC/DS/A/2011/003989/RM
(28.58 KB) pdf icon

12 Nov, 2012

Shri R.B. Singh Rohela, Solan, H.P vs IGNOU, Regional Centre, Shimla and New Delhi

The Appellant had sought the names and other details of candidates admitted in B.Ed courses of IGNOU from 1.1.2007 till date — huge information sought by the appellant. CPIO rejected the request. The Commission upholds the decision of the PIO.

17

CIC/SS/A/2012/0001470
(207.56 KB) pdf icon

17 Oct, 2012

Shri Arun Dixit vs Ministry of Law & Justice Legislative Department

The Appellant sought information about the number of Acts in force in whole of India upto the date of supplying the information; name of the above cited Acts and extent of their application; and purpose of the Acts and the date of their commencement. The Commission held that the respondent have no obligation to provide such information to the appellant, as the same is already available in the public domain. Neither are the respondent expected to create information as per provisions of the RTI Act.

18

CIC/DS/A/2011/001126/RM
(77.80 KB) pdf icon

11 Jul, 2012

Mr. Yatinder Babu Sharma, Mathura vs Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh

The appellant sought:
1. Details of candidates admitted in MCA courses from 2001 to 2010 along with a format containing four columns.
2. Details of candidates issued chance memo for MCA courses but were not given admission for the period 2001-2010 along with a format containing five columns.
As it amounts to disproportionate diversion of information CPIO denied the information. CIC agreed with CPIO.

19

CIC/AT/A/2010/000708, CIC/AT/A/2010/000709, CIC/AT/A/2010/000710
(129.20 KB) pdf icon

27 Sep, 2011

Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma vs South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

The Appellant had asked for information regarding labourer dismissed from service i.e. grounds for such dismissal, disbursement of CMPF and gratuity to such dismissed labourer, if not disbursed the reasons for non-disbursement CMPF and gratuity etc. The information is requested for the past 20 years.The Commission held that the appellant instead of making specific request has reiterated his request for information spanning a period of 20 years. Under the circumstances, the Commission finds no reason to interfere in the reply of the Respondent.

20

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

06 Sep, 2011

Ishwar Singh vs BSNL, Jaipur

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 respondent contended that the appellant is misusing and abusing the process of law and the appellant's request for supply of information would disproportionately divert the resources of the organisation — the Commission held that provisioning of the requested information would disproportionately divert the recourses of the public authority.

21

CIC/AD/A/2011/000354
(206.16 KB) pdf icon

17 Mar, 2011

Anant Kumar vs Chittaranjan Locomotive Works Chittranjan

The applicant sought certain information like, how any candidates have finally been selected by the public authority against certain notification dated 14.04.2006; 2. photocopy of the verification report in full submitted by the concerned Board of the different states in respect of these selected candidates; and 3. by which mode the said verification report had been sent to all candidates.
The PIO, on 19.08.2010, furnished the required information to the Applicant in respect of item nos. 1 and 3 of the application. He, however, declined to disclose the verification report under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTIAct as according to him it was confidential in nature
and related to the 3rd party(s).
It is noted that the Respondents’ decision that disclosure of the verification report attracts exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTIAct is not convincing because on the basis of this very document one receives appointment as a government entity. This document therefore, cannot be categorized as an exempt one under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

22

CIC/SS/A/2010/000341
(222.65 KB) pdf icon

07 Mar, 2011

Shri C.L. Suman vs Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, U.P

The Appellant in his RTI application seek to know the name of the vaccine, months of vaccine used prior to Food and Mouth disease, Cost of vaccine used prior to FMD, total affected cattleand buffaloes due to FMD etc. Information disclosure of which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.The CIC deems it fit to direct the PIO to allow inspection of the files and to provide photo copies of the documents up to 60 pages, free of cost, to the Appellant.