diff --git "a/hf_annotated.csv" "b/hf_annotated.csv" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/hf_annotated.csv" @@ -0,0 +1,10718 @@ +hf_id,title,public_authority,information_sought,exemptions_cited,outcome,penalty_inr,compensation_inr,final_direction,instruction,response +0,The Public Authority admits to providing wrong information to the appellant,Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Police Head Quarters (PHQ) of Delhi Police,a particular FIR,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission observed that as the record has already been accepted as genuine by the Court and the concerned officials have been proceeded against for providing wrong information, there is no reason to pass any directions to the respondent.","The Public Authority admits to providing wrong information to the appellant + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Police Head Quarters (PHQ) of Delhi Police seeking information pertaining to a particular FIR. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI application to the PIO of the South West District (SWD) and to the PIO of the Crime Branch for providing requisite information directly to the appellant. The PIO (SWD) informed that the entire investigation of the case was being done by Crime Branch and that his RTI application had already been transferred to PIO (Crime Branch) by the PIO (PHQ) for directly providing information to the appellant. The PIO stated that after looking into stock register from 2007 no such entry in the stock register was found based on reply received from deemed PIO. The appeal filed by the appellant before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) was not entertained on the grounds of it being time barred. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant asked about the use of two Blank Hard Drive in the case with a particular serial numbers. The appellant sought photocopies of the bills /vouchers of these Hard Drives. + +The respondent admitted that wrong reply has been furnished by deemed PIO. The stock register was shown to the Court wherein it was proved that two hard disks were issued by HAG. The appellant desired to know whether correct information has been provided to him in reply to his RTI application. The respondent clarified during the hearing that the entire matter was explained before the Court and the Register was also shown to the Court showing issuance of the two Blank Hard Drives. The Court has accepted the stock register on record and convicted the appellant/ accused for the offence he was being tried. The PIO also informed that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against deemed PIO’s HC Sushil Kumar and SI Khem Chand for providing wrong information.","The Commission observed that as the record has already been accepted as genuine by the Court and the concerned officials have been proceeded against for providing wrong information, there is no reason to pass any directions to the respondent." +1,Details about the medical claim filed with the South Delhi Municipal Corporation,South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC),the action taken on her medical claim form no,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,2000.0,"Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the CIC granted a compensation of Rs.","Details about the medical claim filed with the South Delhi Municipal Corporation + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) seeking information regarding the action taken on her medical claim form no. 97 for Rs 20,586/– along with current status of the case etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that the information was furnished to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the complete file pertaining to the medical claim of the appellant’s husband had been lost by the Department and after taking photocopies and other medical documents duly signed by the doctors once again, the file had since been reconstructed and was currently under submission to the CAMO. The respondent also submitted that the file had been submitted to the CAMO and was received with certain objections which had been addressed and the file was once again resubmitted to the CAMO for obtaining his sanction before releasing payment. The appellant submitted that she has been put to great inconvenience and harassment and she had to run from pillar to post to obtain the signatures of the doctors a second time to complete the reconstruction of the lost file and she was yet to know about the current status of the case.","The Commission observed that as per the averments of the respondent, the reconstructed file is under submission to the CAMO and therefore, the said officer is the deemed PIO in this case as per the provisions of section 5(4) and section 5(5) of the RTI Act, being the holder of information. The CIC directed the CAMO to provide the current status of the case to the appellant. Referring to the preamble of the RTI Act, the CIC observed that the public authority has definitely caused great mental anguish and harassment to the appellant by losing the entire file pertaining to the Medical claim of her husband and the delay in sanctioning reimbursement of the claim as per rules has undoubtedly caused financial detriment to the appellant. The Commission directed the PIO / Deputy Director, Horticulture Department to provide information to the appellant regarding the final outcome of the enquiry which has been ordered into the loss of the appellant's file as soon as the enquiry is completed and if enquiry has already been completed then the information would be provided to her. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the CIC granted a compensation of Rs. 2000/-  to the appellant for the mental anguish, harassment and financial detriment caused to the her on account of loss of the relevant file by the officer who was responsible for its safe custody." +2,Issue of delay in providing maturity amount against the LIC policy raised through the RTI,Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC),her policy including delay in releasing maturity amount to her and also the basis on which additional loan against the said policy had been sanctioned and disbursed,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"In respect of the manner in which the former PIO has denied information by quoting the provisions of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Act, the CIC issued the show cause notice to the former PIO for not dealing with the appellant’s application as per the provisions of the RTI Act.","Issue of delay in providing maturity amount against the LIC policy raised through the RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking information regarding her policy including delay in releasing maturity amount to her and also the basis on which additional loan against the said policy had been sanctioned and disbursed. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided partial information to the appellant. Information regarding the enhancement of loan amount against the appellant’s policy and the name of the person to whom the additional loan had been disbursed was denied claiming that it did not fall under the definition of information as per the section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed that an internal Departmental enquiry had been initiated in the matter. The PIO informed that the matter pertaining to the policy of the appellant was under investigation for fraud allegedly committed by the agent. The appellant stated that this is the first time this information has been conveyed to him and objected to the fact that the same had been held back from him and not disclosed in response to his RTI application.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide the detail in respect of enhancement of loan amount against her policy and complete information regarding the current status of the ongoing enquiry in respect of the fraud committed visa is the appellant's policy. Further, the CIC directed the PIO to ascertain whether receipt has been issued to the appellant for the two annual premiums paid by him, by cheque for the years 2009 and 2010. The CIC also added that the former PIO had provided incorrect and vague information to the appellant in respect of some point. However, the CIC accepted the explanation of the current PIO that the fraud was detected in September 2012 and the PIO had provided information on22The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.May 2012. In respect of the manner in which the former PIO has denied information by quoting the provisions of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Act, the CIC issued the show cause notice to the former PIO for not dealing with the appellant’s application as per the provisions of the RTI Act." +3,How are the cars defined as 'big' or 'small'?,"Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue",,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The CIC also directed the PIO to provide action taken on appellant’s submissions “Excise Duty on Diesel Cars” routed to Department of Revenue through PG Portal.,"How are the cars defined as 'big' or 'small'? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue seeking information in relation to a news item “Increase duty on diesel cars up to Rs. 2.5 lakhs: Jaipal” . He specifically wanted to know  whether it is true that Union Petroleum Minister has written some letter probably to Union Finance Minister suggesting to increase excise-duty on diesel cars; is it true that big and small cars are presently defined according to length of cars rather than their ex-factory prices for differential rates of excise duty; is it true that many car-manufacturers have reduced length of cars (like Maruti Swift Dezire) and/or introduced costlier luxury cars of smaller length to avail lower rate of excise duty which is presently levied according to length of cars rather than ex-factory price. He also wanted complete and detailed information on action taken by Union Finance Ministry in the interest of revenue to tackle such tactics of car manufacturers like categorizing big and small cars according to ex-factory price rather than length along with related correspondence/ file notings/ documents etc. on action taken on each and every aspect of his submissions “Excise Duty on Diesel Cars” routed to Department of Revenue through PG Portal. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some Information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that the information regarding action taken by Union Finance Ministry and the related correspondence/ file notings/ documents etc. is not maintained by the Department of Revenue. For the rest of the queries the PIO argued that do not fall within the ambit of the definition of “information” as defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","The Commission observed that the appellant has sought specific information and directed the PIO, Department of Revenue to provide clear/ categorical information to the appellant. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide action taken on appellant’s submissions “Excise Duty on Diesel Cars” routed to Department of Revenue through PG Portal." +4,Addressing the issue of an out of order telephone connection through RTI,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission held that the respondent should ensure that a fixed wireless phone (working on mobile technology) is installed without charging any installation fee.,"Addressing the issue of an out of order telephone connection through RTI + +Background: +The appellant’s telephone was out of order and even after filing complaint with the authorities the service was not resumed. Later he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking information in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that telephone number was installed at his parent’s residence and the same frequently remains out of order and he has lodged two complaints but satisfactory information has not been provided. The respondent explained that the telephone is installed at a distance of approximately 06 KM from the exchange and the cable is extensively damaged and hence it is not possible to put the telephone in working order in the near future. The respondent stated that instead of that he can immediately install a fixed wireless phone (working on mobile technology) at the said premises without charging any installation fee. The appellant stated that he would be satisfied if the fixed wireless phone is installed and that the respondent should take appropriate steps to replace the damaged cable in due course.",The Commission held that the respondent should ensure that a fixed wireless phone (working on mobile technology) is installed without charging any installation fee. +5,"Detail of Acts, Rules and Regulations in force in the Union of India",Ministry of Law and Justice Legislative Department,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,A copy of the order was directed to be provided to the concerned PIO of MHA by the PIO of Legislative Department of Ministry of Law & Justice.,"Detail of Acts, Rules and Regulations in force in the Union of India + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Law and Justice Legislative Department seeking copies of all Acts, Rules and Regulations in force in the Union of India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that all Central Acts were available for the general public on the website of the Ministry. The PIO also referred to the website of the Ministry and suggested to download the required Central Acts. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant requested the PIO to furnish the certified copies of all incoming and outgoing letters, notes, orders, notifications, memorandums and records received and issued by the Ministry about Malegaon Bomb Blast cases. The appellant also asked the details of action taken by the Ministry on the submissions in respect of the Malegaon Bomb Blast cases etc. The First Appellant Authority (FAA) held that a mere reading of the RTI appeal papers and the appellant’s RTI application discloses that the subject matter of the information does not pertain to the Legislative Department. The Legislative Department is not concerned with the Malegaon Bomb Blasts cases. The Legislative Department of Ministry of Law & Justice is concerned with certain subjects allotted to it under the GOI (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961. The FAA also added that the subject matter of the information sought by the appellant may be available with the Government of Maharashtra and the Union Ministry of Home Affairs as the subject matter concerns them, therefore the appellant would contact the public authorities of the Government of Maharashtra and the MHA.","The Commission noted that as far as appellant’s RTI application is concerned the PIO of the legislative department has conveyed that all the Acts, Rules and Regulations in force in the Union of India are already available on public domain of the public authority. The CIC also added that as the information is already available in the public domain, there is no obligation on the part of the respondent to provide copies of these documents to the appellant. Regarding appellant’s further questions, the CIC observed that the information sought did not pertain to the Legislative Department and the PIO of the Legislative Department has transferred the RTI application to the PIO of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The CIC directed the concerned PIO of MHA to reply to the appellant’s RTI application and if not replied to already. A copy of the order was directed to be provided to the concerned PIO of MHA by the PIO of Legislative Department of Ministry of Law & Justice." +6,Can copy of attendance sheet in respect of an employee be disclosed to her ex-husband?,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),,['8(1)(b)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission perused the decree issued by the Principal Judge and held that ass per court order the appellant cannot seek any information regarding the said lady from the respondent under the RTI Act.,"Can copy of attendance sheet in respect of an employee be disclosed to her ex-husband? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking certified copy of the attendance register/ attendance sheet in respect of a particular lady working as Technician (TTA) at Telephone Exchange. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that the appellant is a family member of the lady’s ex-husband. The PIO also stated that a decree was issued by the Principal Judge Dehradun in terms of the agreement executed between the lady and her ex-husband before the Family Court. According to it the ex-husband is barred from seeking any information about the lady from the Department under the RTI Act and all such pending applications should be considered as disposed of. The PIO contended that in terms of the aforesaid decree the information sought by the appellant is exempt under section8(1)(b)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;of the RTI Act.",The Commission perused the decree issued by the Principal Judge and held that ass per court order the appellant cannot seek any information regarding the said lady from the respondent under the RTI Act. +7,Complaint regarding non-compliance of orders of the Information Commission,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,15000.0,The CIC also issued show cause notice to DGM as to why penal action should not be initiated against him for non-compliance of the Commission’s order in time.,"Complaint regarding non-compliance of orders of the Information Commission + +Background: +The appellant had filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and during the appeal proceedings, the Central Information Commission (CIC) had directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) to supply copies of TA/ DA bills submitted by retired officers for certain number of years. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that statement of the travel expenses claimed by the above named individuals has already been supplied to the appellant. The appellant submitted that the information supplied to him did not contain information about expenses incurred by the above executives in the air travel as hotel stay etc. The appellant demanded that the copies of the TA/ DA bills should now be provided free of cost. The appellant also submitted that the PIO not been complied with the Commissioner’s order within the prescribed period. He also requested for compensation in regard to his air travel to Delhi in the matter.","The Commission observed that the appellant would be given inspection and copies of the TA/ DA bills of above mentioned executives. The CIC also issued show cause notice to DGM as to why penal action should not be initiated against him for non-compliance of the Commission’s order in time. Further, a notice was issued to the DGM to show cause why a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- should not be awarded to the appellant for air travel to Delhi which would have been avoided if the information was supplied to him within the prescribed period." +8,Should details regarding complaint filed with CVC be disclosed to the complainant?,,,"['8(1)(h)', '8(1)(g)']",PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"Regarding the investigation reports, the CIC ruled that the disclosure of these reports would be subject to the exemption provisions.","Should details regarding complaint filed with CVC be disclosed to the complainant? + +Background: +The appellant had filed a large number of complaints with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) under PIDPI. He later filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the CVC seeking copies of the forwarding letters, the investigation reports and the complaint numbers regarding the complaints filed by him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;and section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that he being himself the complainant, the PIO could not have denied this information to him. The respondent submitted that as per the policy followed in the CVC the confidential section which received such complaints never allowed the disclosure of the details of these complaints in whatever form to protect the identity of the complainant.","The Commission observed that the information seeker himself is the complainant and therefore, the desired information should not be withheld from him. The CIC held that the details of the complaints made under this particular scheme however, cannot be disclosed to third party information seeker. The CIC directed the PIO to obtain the information from the confidential section and provide to the appellant including the details of the complaint numbers and the copies of the forwarding letters by which these complaints had been endorsed to any other authority for further action. Regarding the investigation reports, the CIC ruled that the disclosure of these reports would be subject to the exemption provisions." +9,Can a single RTI application be filed with multiple queries on a variety of subject?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC directed the PIO to provide the details regarding the hiring of outside vehicles for the use of highly placed officials during the year 2011 including the names of those officials, designation, the dates on which the cars had been hired and the cost of such hiring.","Can a single RTI application be filed with multiple queries on a variety of subject? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Rare Earths Ltd in which he wanted to know about the details of the cars hired during the year 2011 for the use of highly placed officials and the remaining queries relating to the discrepancy between two sets of tax invoices, one submitted to the RTO office Mumbai and the other given to him under RTI and the payment of money for getting choice numbers were totally unclear. The Public Information Officer (PIO) observed that he could not be expected to provide any information since the RTI application contained multiple queries on a variety of subjects. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that no PIO can refuse to disclose information on the ground that the RTI application contains more than one request. The Commission agreed with the respondent that the only actionable request is the one relating to the hiring of vehicles from outside for highly placed officials during the year 2011. The remaining queries did not make any particular sense in the absence of any specific details about the tax invoices or about the so called choice numbers. The CIC also added that it is only after the appellant explained what he meant by this that it was clear that he was referring to the purchase of some cars by the company and without the explanation, the RTI application by itself did not give any such sense.","The CIC directed the PIO to provide the details regarding the hiring of outside vehicles for the use of highly placed officials during the year 2011 including the names of those officials, designation, the dates on which the cars had been hired and the cost of such hiring." +10,Five member bench of CIC hears appeal seeking minutes of meeting of BALCO,,,[],ADJOURNED,,,"The matter was adjourned sine-die leaving it open to the appellant to agitate the matter before the CIC again after the final pronouncement by the High Court, if he was so inclined.","Five member bench of CIC hears appeal seeking minutes of meeting of BALCO + +Background: +A Five Member Bench consisting of Shri Satyananda Mishra, CIC; Shri M.L. Sharma, IC; Smt. Deepak Sandhu, IC; Smt. Sushma Singh; IC and Shri Vijay Sharma heard an appeal wherein the appellant had sought Date and Minutes of the 233rd Meeting of the Board of Directors of Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. (BALCO) from the Ministry of Mines (MoM). The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Ministry had refused to disclose this information on the ground that the Meetings of the Board of Directors of BALCO could not be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality. It was informed that M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. have acquired management control of BALCO consequent upon it’s disinvestment on 2nd March, 2001. Further, the proceedings of the Meetings of the Board of Directors of the Company contain confidential matters and the provisions of   the Companies Act, 1956, do not allow inspection or giving copies of the same to the general public. It was added that RTI Act is neither applicable to M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. nor to BALCO. The First Appellate Authority upheld the decision of the PIO observing that Government Nominee Directors on the Board of BALCO have a fiduciary relationship with the Company and they are bound to protect the commercial secrets of the Company. Board minutes may contain trade secrets of the Company and hence cannot be disseminated under Clause11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act, 2005. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), Advocate Sen submitted that this appeal is not maintainable in the light of the stay dated 16.8.2011 granted by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. He contended that the High Court has stayed the entire proceedings in this matter under the ordinary law of the land, though not under the RTI Act, but it would not be appropriate for this Commission to go into the merits of this matter and pronounce its verdict in the present appeal at this juncture.","The Commission held that in the light of the stay granted by the High Court, it would not be proper to pass an order in the present appeal. The matter was adjourned sine-die leaving it open to the appellant to agitate the matter before the CIC again after the final pronouncement by the High Court, if he was so inclined." +11,Reasons for not recommending a candidate by SSC even after scoring higher marks,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),the reasons for not recommending one girl bearing the ID No,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the case and find out the relevant records and provide the photocopies of all the relevant records showing the reasons for the decision of the SSC in not recommending this particular candidate for the posts for which she secured higher marks than the recommended candidates.,"Reasons for not recommending a candidate by SSC even after scoring higher marks + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking information in respect of an examination conducted by the SSC in 2011 for recruitment to various posts of Hindi Translators. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that no additional candidates were under consideration for being recommended for these posts as assumed by the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant clarified that she wanted to know the reasons for not recommending one girl bearing the ID No. 2201500057 even though she had 296.50 marks in the examination as against the last recommended candidate having only 265.50 marks for the post of Junior Translator (CSOLS) and 271.25 marks for the post of Junior Hindi Translator in the Ministry of Defence. The appellant also added that if there were records in the SSC to show why this particular candidate was not found fit to be recommended in spite of having higher marks than others in the same category then they should have to inform him about it.",The Commission observed that it seems to be a reasonable request. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the case and find out the relevant records and provide the photocopies of all the relevant records showing the reasons for the decision of the SSC in not recommending this particular candidate for the posts for which she secured higher marks than the recommended candidates. +12,Addressing the issue of grant of pension through RTI application,Department of Public Enterprises,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC advised the appellant to take up the issue of grant of pension to him, before the competent authority.","Addressing the issue of grant of pension through RTI application + +Background: +The appellant had been permanently absorbed from Indian Navy to Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and had some grievance regarding his pension. In this context, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Public Enterprises seeking to know as to how he can be defined as a non-Central Government employee, after having served in the armed forces (Indian Navy) as an officer for 29 years; how can he be deprived of his PSU pension after having served with Bharat Electronics for 10 years and 5 months; and how EPS pension of Rs. 283/- per month can be a substitute to a PSU (BEL) executive of E V status after rending a pension eligible service of 10 years 05 months. The Public Information officer (PIO) informed the appellant that under 2007 pay revision, superannuation benefits will be those as indicated in DPE Office Memorandums (OMs) Copies of which are available on DPE website. He also stated that DPE is the nodal Department for issue of Policy guidelines in respect of Central Public Centre Enterprises (CPSEs). Superannuation benefits can be provided by CPSEs provided these are within broad parameters of DPE guidelines/ statutory requirements/ Government specific direction in respect of CPSEs. The PIO further clarified that the PIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicant or to furnish clarification to queries. Only such information can be provided under the Act, which is available with the public authority. The First appellate Authority (FAA) advised the appellant to seek further clarification in the matter from the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that a letter was issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare and BEL management has denied the benefit to the appellant based on that order. The FAA had, therefore, advised the appellant to seek further clarification in the matter from the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare. The respondent also clarified that the appellant is in receipt of pro-rata pension on absorption in BEL from Indian Navy for the period severed there. The pension under Employee’s Pension Scheme (EPS) is regulated as per the EPS, 1995, administered by Ministry of Labour & Employment. The appellant is already drawing pension under the EPF Pension Scheme.","The Commission observed that the appellant has sought clarifications, reasons, interpretation in respect of his PSU pension. These queries do not fall under the ambit of definition of “information” as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The RTI Act cannot be used to make Public Authorities act in a certain way. The questions raised by the appellant are more in the nature of a grievance. According to the RTI Act the respondent public authority is expected to provide information as is held by them in material form or under their control. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that requisite information permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant. The CIC advised the appellant to take up the issue of grant of pension to him, before the competent authority." +13,Should application forms submitted by students for admission in school be disclosed?,Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the contention of the PIO and rejected the appeal.,"Should application forms submitted by students for admission in school be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) seeking the number of Branches of Shri Guru Harkishan Public School in Delhi and the copies of the application forms submitted by students for admission in class X & XII in the said Academic Years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that there were 11 branches of the said school. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that information regarding the copies of the application forms submitted by students for admission was huge and personal in nature. The respondent stated that supply of the information would not only divert the resources of the Board disproportionately but would also violate the privacy of the students who were admitted in these academic years.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the contention of the PIO and rejected the appeal. +14,Can entire records pertaining to vigilance cases be given a blanket exemption under section 8(1)(h)?,Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in which he referred to two CBI cases and requested,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the records and find out which of those could be disclosed without impeding the prosecution under way and provide the copies of those.,"Can entire records pertaining to vigilance cases be given a blanket exemption under section 8(1)(h)? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in which he referred to two CBI cases and requested for the copies of the entire file held in the CVC including the file noting and the correspondence made with the Ministry of Railways and the CBI. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that the disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation. He invoked the exemption provisions contained in section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that the PIO could not have denied the information by a summary order. Any such denial would have to be properly justified through a reasoned order. The appellant also submitted that the entire information sought might not come under the said exemption provision and the PIO should have applied his mind to segregate those records which might not fall under the exemption provision.","The Commission agreed with the arguments of the appellant and noted that the order of the PIO was not adequately reasoned. The CIC held that the matter had reached a trial court for prosecution and the denial of the desired information should be properly justified through a speaking and reasoned order. The CIC also ruled that if it was found that some of the records contained in these files could otherwise be disclosed without impeding the prosecution before the trial court, those records should be disclosed. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the records and find out which of those could be disclosed without impeding the prosecution under way and provide the copies of those. If the PIO decided not to disclose full or part of the desired information then he have to pass a speaking and reasoned order to justify his denial." +15,Did the registrar collude with the party for not listing the case before the NCDRC?,National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Upbhokta Nyay Bhawan,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission observed that the no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.,"Did the registrar collude with the party for not listing the case before the NCDRC? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) Upbhokta Nyay Bhawan seeking information whether the registrar of the respondent organization, in collusion with the opposite party, did not list an appeal for 6 years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the information sought by the appellant is not covered under the definition of information as per the section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the appellant was seeking was seeking an opinion of the respondent. Further, the respondent added that the appeal was listed more than fifteen times before the NCDRC and the appellant himself appeared for the matter and therefore, the query raised by the appellant in his RTI application has no significance.",The Commission observed that the no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. +16,Should the details furnished by a person while filling the application form for examination be disclosed?,High Court of Kerala,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission ruled that the case is between the appellant and his wife, having some dispute between them and the information has not been sought for any public purpose but for purely personal reasons.","Should the details furnished by a person while filling the application form for examination be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the High Court of Kerala seeking the details furnished by his wife while filling the application form for the examination. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that it was personal information having no relationship to any public activity or interest. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that the purity of the candidates appearing in such an examination is very important and that he suspected that his wife had suppressed many material facts about the criminal and civil matters pending against her while filling out the application form.","The Commission observed that the information sought is personal in nature. The personal details furnished by a candidate while filling out the form for any examination were not meant to be disclosed to the general public. The CIC noted that these details were primarily required for the authority conducting the examination and if once found successful and fit for recommendation for the job for which the examination is held, the details provided by the candidate concerned would assume a public character because based on those details she would be finally appointed to the job in the public authority until then the information is purely personal. The CIC held that such information can be disclosed only if there is a larger public interest to be served. The Commission ruled that the case is between the appellant and his wife, having some dispute between them and the information has not been sought for any public purpose but for purely personal reasons." +17,Can an application be filed under Madhya Pradesh RTI Act?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC ruled that the PIO has done so out of courtesy and not under any legal obligation hence the matter is being closed at the Commission’s end.,"Can an application be filed under Madhya Pradesh RTI Act? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University seeking information under the Madhya Pradesh RTI Act. The Public Information Officer provided some information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that no such Act is in force at the moment. It is the Right to Information Act enacted by the Parliament that is in force all over the country, including the State of Madhya Pradesh. The appeal must be dismissed on this count alone. The CIC also noted that as per the PIO submission requisite information has been supplied to the appellant. The CIC ruled that the PIO has done so out of courtesy and not under any legal obligation hence the matter is being closed at the Commission’s end." +18,Is a son required to produce succession certificate to get information pertaining to his deceased father?,State Bank of India (SBI),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission observed that no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.,"Is a son required to produce succession certificate to get information pertaining to his deceased father? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking the statement of accounts in respect of his late father’s account for a period of thirteen years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information to the appellant on the grounds that information pertained to customer’s affairs involving commercial confidence and in the nature of personal information held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity could not be disclosed to third party. The respondent also stated that the wife of the depositor had objected for disclosure of any information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the bank had asked him to deposit the requisite fee for getting the statement of accounts but when he went to deposit the fee, the bank informed him that as his mother had objected to the giving of information and the bank would not provide it. The respondent stated that the bank had to take into account the objection raised by the mother of the appellant. In this context the bank had also expected a legal succession certificate from the appellant. The respondent submitted that the matter went to the court and now the appellant has become entitled to a certain portion of the account holder’s property and in accordance with the papers produced by the appellant, the respondent has already taken action. The respondent also elaborated that in respect of the information sought the concerned branch has already been instructed to provide the information. The respondent also stated that part of the information has already been provided and the remaining part would also be given in stipulated time period.",The Commission observed that no intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. +19,Does MoEF have any mechanism to enforce the standards set by it?,Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to provide any available document and notification or guideline, laying down the details of the enforcement mechanism for regulating the standards laid down in the various notifications.","Does MoEF have any mechanism to enforce the standards set by it? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) seeking details regarding the vehicles running on Indian roads during the last three years in respect of the in those. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the copies of some notifications issued by the Central Government relating to the noise limits of various types of vehicles. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant complained that the PIO had not provided any information regarding the actual noise levels of the vehicles of all makes. The respondent submitted that apart from the various notifications issued by the Ministry, there was no other record to show the standards nor there was any other record to show the actual noise levels of the vehicles manufactured and running in India.","The Commission observed that the Ministry has issued certain notifications fixing the noise levels of all kinds of vehicles and from these notifications, it was not very clear how these were proposed to be enforced and which would be the enforcing authority. The CIC held that the Ministry must be having the necessary information regarding the enforcement of these standards. The Commission directed the PIO to provide any available document and notification or guideline, laying down the details of the enforcement mechanism for regulating the standards laid down in the various notifications." +20,Can the valuation report of a company’s assets be disclosed under RTI?,"Official Liquidator, High Court",,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission ruled that the respondent have no disclosure obligation with respect to the valuation report which includes information in the nature of commercial confidence and the appellant has not established any larger public interest for its disclosure.,"Can the valuation report of a company’s assets be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Official Liquidator, High Court seeking information in respect of a particular company. He wanted the details of proceedings, action initiated and also the follow up by the official liquidator including name of debtors and transactions regarding details of debtor’s with the status of each Director, proceedings, outstanding claims and details of other claimants etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that since the information requested was voluminous, he could visit the office of the PIO to inspect the files and collect the copies of documents required after remitting requisite fee, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to issue 85 pages of documents to the appellant after collecting requisite fee of Rs.170/-. The appellant enclosed a D.D. of Rs.200/- instead of Rs. 170/-. The PIO sent 85 pages of documents. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the winding up of the said company in liquidation was ordered by the Honourable High Court. The court had appointed the Official Liquidator as Liquidator of the company with directions to take over all the assets and effects of the company. The appellant stated that this was done with the intention to ensure issuance of copies of Valuation Report received from the company for its assets and effects. The FAA submitted that the balance amount of Rs. 30/- lying with credit of the public authority is being returned to the appellant. The FAA referred the Commission’s further decision (case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001519) wherein it was held that Valuation Report maintained in the office of the Official Liquidator is a commercial secret document in terms of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.",The Commission ruled that the respondent have no disclosure obligation with respect to the valuation report which includes information in the nature of commercial confidence and the appellant has not established any larger public interest for its disclosure. +21,Secretary DoPT directed to institute enquiry to trace the missing records and fix responsibility,Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),,['8(1)(i)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to place the order before the Secretary DoPT for getting the matter probed.,"Secretary DoPT directed to institute enquiry to trace the missing records and fix responsibility + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) seeking copies of documents regarding the extension in service given to a particular person as DG ICMR. He specifically wanted the copy of communication from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare containing the clarifications sought by the DoPT. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that the documents formed part of the ACC papers and were covered under the exemption provisions contained in section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the relevant file containing the proposal for grant of extension to the person as DG ICMR was not traceable in the section concerned. The respondent also explained that the file had not been found in the section for quite some time and he had even checked about it after getting the CIC notice but the section still reported that the file was not traceable. The appellant claimed that he should be provided with the relevant records.","The Commission held that the Cabinet papers including the ACC papers must be disclosed after the decision is implemented and over as clearly mentioned in the proviso to section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act. The CIC held that if the relevant file is not available in the Department then there is nothing the PIO can disclose. The Commission directed the authorities in the Department to institute an enquiry to trace the records and fix responsibility for its loss. The CIC also ruled that if necessary, the matter should be reported to the police because this is a very important file and contains the decision of the ACC to grant extension which has been questioned by the appellant consistently. The CIC directed the PIO to place the order before the Secretary DoPT for getting the matter probed." +22,PIO is not bound to be guided by the views of third party for disclosure of information,Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM),the details of those mines which were located on revenue or forest land in the Nagpur region,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to disclose the attested copy of the reply given by the entity in response to their show cause notice along with the enclosures.,"PIO is not bound to be guided by the views of third party for disclosure of information + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) seeking copy of the letter written by the IBM to a particular mining entity for some violations and the reply given by that entity. The appellant also wanted to know the details of those mines which were located on revenue or forest land in the Nagpur region. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the third party had objection to the disclosure of the information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that since the third party had not given his consent for the disclosure of the information it should not be disclosed. The CIC held that it was not clear why the reply given by the company to a show cause notice should be considered by the PIO to be third party information under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act. The entire exchange between the IBM and the mining entity is a part of a statutory exercise and the explanation given to the show cause notice is neither a confidential document nor a personal one. The CIC ruled that the PIO was not right in treating it as third party information within the meaning of section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act. The Commission stated that even if the PIO had consulted the party concerned, he was not bound to be guided by its views; he was expected to exercise his own mind and come to a conclusion.",The Commission noted that the mining activity has evoked considerable concerns from the public in recent years for a variety of reasons including its potential for environmental pollution and illegal exploitation of public resources. The CIC directed the PIO to disclose the attested copy of the reply given by the entity in response to their show cause notice along with the enclosures. If the PIO decided not to disclose the same then he has to pass a speaking order in this context. +23,Disclosure of certificates furnished by an employee at the time of appointment,National Aluminum Company Ltd Corporate Office (NALCO),,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC directed the PIO to provide the date of the first posting of that said person along with his present designation/ post and the copies of his educational, caste and residence certificates.","Disclosure of certificates furnished by an employee at the time of appointment + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Aluminum Company Ltd Corporate Office (NALCO) seeking information in respect of an employee such as the date of his posting, his present post etc. He also wanted the copies of various certificates submitted by the said officer such as educational certificate, caste certificate and residence certificate. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information claiming that it was personal in nature and exempted under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that all the information furnished by an employee at the time of appointment cannot be said to be personal as some of these certificates form the very basis on which a person is appointed to the post in the public authority. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the date of the first posting of that said person along with his present designation/ post and the copies of his educational, caste and residence certificates. + +Comments + +All those qualifications which are necessary for a government job are liable to be disclosed to an applicant. However, if the information does not pertain to the minimum qualification needed for the job, there would be little obligation to disclose it." +24,Can CIC give priority to some appeals over others and hear them out of turn?,Central Information Commission (CIC),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal.,"Can CIC give priority to some appeals over others and hear them out of turn? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Information Commission (CIC) seeking the reasons for non-disposal of her second appeals by the Commission and giving priority to other appeals filed after her appeals. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that the appeals were disposed of by the Information Commissioners on first come first serve basis. But as per Commission’s resolution, priority can also be accorded by the concerned Commissioner in certain specified circumstances. The various reasons for giving priority can be appellant being too old or infirm, appeals involving larger public issues and so on. The FAA also stated that the appellant’s allegation is vague and non-specific as she has not clearly mentioned as to which appeals were given priority over her appeal. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant alleged that her representative was not allowed to appear for her by the concerned Information Commissioner in the hearing held and her appeal was dismissed on the sole ground of her absence. The respondent submitted that the allegation made by the appellant was not correct and produced a copy of the order passed by the Commission whereof clearly mentions the reasons for dismissal of appeal. The respondent also stated that the appeal was dismissed on merits and the non-appearance of the appellant was not a ground for dismissal of appeal. The appellant also requested the Chief Information Commissioner to initiate penal proceedings against PIOs and FAAs and to pass appropriate orders.",The Commission observed that the appellant has not sought any specific information from the Commission; she has sought action against the PIOs and FAAs without naming the defaulters. The CIC rejected the appeal. +25,Details regarding vehicles owned by LIC and insured by United India Insurance,United India Insurance Company Limited,,['8(1)(d)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission also accepted the argument of the respondent that the RTI act did not cast any obligation on the respondent to compile and collate information and in this particular case information would be provided only if a universal code number is allotted to LIC of India under which data pertaining to their insured vehicles is maintained.,"Details regarding vehicles owned by LIC and insured by United India Insurance + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the United India Insurance Company Limited seeking information regarding the number of vehicles owned by Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) which were insured by the company along with policy number; user name and address, Insured Declared Value, make and model and registration number etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that that the information sought was very voluminous in nature and compiling and collating the requested information would disproportionately divert the resources of the company. The PIO also stated that the information sought attracted exemption under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act as the subject pertained to the business activities of the company and the disclosure would cause detriment to their commercial interests. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the plea taken by the PIO was not sustainable because LIC was a corporate client of the company and is allotted a code number through which all the data pertaining to the insured vehicles of the Corporation could be accessed. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant was scattered over 1400 offices of the company pan India and that they were under no obligation under the RTI Act to compile and collate this information in the format provided by the appellant. The appellant stated that the Mumbai office had already provided the customer number allotted to LIC of India as corporate client and there should now be no difficulty in providing the requested information to him. The PIO stated that in all probability this particular corporate number was not a universal number through which information could be obtained from all the offices of the company and that the number provided was specific to the regional office.",The Commission directed the PIO to verify whether corporate client code number allotted to LIC of India was specific to the Regional office or was in fact universal corporate code number allotted to the entire business of LIC handled by the United India Insurance Company and accordingly provide information to the appellant. The Commission also accepted the argument of the respondent that the RTI act did not cast any obligation on the respondent to compile and collate information and in this particular case information would be provided only if a universal code number is allotted to LIC of India under which data pertaining to their insured vehicles is maintained. +26,Addressing the issue of non- payment of reward through RTI,Income Tax (IT) department,,[],REMANDED,,,"The Commission remanded the case to the Chairman, CBDT for taking appropriate action in the matter.","Addressing the issue of non- payment of reward through RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) department seeking information as to why the remaining part of final reward had not been paid to him despite several reminders. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the office of DG (Investigation) was excluded from the provisions of the RTI Act as per section 24 hence, the information sought cannot be provided. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that based on his information, IT department had conducted searches in 2004. For providing the information, he was paid Rs. 14,80,000/- as reward but as per the guidelines issued by the IT department, he should be paid Rs 10 lakh more. He alleged that the amount is not being paid to him because of corruption on part of the IT officials and hence, he wants the information.","The Commission ruled that as per the provisions of section 24 of the RTI Act, the office of DG (Inv) has been exempted from the purview of the RTI Act but, section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:provides that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations would not be excluded. The Commission held that CBDT should make internal enquiries to ascertain the veracity of the submissions being made by the appellant. The Commission remanded the case to the Chairman, CBDT for taking appropriate action in the matter." +27,Can the information sought by one’s spouse be treated as third party information?,Income Tax  (IT) Department,"her husband such as the details of source of income declared by him, deductions like housing loans, LIC etc",[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide the gross income and net taxable income declared by the appellant’s husband in the last ITR filed by him.,"Can the information sought by one’s spouse be treated as third party information? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax  (IT) Department seeking information about her husband such as the details of source of income declared by him, deductions like housing loans, LIC etc. claimed by him. The appellant also wanted to know the certified copies of the ITRs filed by him for the said years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the information on the basis of objection filed by the appellant’s husband.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that a wife cannot be treated as third party in the strict sense of the term, so long as the marriage subsists, however after divorce, the legal position changes. The Commission ruled that marriage still subsists between the appellant and her husband, hence it would not be correct to deny information on the ground that the appellant is a third party. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the gross income and net taxable income declared by the appellant’s husband in the last ITR filed by him. + +Comments + +As per the section2(n)“third party” means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority.of the RTI Act, “third party'' means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a public authority. Therefore, in the opinion of this site, even a wife is covered under the definition of a third party, irrespective of whether the marriage is in existence or not." +28,Can a complaint filed by a person be treated as his personal information?,Delhi Police,,"['8(1)(g)', '8(1)(e)']",INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the complaint/ complaints filed by the said lady in Vigilance Department of South West District to the appellant.,"Can a complaint filed by a person be treated as his personal information? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking copy of complaints filed against him by a lady. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;and section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act on the grounds that the said lady has not given her consent but denied to share any information or documents with the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has a right to know the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant against him. The complaint filed by the lady cannot be said to be her personal information and the provisions of section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;also not apply since the identity of both the parties is known. The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the complaint/ complaints filed by the said lady in Vigilance Department of South West District to the appellant." +29,Are the details of savings and FD accounts of third party liable to be disclosed?,State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ),"the various savings and FD accounts in the name of a certain individual including his wife, sons and daughters","['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(e)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating that no action is called for at the Commission’s level.,"Are the details of savings and FD accounts of third party liable to be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ) seeking information about the various savings and FD accounts in the name of a certain individual including his wife, sons and daughters. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section 8(1)(d), section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he sought information about the various saving and FD accounts of a family, who is illegally enjoying Below Poverty Line (BPL) facilities from the State Government. The appellant stated that he wanted this information to expose the corruption in the selection of BPL families by the concerned department. The respondent stated that as per the exemption clauses of the RTI Act, the bank is unable to divulge the information to the appellant.",The Commission held that the approach of the respondent is in conformity with the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that no action is called for at the Commission’s level. +30,Seeking value of kharif crop harvested for a particular time and insurance premium paid,Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (SKGB),his account,['8(1)(g)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the respondent to provide the information sought in the RTI application.,"Seeking value of kharif crop harvested for a particular time and insurance premium paid + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Samastipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (SKGB) seeking certain information regarding the months during which kharif crop was harvested. He wanted to know the total value of kharif crop harvested, the details of insurance company and amount of premium paid etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the information was required in context of a matter pending in the Consumer Forum. He stated that he took a KCC loan from the bank and he was seeking information pertaining to his account. He argued that the provisions cited by the respondent for denial of information were not relevant. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant was already discussed in a case filed by the appellant before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. The respondent added that the Consumer Forum had passed an order directing the respondent to pay compensation to the appellant. The respondent also stated that an appeal had been filed before the State Commission and the case is pending before the State Commission and the matter is sub-judice.",The Commission observed that the section cited by the respondent to deny the information sought by the appellant has no relevance. There is no sufficient reason to deny information to the appellant taking into account that the appellant needed the information for the consumer dispute redressal matter. The CIC directed the respondent to provide the information sought in the RTI application. +31,Should the mandatory approvals received for the Special Economic Zone be disclosed under RTI?,Kandla Port Trust (KPT),,['8(1)(d)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"However, the Commission directed the PIO to provide copies of mandatory approvals received for the Project, including environment clearance obtained from Ministry of Environment and Forests in respect of the aforementioned Project, to the appellant.","Should the mandatory approvals received for the Special Economic Zone be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Kandla Port Trust (KPT) seeking copy of proposed plan for Multi Product Special Economic Zone (MPSEZ), suggestions and comments received by concerned authorities on the said proposed plan and the feasibility study report done by concerned authorities regarding the said proposed plan. The Public Information Officer (PIO) requested the appellant to remit Rs. 722/- towards further fees on account of supply of information. The appellant deposited the required fee. Later the PIO informed the appellant that KPT has recently come to know about the stay orders passed for the land on which PBMPSEZ is going to be developed. The PIO stated that as the matter was under judicial consideration before the appellate Court, the information could not be disclosed and the fees of Rs. 722/- paid by the appellant would be refunded in due course. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the respondent have denied information without proper and bona-fide reason. The PIO submitted that KPT is a Government Organization, wherein the proposed project of setting up of SEZ has been taken up. This project is an ambitious Port Project of National importance which would provide employment to 1.50 lakhs persons and there were certain vested interest groups who do not want this SEZ Project to be implemented at KPT and these groups are using various tactics to stall the project. The PIO provided a copy of the stay order passed by the Honourable Apex Court. He explained that the facts have been twisted and misrepresented and raised in the National Green Tribunal, to jeopardize the setting up SEZ Project. Hence the requisite information/ documents were exempted from disclosure under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act, as the disclosure would harm the competitive position of  third party.","The Commission noted that the respondent have no disclosure obligation in terms of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act as the information sought for is related to commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property and the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the respondent. However, the Commission directed the PIO to provide copies of mandatory approvals received for the Project, including environment clearance obtained from Ministry of Environment and Forests in respect of the aforementioned Project, to the appellant." +32,Seeking information pertaining to pension saving account and FDR through RTI,Punjab National Bank (PNB),pension saving account andFixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of a particular bank account,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission agreed with the order of the FAA and rejected the appeal.,"Seeking information pertaining to pension saving account and FDR through RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab National Bank (PNB) seeking information pertaining to pension saving account andFixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) of a particular bank account. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he sought a copy of an affidavit that had been filed along with certain cheque which had been deposited. The respondent stated that the appellant's father was an account holder in the bank but the appellant himself is not an account holder. The respondent explained that one of the sons of the account holder i.e. the brother of the appellant was a nominee of the account holder and this was also mentioned in the account opening form. It was the brother of the appellant who had submitted the affidavit along with certain cheques following which the bank had undertaken the requisite formalities by way of normal banking process. The respondent further stated that there may be some dispute between the two brothers but they had denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The bank's action is as per the law on grounds of fiduciary and third party nature of the information.",The Commission agreed with the order of the FAA and rejected the appeal. +33,CIC directs Bar Council to comply with the provisions of section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act,Bar Council of India (BCI),compliance of section 4 of the RTI Act,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Regarding the dissemination of information in Hindi through the website and other reliefs sought by the appellant, the CIC ruled that the Bar Council should consider the same as per the government policy, cost effectiveness, most effective method of communication etc.","CIC directs Bar Council to comply with the provisions of section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bar Council of India (BCI) seeking information regarding compliance of section 4 of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a point wise reply. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he wanted to know the time stipulations regarding compliance of section 4 of the RTI Act. He also insisted that the website should contain information in Hindi as per section4(4)All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. +Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority.of the RTI Act. The appellant requested the Commission that the Bar Council should disseminate the information in Hindi on the website, publish an email ID which is regularly checked and the status of RTI application and appeal on the website. The respondent submitted that the BCI has already uploaded all the information on the website. The respondent also submitted that BCI is in process of providing all the information available with it on the website of the BCI. The respondent also stated that whenever information is being sought in Hindi, Bar Council of India is providing the same on the special request of the RTI application and all the transactions of the Council is being done in English language only.","The Commission held that compliance of the section 4 of the RTI Act is a statutory obligation and the compliance of the section in a time bound manner specially in relation to section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;cannot be taken casually. The Commission directed the respondent to comply with the provisions of section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the RTI Act and compliance report should be submitted to the Commission in this respect. Regarding the dissemination of information in Hindi through the website and other reliefs sought by the appellant, the CIC ruled that the Bar Council should consider the same as per the government policy, cost effectiveness, most effective method of communication etc." +34,Penalty of Rs. 25000/- imposed on PIO for unreasonable delay in furnishing the information,North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,25000.0,,"The CIC also directed the PIO to carefully go over the RTI application, the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and the earlier order of the Commission and provide full and complete information to the appellant.","Penalty of Rs. 25000/- imposed on PIO for unreasonable delay in furnishing the information + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) seeking some information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. While hearing the second appeal, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the complete information to the appellant within four weeks. Later, the appellant filed a complaint with the CIC stating that despite the Commission’s order he had received partial information which is incomplete and misleading and that too after two months of the order of the CIC. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that he had been transferred from the said Ward. The complainant pointed out that the transfer orders of the PIO came after more than four weeks after the Commission’s order dated 14 January 2013 and that the PIO had been directed to provide full and complete information to the appellant within four weeks of the order.","The Commission held that the PIO has not provided any credible explanation for not having complied with the directions of the Commission. The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000/- on the PIO for the delay in supply of information. The CIC also directed the PIO to carefully go over the RTI application, the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and the earlier order of the Commission and provide full and complete information to the appellant." +35,Can CIC re-open a case which has been decided earlier by an information commissioner?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"While re-opening the cases, the CIC has held that the power to review its order is inherent with it.","Can CIC re-open a case which has been decided earlier by an information commissioner? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Information Commission (CIC) in which he submitted that he had sent certain e-Mails to the Registry of Chief Information Commissioner for re-opening of the case decided by Smt. Deepak Sandhu (Information Commissioner). + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the CIC the Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that Smt. Deepak Sandhu had passed an order (in File No. CIC/DS/A/2010/001938) in which she had held that complete and full information had been provided to the appellant and that no action was called for therein.","The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the rules of the CIC did not provide for re-opening of a matter. + +Comments + +In some cases, the CIC has reviewed its own decision like if there has been a mistake of fact or if the third party has not been given an opportunity of being heard. While re-opening the cases, the CIC has held that the power to review its order is inherent with it." +36,Does the PMO follow any Citizen’s Charter?,,"the Citizens Charter Bill 1997, the Rights of Citizens for Time bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill 2011 including the progress made on these bills",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC also directed the PIO to provide a copy of the Citizen's Charter, if adopted by the PMO, by obtaining a copy of it from them.","Does the PMO follow any Citizen’s Charter? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking information relating to the Citizens Charter Bill 1997, the Rights of Citizens for Time bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill 2011 including the progress made on these bills. The appellant also wanted to have a copy of the Citizen's Charter of the PMO. The PMO transferred the application to the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of that department provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that there was indeed a bill called the Citizens Charter Bill 1997 but the PIO had made no reference to that Bill in his reply. He also pointed out that the Citizen's Charter followed in the PMO was not provided to him. The respondent submitted that the PIO had already provided whatever information was available.","The Commission directed the PIO to find out if there was ever a Bill called the Citizens Charter Bill 1997 and if so, to provide the details of what happened to that Bill. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide a copy of the Citizen's Charter, if adopted by the PMO, by obtaining a copy of it from them." +37,Is there any procedure for appointment of Central Information Commissioners?,,the rules in this regard,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no further information to be disclosed in the case.,"Is there any procedure for appointment of Central Information Commissioners? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and Prime Minister's Office (PMO) in which he referred to the selection and appointment of Information Commissioners and the consideration of a particular lady (Smt Ranjana Kumari) for the same. In this context the appellant raised number of queries. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of DoPT and PMO provided some information to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) noted that the department had no record to show that said lady had been considered by the Selection Committee. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant specified that his RTI application related to the consideration of the name of that lady for the post of Information Commissioner even though she was not one of the applicants. The respondent insisted that she was never considered by the Selection Committee when it had met for deciding on the names of the Information Commissioners. As per the information that the Department had put up a list of 11 names before the Selection Committee and it is out of this list of 11 names that the Selection Committee had recommended three names to the President of India for appointment as Information Commissioners. That list of 11 did not include the name of the said lady. After this exercise was over, the Department had put up another list of 9 names including the name of the lady in question before the Selection Committee which never considered these names. In this context the appellant wanted the Department to clarify how the name of the said lady was included in the list of 9 names put before the Selection Committee even though she had not applied for this post as well he also wanted to know about the rules in this regard.","The Commission observed that the RTI Act itself did not lay down any such procedure and the central government has not framed any rules about the exact method to be followed for selection and appointment of Information Commissioners. The CIC further noted that until there are such rules framed by the competent authority, it would be beyond the scope and duty of the PIO to speculate on any rule or basis on which this particular name was included in a list put up before the Selection Committee. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no further information to be disclosed in the case." +38,Should documents pertaining to bank account of a public trust be disclosed under RTI?,,the details and documents submitted by a public trust at the time of opening of an account,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission upheld the decision of the PIO and rejected the appeal.,"Should documents pertaining to bank account of a public trust be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with Syndicate Bank seeking information regarding the details and documents submitted by a public trust at the time of opening of an account. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the public trust had opened an account without submitting proper documents with the bank. He also stated that the trust is a public trust and he is entitled to know the details of the account pertaining to the trust. The respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant was of a public trust which has no connection with the appellant. The respondent also stated that even if the trust is a public trust, being a customer of the bank, they are entitled to confidentiality. The respondent informed that due to this reason and the fiduciary nature of the relationship they could not divulge the information sought by the appellant.",The Commission upheld the decision of the PIO and rejected the appeal. +39,Can an Indian citizen residing abroad file an application under RTI?,NUEPA is,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission directed the FAA to revisit the matter and pass an appropriate order.,"Can an Indian citizen residing abroad file an application under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant was an Associate Professor in National University of Educational Planning & Administration (NUEPA) and presently in United Kingdom. She filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the NUEPA is seeking information with regard to the extension of her probation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that as per section 1(2) of the RTI Act, the Act applies to the whole of India except the State of J&K. Obviously it does not extend to her current place of stay, i.e. United Kingdom. However, since she is a citizen of India as stated by her in the said RTI application, she may submit her application through Indian Embassy in United Kingdom. Accordingly, her RTI application stands disposed in the present situation. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that the appellant did not file the first appeal within the prescribed period of 30 days and filed it after a gap of about 16 months; the PIO had not denied the information but advised the appellant to file the RTI application through the Indian High Commission; even after returning to India the appellant took about three months to file the first appeal without any valid reasons. Further, the reasons given by her in the appeal memo are her personal matters which have no relevance under the RTI Act and hence do not justify the inordinate delay in the filing of the first appeal. The FAA dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay in the filing of the first appeal.","The Commission observed that the PIO did not entertain the RTI application on the ground that it was not routed through Indian High Commission at London. However, the FAA did not give any heed to this fact.  The CIC also noted that proviso to section19(2)Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.empowers the FAA to condone the delay in filing the first appeal beyond the prescribed period of thirty days if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. The CIC held that the order passed by the FAA does not deal with this issue in specific terms and in his detailed order has not given any finding that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the first appeal. The Commission directed the FAA to revisit the matter and pass an appropriate order. + +Comments + +There is no need to route the RTI applications through the embassy under the RTI Act." +40,Has the DG (Tourism) Office approved sanction to run a Guest House in Delhi?,Delhi Police,the details of a person who had stayed in the said guest house with a Chinese/ Cambodian Girl,['8(1)(g)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to provide appropriate reply to the said query and to inform the appellant if indeed such a Guest House exists, whether it is following the mandatory Foreigners Registration Rules and intimate the appellant about the action taken by them.","Has the DG (Tourism) Office approved sanction to run a Guest House in Delhi? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking to know whether the DG (Tourism) Office have ever approved and accorded sanction to run a Guest House in the name of Royal Place for Stay, New Delhi. The appellant also wanted to know the details of a person who had stayed in the said guest house with a Chinese/ Cambodian Girl. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act on the grounds that disclosure of such information might endanger the life or physical safety of the person and would also cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant’s allegation regarding illegal running of the aforementioned Guest House has not been replied to by the respondent. The Commission directed the PIO to provide appropriate reply to the said query and to inform the appellant if indeed such a Guest House exists, whether it is following the mandatory Foreigners Registration Rules and intimate the appellant about the action taken by them." +41,SSC unable to attend RTI applications for months due to shortage of staff,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,5000.0,The Commission also held that they were not imposing any penalty on the PIO concerned not just only because he had been transferred out of the section soon after receiving the application but also because of the circumstances stated above.,"SSC unable to attend RTI applications for months due to shortage of staff + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking copy of the evaluated OMR sheet of his son. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any information to the appellant. The concerned PIO submitted that although he had received the RTI application on transfer, he got transferred out of the section and therefore, he had no occasion to deal with the application. As he was posted back to the section again he searched out the RTI application and the relevant information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that although he had received the RTI application on transfer on 2 November 2012, he got transferred out of the section on 6 November and, therefore, had no occasion to deal with the application. He further explained that he was posted back to the section again in February 2013. After receiving the notice from the CIC for the hearing, he searched out the RTI application and the relevant information. The CIC noted that there has been considerable delay in the case which is similar to several such cases of the SSC where the RTI applications are simply not attended to for months on end until the matter comes before the CIC. The CIC observed that there has to be some permanent solution to this situation and the same is in the hands of the management of the SSC. + +The PIO also submitted that he and some others like him also perform the post-examination duty which involves handling of millions of evaluated answer sheets, tabulation of marks and publication of results. Since the examination is a time bound process, they find it very difficult to choose between the examination at hand and the large number of RTI applications received from the candidates on completion of each such examination. The PIO also stated that the piling of answer sheets in large heaps also makes it quite difficult to retrieve the answer sheet of any particular candidate given the extremely inadequate manpower available to these sections. The Commission observed that these were serious practical problems, unless the management of the SSC strengthens the PIO concerned in these sections with additional and competent hands, the PIOs would continue to default on the deadline fixed for replying to the information seekers and subject themselves to penalty under the provisions of the RTI Act.","The Commission directed the PIO to place their order before the Chairman, SSC so that he can take stock of the situation and post additional hands immediately. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide a copy of the evaluated answer sheet of his son to the appellant. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the CIC awarded a compensation of Rs. 5000/-  to the appellant for the inconvenience caused to him because of the inordinate delay. The Commission also held that they were not imposing any penalty on the PIO concerned not just only because he had been transferred out of the section soon after receiving the application but also because of the circumstances stated above." +42,Can documents submitted by a subscriber for getting the telephone connection be disclosed?,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(e)', '8(1)(j)']",INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the information as requested by the appellant in his RTI application.,"Can documents submitted by a subscriber for getting the telephone connection be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking copies of the documents submitted by a subscriber Mr. Bhanwarlal Choudhary on the basis of which the telephone connection had been provided to him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information related to a third party and is exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act unless the appellant is able to show some larger public interest to justify the disclosure. The appellant pleaded that the said subscriber had submitted a copy of ration card as one of the documents for obtaining the telephone connection and he has a written confirmation from the rationing office that the document submitted by the subscriber to BSNL is bogus and the rationing officer has also filed an FIR against him. The appellant also added that the said accused has committed a massive fraud at Surat and the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur has also confirmed to him that two FIRs have been registered against that person. The PIO agreed to furnish the information.",The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the information as requested by the appellant in his RTI application. +43,Asking for information regarding a debit of Rs. 1 lakh from one's own bank account,,a certain closed account,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(e)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA and rejected the appeal.,"Asking for information regarding a debit of Rs. 1 lakh from one's own bank account + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Sarvve U.P. Gramin Bank seeking information regarding a certain closed account. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act on the grounds of commercial confidence and fiduciary relationship. The FAA also pointed out that the appellant had not given any proof that he was the account holder of the bank. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he is seeking information from the bank about the particulars of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which has been debited from his account without his knowledge. He also stated that he had sold off some land for which he had received an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was deposited in the bank. He claimed that his pass book is showing a debit of Rs. 1,00,000/-  but he had not authorized this transaction and thus wanted to get information about this transaction. The respondent stated that the response given by the PIO shows that the amount has been shown as transferred on 10-3-2000 and that the account has been closed quite some time ago. The respondent also stated that the as per the bank’s norms and the vouchers and ledgers were kept for only 8 years and hence the record is not available.",The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA and rejected the appeal. +44,Seeking copy of dossier of terrorist given to Pak foreign secretary by Indian counterpart,Ministry of External Affairs (MEA),,"['8(1)(h)', '8(1)(a)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission observed that the disclosure of such information given in confidence to a foreign state for facilitating mutual cooperation on critical issues also containing some inputs from intelligence units would be covered under the exemption clause of section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the Act.","Seeking copy of dossier of terrorist given to Pak foreign secretary by Indian counterpart + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) seeking copy of dossier of terrorist, which was handed over to foreign secretary of Pakistan by foreign secretary of India. The appellant also stated that he is in judicial custody since July 2006 and does not have any source of income and therefore he claimed exemption from fees as per the RTI Act. The Ministry of External Affairs transferred the RTI application to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The Public Information Officer (PIO), MHA denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant sent a written submission stating that the investigation of 7/11 train blast case was complete and final charge sheet was filed. The charges were framed and 32 witnesses were examined and the trial is in running position on daily basis. Therefore, the information sought could not impede the process of investigation and exemption under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;is baseless and groundless. The respondent also claimed exemption under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act submitting that the documents sought by the appellant is given in confidence and good faith for mutual co-operation between the states and disclosure of the same would affect relation with foreign state. The respondent further submitted that the inputs from intelligence units were also a part of this dossier.","The Commission observed that the disclosure of such information given in confidence to a foreign state for facilitating mutual cooperation on critical issues also containing some inputs from intelligence units would be covered under the exemption clause of section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the Act. As the trial proceeding is still going on, the disclosure of such information would be denied under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the Act as well." +45,Is campaigning for any election a private matter of the candidates concerned?,,the particulars of the files pending before the outgoing President Smt,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no information as such to be disclosed either of these cases.,"Is campaigning for any election a private matter of the candidates concerned? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat seeking details of the expenditure incurred on campaigning during the Presidential election by Pranab Mukherjee including the cost of airfare, boarding and lodging. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the President Secretariat had no information in this regard. The appellant also wanted to know the particulars of the files pending before the outgoing President Smt. Pratibha Patil and the files cleared/ approved by her in a particular period. The PIO informed that they did not have such details with them. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent reiterated the stand taken by the PIO that neither any information about the expenditure incurred in the campaigning by Sri Pranab Mukherjee nor any information about the number of files pending or cleared by the outgoing President of India in the said period were available with them. The respondent also clarified that, by the time the RTI application had been preferred, the personal staff of the outgoing President had completely changed and the personal section of the new President informed that they had no records to show the details of the files either pending or cleared for the mentioned period.","The Commission held that the campaigning for any election including the Presidential election is a private matter of the candidates concerned. The CIC also noted that if there are no written records available showing either pendency or disposal of files in any particular month, the PIO can provide no information.  The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no information as such to be disclosed either of these cases." +46,Does RBI follow the revised guidelines regarding senior citizens while fixing rate of interest on FD?,Reserve Bank of India (RBI),higher rate of interest on fixed deposits (FD) to the senior citizens by the banks,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to inform the appellant about the status of the implementation of the GOI notifications referred to in the RTI application in the above context.,"Does RBI follow the revised guidelines regarding senior citizens while fixing rate of interest on FD? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) seeking information regarding higher rate of interest on fixed deposits (FD) to the senior citizens by the banks. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the notifications issued by Government of India (GOI) amending senior citizen’s definition from 65 years to 60 years, has remained on paper without implementation in the context of the expected facility of higher rate of interest that the senior citizens above the age of 60 should have got after the new definition. The appellant elaborated that the facility of the higher rate of interest is not being given to all the senior citizens. The appellant further stated that he just wanted the RBI to tell him about the status of implementation of the notifications he has referred to in his RTI application. The respondent stated that the appellant has already been informed that the RBI has not issued any instructions in respect of any facility of higher rate of interest to the senior citizens. The facility to the senior citizens is not in the context of any higher rate of interest in the context of income tax rebate. The respondent further submitted that the response of the RBI has been clearly stated but the RBI can give another letter further clarifying matters to satisfy the query raised by the appellant.",The Commission directed the respondent to inform the appellant about the status of the implementation of the GOI notifications referred to in the RTI application in the above context. +47,Since when is the amendment of the pension rule 49 (2) applicable?,,whether he should be getting the pension as per the rules prevalent at the time of his retirement or as per the amended rule,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC held that the appellant is free to challenge the government decision in an appropriate forum if he thinks that he too should get pension in terms of the amended rule.,"Since when is the amendment of the pension rule 49 (2) applicable? + +Background: +The appellant had retired in 1995. He referred to the amendment of the pension rule 49 (2) with effect from January 1, 2006 and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Pensions & Pensioners’ Welfare seeking to know the rules under which he should be getting his pension. He specifically wanted to know whether he should be getting the pension as per the rules prevalent at the time of his retirement or as per the amended rule. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the amended rule had only prospective effect and was not applicable to those who retired before 1 January 2006.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the information provided by the PIO is entirely in order. The CIC held that the appellant is free to challenge the government decision in an appropriate forum if he thinks that he too should get pension in terms of the amended rule. +48,Can third party information regarding loss of cheque be disclosed under RTI?,Bank of Baroda,a complaint/ information of loss of a certain cheque by an account holder,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the respondent to provide the sought information to the appellant.,"Can third party information regarding loss of cheque be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bank of Baroda seeking information about a complaint/ information of loss of a certain cheque by an account holder. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the appellant was not connected with the cheque and hence the said information was third party information. The appellant submitted that he was connected with the information sought because the drawer of the cheque had submitted a false affidavit in the court by mis-stating facts and it was in the interest of justice and for correct facts to emerge in the court, that he wanted the factual information from the bank. The appellant further explained that the drawer of the cheque had given an affidavit stating that the cheque had got misplaced, hence the appellant wanted to know from the respondent whether the drawer of this particular cheque had written to the bank about the cheque getting misplaced.","The Commission observed that the appellant had sought information in pursuance of a legal proceeding in the interest of ensuring the correct facts. Hence, the information should be provided taking into account the element ofpublic interestin facilitating court processes relying on correct facts. The CIC directed the respondent to provide the sought information to the appellant." +49,Are the details of income tax exemption availed by a school liable for disclosure?,Income Tax (IT) Department,"the exemption availed by Sophia Secondary School, Hissar, ever since its existence and information regarding the buses possessed by the said school",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to disclose the amount of exemption availed by the school without furnishing the copies of ITRs.,"Are the details of income tax exemption availed by a school liable for disclosure? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) Department seeking copies of the order passed under section 10(23) of the IT Act on the basis of which schools were granted exemption in income tax. The appellant also wanted to know about the exemption availed by Sophia Secondary School, Hissar, ever since its existence and information regarding the buses possessed by the said school. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that information regarding exemption granted to schools cannot be provided as he had not mentioned the name of any school regarding which he was seeking this information. Regarding the exemption availed by Sophia Secondary School, Hissar the PIO denied the information stating that it is personal information relating to the School in question. Regarding the buses possessed by the said school, the PIO stated that these points did not concern the IT Department and were transferred to the RTO.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the said school has availed exemption from the Income tax under the provisions of the IT Act and this undeniably has impacted the revenues of the Central Government. This information cannot be said to be personal information pertaining to the school. The CIC directed the PIO to disclose the amount of exemption availed by the school without furnishing the copies of ITRs. +50,Is Telugu Desam party and Lok Satta party registered by Election Commission?,Election Commission of India (EC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide the copies of the letters by which these two political parties had been registered.,"Is Telugu Desam party and Lok Satta party registered by Election Commission? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Election Commission of India (EC) seeking to know if the Telugu Desam party and the Lok Satta party were registered by the EC. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant about the registration of both the parties.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that it would be appropriate if the letters showing the registration of these two political parties are provided to the appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the copies of the letters by which these two political parties had been registered. +51,Seeking copies of tender bid documents through RTI,Heavy Water Plant,,['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the bid documents of this particular bidder and disclose the copies thereof to the appellant excluding those documents which were in the nature of the intellectual property of the bidder.,"Seeking copies of tender bid documents through RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Heavy Water Plant seeking copies of the bid documents in respect of a certain tender invited by the public authority, furnished by a particular bidder. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that after the bid process is over, the desired documents could be disclosed subject to the usual exemption provisions contained in the RTI Act. The CIC noted that in any bid document, there could be some records which happen to be the intellectual property of the bidder and cannot be disclosed; rest all the documents furnished in a tender process can be disclosed. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the bid documents of this particular bidder and disclose the copies thereof to the appellant excluding those documents which were in the nature of the intellectual property of the bidder." +52,Copy of review petition filed in the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal,Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC),copy of the review petition filed in the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC advised the appellant to apply for this information to the apex court as per the rules of the Supreme Court of India.,"Copy of review petition filed in the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking information regarding copy of the review petition filed in the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied disclosure of the information claiming exemption under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act and stating that disclosure would harm the competitive position of LIC in the ongoing litigation.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that following the filing of the review petition by LIC of India before the Supreme Court of India, this information is notheldby the public authority and belongs to the honorable Apex Court. The CIC advised the appellant to apply for this information to the apex court as per the rules of the Supreme Court of India." +53,Seeking detail of leasehold properties transferred by LIC of India under RTI,Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission accepted the assertion of the PIO that they did not hold information regarding the current market value of the properties.,"Seeking detail of leasehold properties transferred by LIC of India under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking details of all the Leasehold properties that have been transferred by it in the last 10 years (including premium charged and Market Value thereof). The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the disclosure of the voluminous information sought would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority hence it cannot be provided. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information sought by the appellant was not held in the format as sought by the information seeker and that compiling and collating of the requested information would disproportionately divert resources of the public authority without commensurate larger public interest being met. The appellant pleaded for the disclosure of the information on the grounds that the said properties belong to LIC of India which was a public authority and transparency should be the norm in such matters.","The appellant agreed to reduce the period for which information is sought from 10 years to 5 years and narrowed his request to seeking information only in respect of a building known as ‘Hindustan Cooperative Insurance Building’, Mumbai. The CIC directed the PIO to provide information regarding the number of properties which were transferred by the Corporation along with the tenure of transfer in respect of the above mentioned building during the past five years. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide the prescribed criteria for fixing premium for the transfer of the property. Further, the PIO was asked to ascertain if the total premium amount received for such transfers in respect of the above mentioned building for the past five years is available in material form without having to compile and collate the same at huge costs to the Corporation, then the same also to be provided to the appellant. The Commission accepted the assertion of the PIO that they did not hold information regarding the current market value of the properties." +54,Taking up the issue of appointment of wrong person on compassionate ground,Eastern Coalfields Ltd (ECL),"compassionate appointment in respect of a particular person (one Shri Abdul Rehman), whom the appellant alleged is an imposter",['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Regarding the documents, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the appellant with all the appointment papers/ records in respect of the person who was appointed by ECL and had subsequently expired.","Taking up the issue of appointment of wrong person on compassionate ground + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Eastern Coalfields Ltd (ECL) seeking information pertaining to compassionate appointment in respect of a particular person (one Shri Abdul Rehman), whom the appellant alleged is an imposter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information that the information sought is third party information which is exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. In respect of remaining points, the PIO held that these were in the nature of allegations and not within the definition of information as per section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO reiterated that the information sought is third party information which is exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The appellant alleged that Shri Abdul Rehman was wrongly employed by ECL on compassionate grounds in place of Motijan Bibi, his late mother. The appellant stated that a wrong person was appointed while the son of the lady is alive who was denied opportunity of getting employment on compassionate grounds. The appellant also added that the case of the son was deferred on the grounds of under-age when he applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. He did not receive any response from ECL and in the meantime another person with same name (Abdul Rehman) was appointed who has subsequently expired. The respondent stated that the entire subject matter of information is based on allegations and the appellant has attempted to enquire into the allegation by using the platform of RTI. The PIO expressed his inability to examine such allegation.","The Commission held that the fact pertains to allegations of procedural irregularities in appointment for which the appellant was advised to approach the competent authority for corrective measures. Regarding the documents, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the appellant with all the appointment papers/ records in respect of the person who was appointed by ECL and had subsequently expired." +55,Seeking copy of arrest warrant through an application under RTI,Delhi Police,whether any warrant had been issued for arresting the said person along with the copy of the warrant,['8(1)(h)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the information regarding the facts and circumstance under which the raid was conducted at the house of the said person and the discrepancy in the dates of conducting the raid and arrest of the accused.,"Seeking copy of arrest warrant through an application under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information in respect of raid conducted by Delhi Police at the house of a person in relation to a case registered under section 420/406/468/471/120B. She wanted to know whether any warrant had been issued for arresting the said person along with the copy of the warrant. She also wanted the names and the numbers of the police personnel who had accompanied the Inspector at the time of raid and the D.D. number containing the entry of said raid. The Public Information Officer (PIO) furnished part information but denied the information in respect of the warrant under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that the case was under investigation. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that they had conducted a raid at the house of the said person but they did not find him at his house. So the next day, they obtained a warrant from the court for arresting the accused and again conducted the raid. The respondent also stated that since the case is under examination of the court at present, the warrant is available in the case file submitted to the court. However, they could not give any reason as to how disclosure of information (copy of warrant) would in any way impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offender.","The Commission held that the respondent failed to indicate any reason in support of their claim that information in question falls under the exemption category of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;. The Commission allowed the disclosure of information (copy of warrant) to the appellant. The CIC directed the respondent to transfer the request for information of the appellant, along with the order of the CIC to the PIO of the concerned court who would provide the information to the appellant. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the information regarding the facts and circumstance under which the raid was conducted at the house of the said person and the discrepancy in the dates of conducting the raid and arrest of the accused." +56,Varied information covering the entire five year tenure of former President,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The CIC advised the appellant to seek more specific information in future and not ask for such wide and omnibus details.,"Varied information covering the entire five year tenure of former President + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President's Secretariat seeking information related to travels of the former President of India, the costs incurred on those, the number of mercy petitions decided by her and the number of Bills she had approved during her tenure. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose any information citing a previous decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) wherein it was held that the RTI application should contain the request for only one item of information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the RTI application is too wide, covering the entire five year tenure of the former President. The respondent submitted that the details sought by the appellant on all these subjects are not available in a compiled form and would have to be collected from multiple files held by many sections of the President Secretariat. This exercise is not contemplated under the RTI Act. CIC noted that section2(j)“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; +(iii) taking certified samples of material; +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;of the RTI) Act clearly states that a citizen has a right to get only that information which is held by the public authority. In other words, unless the desired information is available with the public authority, the PIO is not required to assemble such information through research and collation. The Commission also observed that some of these details, specially relating to the travels of the former President, an exercise is being undertaken to collect the information and to upload such details in the Rashtrapati Bhavan website for everybody to see. Once this exercise is over and the information is made available in the website, every citizen can find out for himself or herself all such details.","The Commission directed the PIO to find out whatever information is already available in a compiled form on any of these subjects and to provide to the appellant. The CIC observed that some such information, even for a limited period and on only one or two of these subjects might have been compiled in the past in response to other RTI requests. The Commission also directed the PIO to revisit the RTI application and to find out whatever information is available in the President Secretariat and provide the same to the appellant. The CIC advised the appellant to seek more specific information in future and not ask for such wide and omnibus details." +57,List of death convicts where death penalty had been commuted to life imprisonment,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC, in larger public interest, directed the PIO to compile the list of cases of mercy petitions considered under Article 72 of the Constitution along with communication of orders since 1970 and provide to the appellant free of cost.","List of death convicts where death penalty had been commuted to life imprisonment + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat seeking list of death convicts where death penalty had been commuted to life imprisonment after consideration of their mercy petitions by the President since 1970 and the copies of the orders. The President’s Secretariat transferred the RTI application to the PIO, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the list of the death convicts whose mercy petitions were considered under Article 72 of the Constitution were available since 1981 only, which would be supplied on payment of Rs. 4/-. The PIO also informed that the files were available only in 11 cases and would be provided on payment of Rs. 22/-. The appellant filed first appeal stating that he should be provided requisite information free of cost since he is in prison for the last 17 years. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the available information had been provided to him by the PIO and that only persons having BPL Card are entitled to get information free of cost. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant reiterated he is prepared to deposit the requisite fee for authenticated copies of the documents sought by him in his RTI application. The respondent submitted that list of cases of mercy petitions since 1981 only and the communication of order in 11 cases only were available. The appellant insisted on being provided complete information since 1970.","The Commission held that the records are not so old that they cannot be traced. The list of cases ought to be available with the respondent. The CIC, in larger public interest, directed the PIO to compile the list of cases of mercy petitions considered under Article 72 of the Constitution along with communication of orders since 1970 and provide to the appellant free of cost." +58,Can details of persons who met the President be disclosed?,,,"['8(1)(e)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no reason to interfere in the decision of the PIO.,"Can details of persons who met the President be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President's Secretariat seeking to know the names of all the persons from the State of Maharashtra who had met the President of India on some specific dates. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information sought by the appellant is clearly in the nature of personal information. If some individual citizens meet the President of India on a person to person basis there is no reason why the details of those visitors should be placed in the public domain. The CIC held that only when there is an official meeting, the details of the participants can be disclosed. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no reason to interfere in the decision of the PIO." +59,Reasons for non- selection in examination conducted by the SSC,,why he had not been recommended as successful,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The CIC ruled that if this information is provided, then the appellant would know if the SSC was right in considering him to belong to the UR category and not to the OBC.","Reasons for non- selection in examination conducted by the SSC + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in which he referred to his candidature in the special examination conducted by the SSC and wanted to know why he had not been recommended as successful. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that as per the records available with the SSC, he was considered as a candidate under the UR category and not under OBC implying probably that under the UR category he did not have the requisite marks.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that SSC must have some reason to treat the appellant as a candidate under the UR category and not under the OBC and also for not finding him successful. The CIC directed that the PIO have to give him the copies of the relevant documents showing his caste category and the marks of the last selected candidate in that category. The CIC ruled that if this information is provided, then the appellant would know if the SSC was right in considering him to belong to the UR category and not to the OBC." +60,Information regarding appointment of employees should be disclosed pro-actively,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),"appointment of a particular person such as date of appointment, copy of appointment letter, his salary etc",['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Regarding details of loans availed by the employee, the CIC upheld the order of the PIO stating that the same is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","Information regarding appointment of employees should be disclosed pro-actively + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking information regarding appointment of a particular person such as date of appointment, copy of appointment letter, his salary etc. He also wanted the documents and proof of loans taken by him for construction of house and education of his children. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information is related to a third party who has declined to give his consent for its disclosure. On being queried by the CIC regarding compliance with the provisions of section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the RTI Act, the PIO admitted that the information regarding date of appointment, posting(s) of the officer and monthly remuneration could be furnished. He further stated that information regarding loans availed by the employee is personal in nature and no larger public interest has been demonstrated by the appellant for seeking its disclosure and hence it was exempted under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","The Commission held that as stated by the PIO he should furnish the information as above to the appellant. Regarding details of loans availed by the employee, the CIC upheld the order of the PIO stating that the same is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act." +61,Seeking to know the legal validity of the decision of the college Principal,University of Delhi,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC however, directed the College administration to provide copies of the relevant file notings to the appellant.","Seeking to know the legal validity of the decision of the college Principal + +Background: +The appellant was posted as a peon in Vivekanand College. He was promoted as caretaker some time back but subsequently he was reverted to the rank of peon. When he took up the matter with the Principal of the College, the Principal told him that as he had filed a case in the Delhi High Court, his case for promotion as caretaker could not be considered. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the University of Delhi seeking to know the legal validity of the view taken by the Principal in his case.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the University is not required to give any opinion regarding the legal validity of the decision of the Principal of Vivekanand College. The CIC however, directed the College administration to provide copies of the relevant file notings to the appellant." +62,Can final report of CESTAT Inquiry Committee be disclosed under RTI?,Ministry of Finance,the reports of CESTAT Inquiry Committee in relation to a case,['8(1)(h)'],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the CIC issued a show-cause notice to the PIO asking him to show-cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for providing misleading information to the appellant.","Can final report of CESTAT Inquiry Committee be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Finance seeking information regarding the reports of CESTAT Inquiry Committee in relation to a case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and for the rest he informed the appellant that CESTAT has objected to the disclosure of the document referred to in the RTI application. A copy of CESTAT’s objection was also provided to the appellant. The First Appellate authority (FAA) upheld the order of the PIO while stating that the third party (CESTAT) has submitted that Justice Khandeparker has directed Member (Judicial) to carry out the enquiry afresh. The old reports are therefore no longer valid or exist in the eye of law. As soon as the fresh report is ready, it can be furnished to the appellant. The FAA held that the process of enquiry has not been concluded and therefore, disclosure of information at this stage stands exempted under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that FAA has illegally and malafidely taken an ex-parte decision on the third party objection of the CESTAT. The PIO, in relation to the request for supplying a copy of the Final Report of the Inquiry Committee had stated that no such report has been received in the Department of Revenue (DOR), whereas the Registrar, CESTAT has already forwarded a copy of the said Final Report to DOR. Therefore, the PIO has provided false and incorrect information deliberately. The FAA has erred in not appreciating that the CESTAT in its reply has nowhere objected to providing copy of the letter under which the said Inquiry Committee Report has been received by the DOR. The appellant prayed for enquiry to be instituted under section18(2)Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.of the RTI Act and penalty be imposed on the PIO for knowingly and malafidely not providing the correct and complete information and for not providing copy of third party’s reply before taking decision in the matter. The respondent stated that the FAA had held that the process of enquiry was not concluded at that time. Therefore, its disclosure is exempted under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.","The Commission observed that the 3rd party i.e. CESTAT, has not cited any of the exemption provisions of the RTI Act for not disclosing the information to the appellant. The PIO too has not furnished any reasons for holding that the 3rd party information cannot be provided. The FAA has quoted the provision of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act without giving reasons as to how the information if disclosed would impede the process of investigation/ enquiry or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The Commission directed the PIO to provide complete information to the appellant as requested in his RTI application. The Commission ruled that the PIO has prima facie provided misleading information to the appellant regarding the report of the Enquiry Committee. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the CIC issued a show-cause notice to the PIO asking him to show-cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for providing misleading information to the appellant." +63,"File notings regarding ban on publication of books, magazines and periodicals",Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Regarding the books/ publications on which the information is not available with the respondent, the CIC advised the appellant to file fresh RTI application to the concerned state government or the concerned department who has issued the notification for regulating the circulation of books/ publications.","File notings regarding ban on publication of books, magazines and periodicals + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking inspection of all the correspondence and file notings in relation to the ban on publication of books, magazines and periodicals from 1955-2012. He also sought the inspection of files relating to correspondence between centers. The matter was heard before the Central Information Commission (CIC) and an Interim order was issued wherein the Commission directed the appellant to be more specific with her request and to provide a list of requested books, magazines and periodicals about which the information is requested. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant has intimated a list of eight books/ publications for which information has been sought. The respondent also stated that the information regarding three books for which the information is available has been provided to the appellant. Regarding the inspection of the relevant files, the respondent submitted that the file notings/ correspondence contain inputs from IB (Intelligence Bureau) which is an exempted organization under RTI Act. The respondent referred to section 95 of CrPC which states that wherever printed appears to the State Government to contain any matter the publication of which is punishable under section 124A or section 153 A or section 153B or section 292 or section 293 or section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the State Government may, by notification declare every copy of the issue to be forfeited to Government. The respondent also referred to section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which also regulates upon the similar issue of circulation of books/publication etc.","The Commission directed the respondent to provide the copies of correspondence/ file notings to the appellant after applying section 10 to the information which is exempted under the provision of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. Regarding the books/ publications on which the information is not available with the respondent, the CIC advised the appellant to file fresh RTI application to the concerned state government or the concerned department who has issued the notification for regulating the circulation of books/ publications." +64,Seeking details regarding inclusion of Bull in the list of performing animals,Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide the sought information to the appellant.,"Seeking details regarding inclusion of Bull in the list of performing animals + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) seeking copies of all the file noting and other related documents leading to the inclusion of the Bull in the list of performing animals in the official notification issued under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. He also wanted the report submitted by the Committee formed pursuant to the order of the Delhi High Court at said date. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that matters relating to the subjects were before various courts. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the PIO was wrong in denying the information because there was no express instruction of any court of law not to disclose the information. The respondent submitted that the information was not disclosed because many cases were pending before various courts on this very subject and the disclosure might adversely affect the pending cases.","The Commission held neither the PIO nor the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has explained which matter was pending before what court and how that has any relation to the desired information. Under the RTI Act, no information can be denied only because it is the subject matter of a case pending before a court of law. Only such information can be refused which has been expressly forbidden by a court of law from disclosure. The Commission ruled that neither the PIO nor the FAA has alluded to any such order passed by any court. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the sought information to the appellant." +65,Can particulars of officers who processed the loan be disclosed?,Union Bank of India (UBI),names of officers involved in giving loan facilities to two companies,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission upheld the decision of respondent and rejected the appeal.,"Can particulars of officers who processed the loan be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Bank of India (UBI) seeking information pertaining to names of officers involved in giving loan facilities to two companies. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information. + +Proceedings + +The appellant as well as the respondent did not attend the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC).  The written submission from the respondent stated that they had sought the consent of the account holder under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act, for disclosure of the information but the concerned party had not given consent for disclosure of information. The respondent also stated that the matter was under investigation by CBI and that the disclosure of information could impede investigation.",The Commission upheld the decision of respondent and rejected the appeal. +66,Is a photocopy of the RTI appplication admissible instead of the original?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also held that the appellant must not seek the same information again and again thereby adding to the burdens of the public authority.,"Is a photocopy of the RTI appplication admissible instead of the original? + +Background: +The appellant filed five applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat seeking information relating to the travels undertaken by the Rashtrapati, gifts given by her/him, details of the grants given from the discretionary fund, recommendations given by the Rashtrapati in favour of various officers for their promotion and the number of times the Rashtrapati had addressed the nation and media etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) returned the RTI applications along with the application fee on the ground that it was not an original application but a photocopy of the original. The PIO advised the appellant to send the original application, preferably a typed version. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant had the habit of making the same request time and again in various combinations. The respondent also stated that same information as sought in some of these cases had already been provided to him on several occasions in the past. The Commission noted that the RTI Act do not clearly require the citizen to make an application in original duly signed by him in ink but  it is expected that he would make the request in an application as provided in section 6(1) of the Act duly signed by him in ink. There is no other way for the PIO to know if the application is genuine or not. However, an RTI application should not be rejected only because it is not in the original and is just the photocopy. As long as the RTI application gives the address of the applicant and is accompanied with the prescribed application fee, the PIO should treat it as a valid RTI application and proceed to provide the information.",The Commission directed the respondent to make a list of the items of information sought in all the five RTI applications and indicate against the queries if the information has already been provided in the past. He must provide the remaining information. The CIC advised the appellant to be careful in future and make all his RTI applications in original with his signature in ink and not send photocopies of such RTI applications. The Commission also held that the appellant must not seek the same information again and again thereby adding to the burdens of the public authority. The RTI Act gives the right to seek information to every citizen but not to waste public resources by repeatedly seeking the same information under various guises. +67,Seeking information related to Dalai Lama and Tibetan refugees through RTI,,,['8(1)(a)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the RTI application and provide whatever material information is available on those queries which are strictly factual in nature and if such information is not held by them then he should transfer the application to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).,"Seeking information related to Dalai Lama and Tibetan refugees through RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in which he referred to some news report, his own submissions relating to the Tibetan refugees in India and raised some queries. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that some of the queries relating to the activities of the Tibetan refugees, fell in the domain of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) while those relating to His Holiness Dalai Lama could not be disclosed being sensitive in nature and falling under the exemption provisions contained in section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the issues relating to the Tibetans in India and especially to His Holiness Dalai Lama were not only sensitive but had a lot of implications for national security and India's relationships with foreign countries and the disclosure of this information is not in national interest.","The Commission held that the information relating to the Tibetan refugees in general and to His Holiness Dalai Lama in particular is sensitive from the point of view of both national security and India's relationship with other countries. The Commission, however, noted that some of the information sought is also purely factual in nature such as the total number of Tibetan refugees in India or grant of Indian citizenship to the children of Tibetan refugees born in India. The CIC ruled that if this information is held in the MEA, it should be provided and if it is not held in the MEA, it might be held in the MHA.  The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the RTI application and provide whatever material information is available on those queries which are strictly factual in nature and if such information is not held by them then he should transfer the application to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)." +68,Details of public exigencies for transfer of officials from abroad to headquarters,Ministry of External Affairs (MEA),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC advised the appellant that if he has any specific cases of transfer in mind, he can always cite those and ask the PIO to provide the information.","Details of public exigencies for transfer of officials from abroad to headquarters + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) seeking details of the officials in the rank of Section Officer and Under Secretary of the MEA whose tenure abroad has been curtailed under Rule 24(2) of the IFS (PLAC) and were transferred to the Headquarters on account of public exigencies with the dates of transfer to and from the Mission of the above officials. He also wanted details of the public exigencies involved in the said transfers. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to supply the information holding that the disclosure of such details of functional requirements for public exigency involved in transfer of the officials in Missions abroad could not be divulged as this might prejudicially affect the security and strategic interests of the country and its relation with foreign states and are exempted for disclosure under section 8(1) of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the appellant argued that the information should be disclosed for the sake of transparency in the matter of posting and transfer of officials. He also alleged of arbitrariness in the matter of such transfers and the tenure of competent officials was curtailed abruptly while the Senior Officers were allowed to continue in similar circumstances.","The Commission held that the details about the public exigency considerations which necessitated the abrupt/ premature transfer of certain officials from Missions abroad would impair India’s relationship with friendly countries or its security interests. The CIC observed that as per section 6(i) of the RTI Act, the citizen has to specify the information he needs and the appellant has not asked for specific items of information but wants the PIO to do the research in order to find out how many officers of certain ranks have been transferred back by curtailing their tenure under some specific provisions of rules on the ground of public exigencies. The CIC held that this is clearly beyond the scope of the duty of the PIO. The CIC advised the appellant that if he has any specific cases of transfer in mind, he can always cite those and ask the PIO to provide the information." +69,"Under which authority, has the RAW and NTRO been setup?",,the mechanism in place for ensuring the accountability of both these organizations including the financial auditing of both these organizations,['8(1)(a)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"In addition the CIC held that if any specific communication/ circular/ OM has even been issued in respect of accountability mechanism for these organizations that too should be disclosed subject to the same exemption provisions and if the PIO would decide not to disclose any information, he must pass a speaking order justifying the nondisclosure in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.","Under which authority, has the RAW and NTRO been setup? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) seeking to know about the authority under which the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) and the National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) had been setup. He also wanted to know about the mechanism in place for ensuring the accountability of both these organizations including the financial auditing of both these organizations. The Public Information Officer (PIO), PMO transferred these applications under section 6(3) to his counterparts in the respective organizations. As both these organizations have been included in the Second Schedule of the RTI Act, no information was provided to the appellant. After the direction of First Appellate Authority (FAA), PMO, the PIO informed him that the relevant Government order by which the RAW had been set up could not be disclosed in terms of the provisions of section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the appellant argued that it was not right on the part of the PIO to transfer the RTI applications and desired that the information should be made available by the PMO itself.","The Commission observed that the information sought by the appellant, pre dates the establishment of both these organizations and so unless the records relating to the establishment of these organizations have been transferred in totality to the respective organizations, there was no need to transfer the RTI applications to those organizations. The CIC held that any decision to disclose the desired information would depend on the nature of the information and whether it is covered under any of the exemption provisions. The CIC directed the PIO, PMO to revisit both these cases and to find out if there is any authority of the Government notification, ordinance and enactment under which both these organizations had been established and to disclose the same. In addition the CIC held that if any specific communication/ circular/ OM has even been issued in respect of accountability mechanism for these organizations that too should be disclosed subject to the same exemption provisions and if the PIO would decide not to disclose any information, he must pass a speaking order justifying the nondisclosure in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act." +70,Can information regarding PAN and Account Number of dead person be disclosed to his disciple?,Income Tax (IT),a PAN card issued to Shri Param Ji alias His Holiness,"['8(1)(j)', '8(1)(e)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC also ruled that the IT Department is holding the information in fiduciary capacity in terms of section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.","Can information regarding PAN and Account Number of dead person be disclosed to his disciple? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) seeking information regarding a PAN card issued to Shri Param Ji alias His Holiness. The appellant also wanted to know the order by which the PAN was issued, the copies of the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) filed by that person along with the copies of the assessment orders passed in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the appellant was absent but had sent a written submission stating that she is one of the disciples of Shri Param Ji alias His Holiness, who expired on 2.6.2009, but only the attachment of Bank Account was intimated to her. The appellant pointed out deficiencies in the procedure adopted by the IT Department in dealing with the Properties / Assets / Accounts of the said person and requested the Commission to pass a suitable order for providing information pertaining to the procedure and application of section 281B of the Income Tax Act 1961 and the attachment of Bank account and subsequent recovery of the money after death of EITHER and without intimation to the SURVIVOR. She specifically wanted the documents pertaining to the proceedings conducted by the IT Department for imposing income tax, proceeding adopted for realization of tax, amount of total income tax imposed on him, name of disciples and the name of Banks which was provisionally attached by the IT Department-along with closing balance in the respective bank account and the amount realized-after death of survivor and before completion of cut-off time period of attachment permissible under section 281B of the Income Tax Act 1961.","The Commission observed that the appellant is seeking huge information regarding the financial aspects of the PAN Number and the Account Number mentioned in the application. The CIC held that the sought information was personal information which is barred from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The CIC also ruled that the IT Department is holding the information in fiduciary capacity in terms of section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act." +71,Seeking reasons for non- appointment by the SSC,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,5000.0,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show cause why we should not impose corresponding penalty on him for his failure to provide the information in time.","Seeking reasons for non- appointment by the SSC + +Background: +The appellant had appeared in the examination conducted by the SSC for recruitment to the ITBP in 2011. He had secured 48 marks and had been declared fit in the medical examination but was not appointed. He found that several other candidates with the same 48 marks had been appointed. In this context, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking to know the reason why he was not recommended for appointment. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not reply to the application. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant. The PIO advised the appellant to see the website of the SSC to find out the necessary information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he received the first response from the PIO after six months of filing the RTI application. The appellant added that even after the direction of the FAA, the PIO took more than a month to respond to the appellant. The respondent submitted that some reply had been sent by the PIO but it had not reached the appellant.","The Commission observed that this is a clear cut case in which the PIO failed to provide any information within the stipulated period of 30 days. Even after the FAA passed an order directing that the information be disclosed immediately, the PIO took more than a month to respond to the appellant.  The CIC held that the appellant has been put to a lot of harassment. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the appellant. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show cause why we should not impose corresponding penalty on him for his failure to provide the information in time." +72,Should MHA transfer RTI application concerning policy matters to Central Armed Police Forces?,Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),whether an ex-serviceman was entitled to any seniority while allotment of quarter/ married accommodation in the Para Military/ Police Organizations,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the sought information to appellant.,"Should MHA transfer RTI application concerning policy matters to Central Armed Police Forces? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking policy regarding wearing decorations/medals/ribbons which were awarded by the Army authority, on ceremonial dress as well as routine uniform by Ex-serviceman who are presently serving in Para Military/ Police Organizations. The appellant also wanted to know whether an ex-serviceman was entitled to any seniority while allotment of quarter/ married accommodation in the Para Military/ Police Organizations. He also wanted the policy on time scale promotion (except ACP scheme) required to be followed by the Para Military/ Policy Organizations in the case of lower subordinates/ below officer rank Ex-Serviceman employee along with the duty hours of lower rank in a day in the department of Para military/Policy organization service. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act to all the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) (BSF/CRPF/CISF/ITBP/SSB/AR). The Public Information Officers (PIOs) of all the CAPFs denied the information stating that they are beyond the purview of RTI act, being included in the second schedule of the Act. The appellant filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stating that the information sought by him was from MHA on policy matters and not from the CAPFs. The FAA upheld the reply of the PIO and observed that the information sought was concerning CAPFs because each CAPF have their own policy/guidelines about wearing of decoration/ medal, allotment of quarter and time scale promotion etc. to ex-servicemen.","The Commission observed that the CAPFs’ being excluded organizations have expressed their inability to furnish the information as no case of corruption or human rights violation is involved in the instant case. The Commission held that the information requested by the appellant is in the nature of seeking information on policy matters which the respondent have to provide to the appellant, since the CAPFs were under the administrative control of MHA. The MHA is expected to have information on policy matters concerning the CAPFs under their control. The policy on entitlement of seniority to ex-servicemen for allotting quarters, Policy on time scale promotion to ex-servicemen employees etc. were directly related to the Ministry. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the sought information to appellant." +73,List of relatives and private guests staying in the Rashtrapati Bhavan was sought,,,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also ruled that it cannot be anybody's business to find out which relative or private guest of the Rashtrapati visits him or resides with him.,"List of relatives and private guests staying in the Rashtrapati Bhavan was sought + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat seeking list of all the relatives and private guests who had stayed in the Rashtrapati Bhavan and the expenditure incurred on them by way of hospitality including boarding and lodging and use of transport. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the list of the relatives and private guests staying in the Rashtrapati Bhavan could not be disclosed being personal information of the Rashtrapati and exempted under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. Regarding the expenditure incurred on the hospitality of relatives and private guests, the PIO stated that no such information was maintained and that the expenditure was being incurred out of the annual budget meant for the Garage and Household section of the President Secretariat. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that if the expenditure on the relatives and private guests of the Rashtrapati was being made out of public funds, the citizens have a right to know about it. The respondent submitted that the Rashtrapati Bhavan did not maintain any separate list of guests visiting or residing with the President and therefore it would not be possible to produce any such list. He also submitted that no separate account was kept of the expenditure incurred in hospitality of the guests in the Rashtrapati Bhavan and that all expenditure was incurred out of the overall hospitality and transportation budget.","The Commission observed that there is no doubt that just because an individual occupies a Constitutional position, he ceases to have a private life. No citizen can possibly interfere or invade the privacy of any Constitutional authority as long as the expenses incurred by the authority concerned is within the limits of the various entitlements conferred on that authority. It is important that the entitlements of office of all such authorities should be clearly spelt out and publicly disclosed so that there is no doubt in anybody's mind about what kind of information one should seek. The Commission held that if all expenditure on all kinds of guests, private or official, visiting the Rashtrapati Bhavan is met out of its official budget, it should be clearly stated. However, if the expenditure incurred on the hospitality of relatives and private guests of the Rashtrapati is not met out of the official budget, this too should be clearly stated so as to remove all doubts from the mind of the citizens. The Commission directed the PIO to revisit the entire case and intimate the entitlements of the Rashtrapati in such matters and if such expenditure is made completely out of the official budget or not to the appellant. Regarding the list of guests, the CIC held that since no separate account or list is being maintained of the guests, the PIO cannot produce one. The Commission also ruled that it cannot be anybody's business to find out which relative or private guest of the Rashtrapati visits him or resides with him. This kind of enquiry is clearly outside the purview of the RTI Act." +74,Which ministry has instructed for age relaxation to employees of the Union Territories Administration?,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The CIC issued show cause notice to the PIO for the delay in responding to the appellant.,"Which ministry has instructed for age relaxation to employees of the Union Territories Administration? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking to know the name of the Ministry/ office which had instructed that age relaxation be given to the employees of the Union Territories Administration. He also wanted the copies of all those instructions. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any reply to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the same matter has come earlier in which the CIC had directed the PIO to search for any such available instruction and provide to the appellant. The respondent further submitted that he had tried his best to search for any such government order or instruction but could not locate anywhere in the SSC and the same was communicated to the appellant. The respondent further explained that the appellant has been seeking this very information from the SSC for quite some time through number of RTI applications.","The Commission observed that the SSC does not have the desired information in its possession. If any such instruction was ever issued by the government for giving age relaxation to the employees of the Union Territories Administration, it should be available either in the MHA or in the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). The CIC advised the appellant to approach those public authorities as SSC has categorically stated that the said information is not available with them. The CIC issued show cause notice to the PIO for the delay in responding to the appellant." +75,Seeking information regarding voting in the Indian Institute of Public Administration,,the number of ballot papers found in the whole lot of votes cast in favour of one single candidate bearing the number 30,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating there is nothing to be disclosed in the case.,"Seeking information regarding voting in the Indian Institute of Public Administration + +Background: +The appellant referred to voting which took place in the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the institute in this regard. He wanted to know the number of ballot papers found in the whole lot of votes cast in favour of one single candidate bearing the number 30. He also wanted to know the number of ballot papers in which the vote had been cast in favour of only one single candidate. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the desired information was neither available nor was it required for the Institute to maintain such information as per the byelaws. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent explained that the Institute did not maintain any data in the manner sought by the appellant. He also submitted that it was also not required to maintain such data as per their byelaws.","The Commission observed that as the desired information is not available in material form, the CIC cannot compel the PIO to research the available data and take out the desired information. The CIC rejected the appeal stating there is nothing to be disclosed in the case." +76,"CIC summons the Chairman, SSC to appear before the Commission",,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"The Commission issued a notice to the Chairman, SSC to appear before the Commission personally or depute a senior officer with all relevant record.","CIC summons the Chairman, SSC to appear before the Commission + +Background: +The appellant’s brother had appeared in the competitive graduate level examination held by the SSC but was subsequently disqualified on the sole ground that he was over age. Later, the appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in this regard. The appellant contented that if his brother was overage for the concerned Examination, then why he was permitted to take the examination in the first place. The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the Public Information Officer (PIO) owes it to that candidate to explain why his brother was allowed to take the examination if he was overage to begin with unless, it was a common practice with the SSC to allow over age candidates to take examinations only to declare them unfit later. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the marks awarded to that candidate. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the CIC, the appellant submitted that the order passed by the Commission has not been complied with by SSC despite lapse of almost ten months.","The Commission issued a notice to the Chairman, SSC to appear before the Commission personally or depute a senior officer with all relevant record." +77,"Under RTI, can information be denied to a person if he signs in his official capacity?",Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to furnish the information requested by the appellant.,"Under RTI, can information be denied to a person if he signs in his official capacity? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking information as to why he and others who have been working with BSNL have been deprived from being regularized even when a decision in another case was in their favour. The appellant also sought comments and other documents related to the case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to provide the information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO contended that the RTI application was sent on the letter head of RTI Club Uttarakhand and has been signed by the General Secretary of the said club which is not a citizen and hence the information cannot be furnished under the RTI Act.","The Commission held that as per section 3 of the RTI Act, all citizens shall have the right to information. In the present case, the appellant has signed his name in the capacity of Deputy Manager of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (BAGIC) where it didn’t mean that he has not filed the same as a citizen of India and cannot seek information under the RTI Act. The Commission observed that as long as the RTI application is signed by an individual who is a citizen of India and then notwithstanding the capacity in which such application is filed, it would be valid. The CIC held that the appellant is a citizen within the meaning of section 3 of the RTI Act and the contention of the PIO that the appellant is a corporate entity seeking information in the guise of a citizen is devoid of any merit and is liable to be rejected. The CIC also added that it is apparent from the above decision that the PIO’s contention that information could not be furnished as the RTI application is made on the letter head of the RTI Club and signed by the appellant in his capacity as a General Secretary is without merit. The CIC directed the PIO to furnish the information requested by the appellant." +78,The appellant withdraws paragraph from the RTI application containing objectionable language,Department of Financial Services (DoFS),,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,He was directed to be more careful in his conduct in future while appearing before the Commission.,"The appellant withdraws paragraph from the RTI application containing objectionable language + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Financial Services (DoFS) seeking details in respect of appointment and transfer of several officers and other details of Transport allowance claim etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided partial information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the applicant has in point of his RTI application used extremely objectionable and unparliamentarily language while referring to the officers of the public authority. The appellant was informed that such an application would not be heard by the Commission and nowhere in the RTI Act has the information seeker been given the right to use such offensive language while exercising his rights under the RTI Act. The Commission placed on record that the appellant has withdrawn in writing, a particular paragraph containing objectionable material after accepting that he has used inappropriate language in that paragraph of his RTI application.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide information as sought by the appellant. The appellant was informed that the disclosure of immovable property returns of officers employed in public authorities falls squarely under the exemption section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Act and the same was denied. The CIC directed the PIO to verify whether any letter was written to vigilance section of DEA by the DFS regarding the appellant and if any such letter is held on record, the same would be provided to the appellant. + +During the hearing, the Commission had to warn the appellant on several occasions to maintain appropriate decorum. He was directed to be more careful in his conduct in future while appearing before the Commission." +79,Disclosure of comments received from CRPF authorities regarding service matter of an employee,Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC held that there is absolutely no harm if copies of the comments received from the CRPF authorities about the service matters are provided to the appellant, regardless of the CRPF being an exempted organization.","Disclosure of comments received from CRPF authorities regarding service matter of an employee + +Background: +The appellant filed some applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) seeking some information. Dissatisfied with the reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO) he filed second appeals with the Central Information Commission seeking copies of the comments offered by the CRPF authorities etc. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant had filed a large number of appeals before the Commission. These appeals have been decided from time to time. He had filed a large number of RTI applications in connection with the above mentioned appeals, seeking copies of the comments offered by the CRPF authorities etc. This information was not supplied to him but he was offered inspection of the relevant documents/ files being maintained by the Commission. However, copies of the comments of CRPF authorities have not been supplied to him after the inspection, as CRPF is an exempted organization under section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant had raised certain service related matters in those appeals. The CIC held that there is absolutely no harm if copies of the comments received from the CRPF authorities about the service matters are provided to the appellant, regardless of the CRPF being an exempted organization." +80,Hospital on the CGHS panel specifically for the treatment of autism,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) found the request of the RTI applicant reasonable and directed the PIO to convey in writing that none of the Hospitals on the panel of CGHS is empanelled for the specific treatment of autism.,"Hospital on the CGHS panel specifically for the treatment of autism + +Background: +The applicant’s son was suffering from autism. He filed an application under the RTI Act seeking a list of hospitals on the panel of Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) specialising in the treatment of ‘autism’ in Lucknow. A list was supplied to the RTI applicant against which he complained that none of the Hospitals recognised by CGHS specialises in treating autism and demanded that the PIO should convey this in writing to him.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) found the request of the RTI applicant reasonable and directed the PIO to convey in writing that none of the Hospitals on the panel of CGHS is empanelled for the specific treatment of autism. + +Comments + +This case demonstrates how an applicant can use the RTI Act to obtain information which can be subsequently used for solving a grievance." +81,Power of RTI - FIR lodged after the filing of the RTI application,Delhi Police,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission remitted the matter back to the FAA with the directions to get the enquiry conducted into the matter and inform the appellant of the outcome of the enquiry.,"Power of RTI - FIR lodged after the filing of the RTI application + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking action taken on his complaint in connection with a theft of a gold chain from his wife’s purse at Inter State Bus Terminus (ISBT) Delhi. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the compliant register of PP ISBT Kashmere Gate for the relevant period was not available and the complaint under reference could not be traced in PP records. The PIO also stated that as no FIR has been found registered on his complaint then no comments can be offered in this regard. On the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO informed the appellant that a fresh report into the matter has been obtained from SHO/ and as per report, a case has been registered at PS Kashmere Gate in this regard. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that an FIR has been lodged after taking a fresh statement from him after three years. No information has been provided on action taken against the local Police. The appellant also alleged that both the PIO and FAA deliberately and intentionally did not reply regarding action taken against the SI.",The Commission observed that no information has been provided to the appellant of action taken against the persons responsible for not registering complaint/ FIR on the appellant’s complaint. No explanation has been provided on why the complaints register of PP ISBT is not available. The CIC held that the appellant has a right to know what action has been taken on is complaint. The Commission remitted the matter back to the FAA with the directions to get the enquiry conducted into the matter and inform the appellant of the outcome of the enquiry. +82,A public authority should maintain list of employees covered under master policies,Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC),,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, the Commission recommended the CMD of LIC to examine the possibility of maintaining updated list of employees covered under each of the master policies pertaining to Group Superannuation.","A public authority should maintain list of employees covered under master policies + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking reasons for non-release of his superannuation pension. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that a copy of the Master policy was denied under the provisions of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the Act on the grounds that this document is a contract between the employer and LIC. The respondent further clarified that as and when an employee of the company retires, the Trustees (employer) purchases immediate annuity from LIC and pension is released by LIC. The appellant submitted that he had made many efforts to obtain information from his employer, Southern Petrochemical Industries Ltd., (SPIC) but to no avail. He also submitted that a similarly situated colleague and ex-employee of the company was receiving retirement benefits while the same had been denied to him under this scheme therefore the disclosure of information by the public authority was vital for him to obtain his legitimate dues as a retired pensioner of the company.","The Commission observed that the list of names of the employees who are covered by such Group Superannuation policies is invariably not provided by the employer to the insurer, leaving a big information gap which presents problems for pensioners as the employer  company which is a private company does not respond to them and the LIC washes their hands off the matter by stating that they do not hold the list of employees who are covered by the scheme and only initiate action after the employer company approaches them to purchase immediate annuity in respect of a retired employee. This lack of transparency does not augur well for the protection of the interests of a large section of the community which is covered by such master policies. In larger public interest, the Commission directed the PIO, LIC to provide a copy of the Master policy to the appellant after severing, as per the provisions of section10(1)Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.of the Act, those portions which if disclosed will cause detriment to the commercial interests of the insurer. Under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, the Commission recommended the CMD of LIC to examine the possibility of maintaining updated list of employees covered under each of the master policies pertaining to Group Superannuation. This measure will go a long way in protecting the interests of retiring employees who are otherwise left to the mercy of the employer company for release of pension." +83,Does the fee prescribed under Companies Act prevail over the fees prescribed by RTI Rules?,Office of the Registrar of Companies,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the fees prescribed under the Companies Act will prevail over the fees prescribed by the RTI Rules.,"Does the fee prescribed under Companies Act prevail over the fees prescribed by RTI Rules? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Office of the Registrar of Companies seeking certified copies of Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, share capital, registered office in respect of a company registered with Office of Registrar of Companies Rajasthan. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the desired information is available in the public domain at Ministry’s website. The PIO also stated that there is an inbuilt mechanism within the provisions of section 610 of the Companies Act read with rules framed there under to make public inspection and get certified copies after deposit of requisite fee on-line. While filing the second appeal filed before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he has sought information under the provisions of the RTI Act and not under the Companies Act and that the respondent has ignored the provisions of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to a judgment of High Court of Delhi [dated 1.6.2012 in W.P. (c) 11271/ 2009 in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Others Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & another] wherein it was held that merely because a different charge is collected for providing information under Section 610 of the Companies Act than that prescribed as the fee for providing information under the RTI Act does not lead to an inconsistency in the provisions of these two enactments. The RTI Act is a general law which deals with the right of a citizen to access information available with a public authority, subject to the conditions and limitations prescribed in the said Act. On the other hand, Section 610 of the Companies Act is a piece of special legislation, which deals specifically with the right of any person to inspect and obtain records i.e. information from the ROC. Therefore, the later general law cannot be read or understood to have abrogated the earlier special law. + +The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the fees prescribed under the Companies Act will prevail over the fees prescribed by the RTI Rules." +84,Information regarding exodus of people from northeastern region was sought,,,['8(1)(a)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Regarding the correspondence among various ministries of the Central Government on the subject of the exodus of people from northeastern region is concerned, the CIC held that the PMO could not have provided the copies of any such correspondence as the appellant has not specified the names of any ministry or department.","Information regarding exodus of people from northeastern region was sought + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) seeking some information regarding the exodus of people of the North East including the copies of the correspondence between the PMO and various social networking sites. He also wanted the report submitted by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in connection with this. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the PMO had not entered into any correspondence with any social networking site on the subject. He denied the information regarding the report of the MHA by claiming exemption under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had read about the initiative of the PMO in closing down some of these social networking sites in various news reports. He also referred to some media report and claimed that the Media Advisor to the PM had admitted having given such directions. The respondent submitted that the PMO did not have any such information to show that any correspondence had been made with any social networking site in this regard. Regarding the report of the MHA, the appellant pointed out that the PIO had not explained how the provisions of section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;would be attracted in this case.","The Commission held that it is necessary for the PIO to state how a particular provision is attracted to the information under question. Since the exemption provision cited in this case relates to information having implications for internal security and maintenance of law and order, the PIO should have made some analysis in this line while deciding not to disclose the information. The CIC further noted that the disclosure of the report of the MHA on the subject has the potential to rekindle the emotions and therefore it was understandable why the PMO decided not to disclose it. The best judge in such circumstances is the government itself and not the CIC. Regarding the correspondence among various ministries of the Central Government on the subject of the exodus of people from northeastern region is concerned, the CIC held that the PMO could not have provided the copies of any such correspondence as the appellant has not specified the names of any ministry or department." +85,Cost incurred on tours of former PM and ministers of the former Prime Minister's Cabinet,,"the cost reimbursed on the medical treatment of Sri Atal Vihari Vajpayee, and the cost incurred on his tours both inside India and abroad",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also advised the appellant to approach individual ministries to find out about the cost on the travel of ministers undertaken within and outside India during the stated period.,"Cost incurred on tours of former PM and ministers of the former Prime Minister's Cabinet + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister's Office (PMO), seeking information regarding the cost reimbursed on the medical treatment of Sri Atal Vihari Vajpayee, and the cost incurred on his tours both inside India and abroad. The appellant had also wanted to know about the cost of tour and travel of all the ministers of the former Prime Minister's Cabinet. The Public Information Officer (PIO), PMO transferred the queries to several other public authorities such as, the Ministry of Health, Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Defence etc. The PIO of each of these Ministries responded to the application without providing any substantive information or giving any particular reason why the information was not being provided. The PIO, Indian Air Force stated that the desired information was not available being more than five years old.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the travel cost is borne by a number of public authorities and no single public authority such as any Ministry maintains the consolidated cost of such travels. It would not be possible to find this information from any single public authority in the Central Government. The Commission directed the PIO, PMO to place this order before the competent authority to explore the possibility of collecting such information in a consolidated manner from various other public authorities at least once a year and to place it in their website so that the citizens need not have to run from one Ministry to another to find out this information. Regarding the cost incurred on the medical treatment of the former Prime Minister, the CIC directed the PIO of the Ministry of Health to find out the information, wherever available in the Ministry, and to provide to the appellant. However, if this information is not available in full or part, he should clearly state so in his communication to the appellant. The Commission also advised the appellant to approach individual ministries to find out about the cost on the travel of ministers undertaken within and outside India during the stated period." +86,Can RTI application be filed on the letterhead of an organisation?,India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) and two with the Ashoka Hotel,the recruitment of staff and other staff related matters,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,CIC; Link -http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt/SCDecision.pdf) wherein it was held that the enquiry into complaint against an employee and the consequent disciplinary action is in the nature of personal information which is not liable for disclosure.,"Can RTI application be filed on the letterhead of an organisation? + +Background: +The appellant filed four applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, two with the India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) and two with the Ashoka Hotel, seeking information about the recruitment of staff and other staff related matters. The Public Information Officer (PIO), ITDC refused to entertain one of the applications stating that it has been written on the letterhead of an NGO and was hence not from an individual citizen but from an office bearer of the NGO. The PIO, Ashoka Hotel provided some information against one of the queries of the same application. For the remaining three RTI applications, both the PIOs provided very little information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that as per section 6(2) of the RTI Act, a citizen is not required to provide any more details other than his name and address so that he can be contacted. If the RTI application contains the name of information seeker and his postal address, the PIO should not ask any more detail and proceed to provide the available information. The CIC held that it is wrong to treat the office bearer of an association or an NGO as if he is not an Indian citizen. The Commission directed the PIOs of both the organisations to provide the information to the appellant except for the information regarding the enquiry conducted by the management against an employee on the complaint of some hotel guest. The Commission referred to a Supreme Court judgment (Girish Deshpande v. CIC; Link -http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt/SCDecision.pdf) wherein it was held that the enquiry into complaint against an employee and the consequent disciplinary action is in the nature of personal information which is not liable for disclosure." +87,"Attention of the Commissioner, NDMC drawn to an issue of the larger public interest",North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC),"any circular, directions or instructions pertaining to facilities such as streetlights, sewage disposal, clean drains and clean roads, maintenance of parks/ plants in the area etc",[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission, however, drew the attention of the Commissioner, NDMC to this issue in the larger public interest so that information gap that exists pertaining to this issue can be addressed suitably.","Attention of the Commissioner, NDMC drawn to an issue of the larger public interest + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) seeking details regarding the facilities provided by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and State Government to the Group Housing Societies in different Zones of MCD. The appellant specifically sought information regarding any circular, directions or instructions pertaining to facilities such as streetlights, sewage disposal, clean drains and clean roads, maintenance of parks/ plants in the area etc. in respect of Group Housing Societies in Rohini zone. The appellant also asked for copies of circulars/ directions, instructions held by the public authority in respect of payment of ground rent where house tax is also being paid. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that no information is available with the Public Authority. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information sought by the appellant was not held in material form and therefore could not be furnished to the appellant. The appellant submitted that during the hearing on his first appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had invited representatives of all the various departments under the MCD who are responsible to provide civic amenities and each of the representative stated that they were not holding any such circular/ instructions pertaining to the providing of the civic amenities in respect of Group Housing Societies. Regarding the instructions on payment of ground rent also the PIO had claimed that information does not exist.","The Commission observed that RTI application clearly brings out the fact that the appellant has touched upon two matters, both of which throw up issues of larger public interest on which, the MCD does not hold any material record/ information. The CIC noted that the queries highlights the poignant situation where members of several Group Housing Societies are paying ground rent to the DDA and house tax to the MCD but do not have the comfort of the knowledge that they are required to be provided with basic civic amenities at par with the other residents of the city who do not live in Group Housing Societies. The Commission held that the RTI application has brought into focus the issue which can well be categorized as being one of larger public interest on which there is no clear government policy/ directions on record. The Commission ruled that the limitations of the powers of the Commission given under the RTI Act, the CIC cannot give directions to provide information that does not exist. The Commission, however, drew the attention of the Commissioner, NDMC to this issue in the larger public interest so that information gap that exists pertaining to this issue can be addressed suitably." +88,Does it matter if the RTI application is signed by two individuals?,,the payment of minimum wages to the contractual employees at one Centre and the matters related there with,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC also added that it should be clarified that if the AIIMS did not have this information, then the PIO is required to seek this information from the contractors concerned and transmit the same to the appellant.","Does it matter if the RTI application is signed by two individuals? + +Background: +An application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) seeking information about the payment of minimum wages to the contractual employees at one Centre and the matters related there with. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose any information to the appellant only on the ground that the RTI application was signed by two individuals.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) did not agree with the PIO observing that it did not matter whether information is sought by one individual or more than one. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the number of contractual labourers employed at that said Centre with the detail of wages given to labour by the contractor and also provide whether the contractor is contributing towards EPF and ESIC of the contractual labour. The CIC also added that it should be clarified that if the AIIMS did not have this information, then the PIO is required to seek this information from the contractors concerned and transmit the same to the appellant. + +Comments + +The eligibility for filing an application under the RTI Act has been defined under section 3 which describes that a citizen of India can file an applicaton. There is no bar against filing an application by more than one individual. However, if there is more than one address, the PIO can always raise a plea and send the information only to the first address." +89,NCPCR directed to strengthen the infrastructure for implementing the RTI regime,National Commission,action taken on complaint and copy of all documents associated with examining and disposing of the matter,['8(1)(g)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Under section19(8)(a)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including +(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form; +(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be; +(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information; +(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records; +(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials; +(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4;of the RTI Act, the CIC recommended that the public authority through its Secretary should take appropriate steps to strengthen the infrastructure for implementing the RTI regime.","NCPCR directed to strengthen the infrastructure for implementing the RTI regime + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) seeking information regarding action taken on complaint and copy of all documents associated with examining and disposing of the matter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act stating that the sought information pertains to minor child and the appellant has no relationship with the parents of the child. The appellant filed the first appeal with the First appellate Authority (FAA). Not receiving any reply, he filed the second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC). The Commission remanded the matter to the FAA with directions to dispose of the first appeal by passing a speaking order. The CIC also directed the FAA to endorse a copy of his order to the Commission clearly indicating the reason for delay if any in disposing of the first appeal.Not receiving a response from the FAA, appellant once again moved the Commission in complaint. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he is the paternal uncle of the child and that along with his first appeal, he had enclosed consent letter from the parents of the child stating that they had no objection if the requested information was passed on to the appellant. The FAA stated that due to acute shortage of staff, he was unable to provide information to the appellant and also that the delay was not intentional. He further explained that he was overburdened with administrative, legal and court matters without the support of a regular branch officer as also on account of coping with a large number of RTI applications. The FAA also provided an unsigned note on the current status of the complaint which is the subject matter of the RTI application to the Commission and stated that a copy of the same has not been provided to the appellant.","The Commission observed that shortage of staff and preoccupation with other matters are not legitimate or acceptable reasons for not having adhered to the provisions of the RTI Act. Noting that as per section19(1)Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: +Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.and section19(6)An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.of the Act, the FAA is supposed to dispose of the matter within a period of 45 days from the date of filing of the appeal, the CIC held that the FAA had not only ignored these provisions, but also chose to ignore the directions of the Commission. The CIC warned the FAA to be more careful in future while discharging his responsibilities the onus of which has been placed upon him in the transparency Act. The Commission also directed the FAA to provide full and complete information as sought by the appellant. Under section19(8)(a)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including +(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form; +(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be; +(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information; +(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records; +(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials; +(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4;of the RTI Act, the CIC recommended that the public authority through its Secretary should take appropriate steps to strengthen the infrastructure for implementing the RTI regime." +90,Seeking information regarding prosecution for unfair labour practices,Regional Labour Commissioner,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also observed that indiscriminate and impractical demands under the RTI Act unnecessarily overload the system with unproductive work of collecting and furnishing information.,"Seeking information regarding prosecution for unfair labour practices + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Regional Labour Commissioner seeking the acknowledgement of request letter and its previous references, with dates and evidentiary documents and the copies of minutes and the proceedings held on said date. He also wanted information regarding the persecution under section 25 T and under section 29 of ID Act 1947 etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant is engaged in two industrial disputes relating to his termination of service and his application for prosecution of PNB officials for unfair labour practices and violation of agreement. The process in such proceedings is that the documents of each party are exchanged during every hearing and thus, all documents relating to both the matters are available with the appellant. He further submitted that the appellant had filed multiple RTI applications with the Ministry of Labour and also his office in response to which voluminous information has been provided to him. He has also been allowed to inspect the entire records on several occasions and there is nothing further to be provided. The respondent also stated that the appellant’s queries mostly relate to contesting the action of the public authority which is not information as per section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act but in case he needs any further information, he is free to inspect the entire records and take photocopies therefrom in a onetime exercise so that the public authority is saved from further harassment. The appellant stated that the PIO had demanded additional fee for furnishing copies of documents without providing the computation as specified in section 7(3)(a) of the RTI Act. The PIO stated that he regrets the oversight and is willing to furnish any further information that the appellant needed.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application and also allow him to take photocopies/ extracts therefrom. The Commission also observed that indiscriminate and impractical demands under the RTI Act unnecessarily overload the system with unproductive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should be used in a responsible manner without imposing undue costs on the exchequer. +91,Using RTI to obtain information regarding tapping of mobile phone,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),,['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to confirm the same in writing to the appellant.,"Using RTI to obtain information regarding tapping of mobile phone + +Background: +The appellant got some information that his mobile number has been recorded/ tapped. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking information in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the matter is related to the commercial confidence of BSNL and hence the information was exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. As the query raised that how the information is related to commercial confidence and its disclosure would harm the competitive position of BSNL, the respondent was unable to give any justifiable explanation. The respondent stated that since the tapping order would have come from a law/ security enforcement agency, he would follow the process as laid down under section 11 of the RTI Act and thereafter give his submissions in the matter. The CIC adjourned the hearing. + +During the second hearing before the CIC, the respondent submitted that they have checked their records and their system and have found that the appellant’s mobile phone has not been tapped and the same has been intimated to him. The appellant contended that in the aforesaid letter the respondent have only confirmed having checked their records and not their system. The respondent further stated that they have checked both their records and the system and will confirm the same in writing to the appellant.",The Commission directed the PIO to confirm the same in writing to the appellant. +92,Threat to the RTI applicant to withdraw the second appeal,East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC),action taken on his representations along with current status of his RTI application,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"The Commission took a serious note of the statement made by the appellant regarding the threats made to him on account of his preferring second appeal before the Commission.The CIC also recommended the PIO, in his capacity as Assistant Commissioner, to enquire further into the matter.","Threat to the RTI applicant to withdraw the second appeal + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) seeking information regarding action taken on his representations along with current status of his RTI application. On the directions of the First Appellate authority (FAA), the Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that to date he had not received any information as sought in his RTI application. He also stated that he has been threatened by an unknown person who came to his residence in his absence and warned his wife of dire consequences in case the appellant did not withdraw his second appeal presented before the Commission.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide specific and point wise information to the appellant. The Commission issued show cause notice to the PIO for not providing the information to the appellant within the timeframe stipulated under the RTI Act. The Commission took a serious note of the statement made by the appellant regarding the threats made to him on account of his preferring second appeal before the Commission.The CIC also recommended the PIO, in his capacity as Assistant Commissioner, to enquire further into the matter." +93,Seeking information regarding the bills for laying of a particular cable by BSNL under RTI,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide the information relating to the bills for laying of cable in a particular sub-division as desired by the appellant.,"Seeking information regarding the bills for laying of a particular cable by BSNL under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking information related to irregularities in 4/g cable of BSNL. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he has not been provided the diagram for the cable laid, the bills relating to the laying of cables and the APDR revenue. The respondent stated that the cable diagrams are sensitive information and if brought in public domain can lead to incitement of an offence by way of damage/ disruption of essential telecom services. Regarding copies of bills, the respondent stated that the information is voluminous and in case appellant specifies any particular cable, the same can be provided. He provided the detail of the ADPR revenue to the appellant. The appellant stated that he is only pressing for information relating to the bills for laying of cable in a particular sub-division.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide the information relating to the bills for laying of cable in a particular sub-division as desired by the appellant. +94,List of persons who have been granted an exemption from airport security check,Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS),,['8(1)(a)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The appellant had sought only the final list and as such no information is sought regarding the procedure for arriving at the same.The CIC directed the PIO to provide the final list to the appellant.,"List of persons who have been granted an exemption from airport security check + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS) seeking list of persons who have been granted an exemption from airport security check for the certain period. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act.The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information holding that the exemption to any person from security checks is taken after following laid down procedures in MHA/ MCA; and BCAS circulates these decision to field units for implementation. This is restricted Civil Aviation Security Information which is shared on need to know basis only. The related document is classified as “RESTRICTED.” + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the RTI is a fundamental right of citizens and the denial of information can only be based on exemptions under section 8(1) of the Act.When an exemption is claimed under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;it is necessary that a public authority should be able to clearly justify its claim showing harm to protected interest.",The Commission observed that the respondent has not been able to show how the security interest of the state would be affected by disclosing the list of persons who are exempt from pre-embarkation security check at airports. The appellant had sought only the final list and as such no information is sought regarding the procedure for arriving at the same.The CIC directed the PIO to provide the final list to the appellant. +95,Can gross pension inclusive of emoluments be disclosed to a RTI applicant?,Visakhapatnam Port Trust,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,Some benches have held pension to be equivalent to pay and have ordered for disclosure of the same.,"Can gross pension inclusive of emoluments be disclosed to a RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Visakhapatnam Port Trust seeking details of the male employeeswho had been retired as Senior Lab Assistant under VRS (Voluntary Retirement Scheme) in a particular year. He wanted the details such as their surname, Employee I.D. No., residential Quarter No., Caste, sub case, nativity and yearly Gross Pension inclusive of all emoluments. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the information except the yearly Gross Pension inclusive of all emoluments. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that appellant’s request for pension emoluments had no merit since the information requested attracted the provisions of section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act, being personal information of the third party and no larger public interest has been established by the appellant for disclosure of this information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information requested for by the appellant attracts the provision of section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Comments + +The views of the different benches differ on the issue. Some benches have held pension to be equivalent to pay and have ordered for disclosure of the same." +96,Disclosure of possession letter submitted by a subscriber for BSNL telephone connection,Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL),a telephone installed at a particular property,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission held that the respondent should scrutinize the possession letter provided by the subscriber and if any forgery is established a copy of the same should be furnished to the appellant.,"Disclosure of possession letter submitted by a subscriber for BSNL telephone connection + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) seeking information regarding a telephone installed at a particular property. He specifically wanted the details of the Possession Letter received for the installation of the said telephone number, issuing person’s name and the date of issuing of the possession letter. He also wanted to know whether the owner of the above mentioned property issued the possession letter given by the subscriber. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that there was an illegal occupant in his property who got an MTNL landline telephone installed but no consent has been given by him. He thus wanted a copy of the possession letter based on which the said connection was provided. The respondent stated that the information related to a third party and they had carried out the process as laid down under section 11 of the RTI Act but the subscriber has declined to give his consent and hence exemption was claimed under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The appellant pointed out that the possession letter is issued by the landlord/ owner but he had not issued any such letter hence, the document provided by the illegal occupant was forged and accordingly there is larger public interest to justify the disclosure of information. The respondent stated that he will scrutinize the possession letter and if any forgery is established he would provide a copy of the document to the appellant.","The Commission held that the respondent should scrutinize the possession letter provided by the subscriber and if any forgery is established a copy of the same should be furnished to the appellant. If, no forgery is established the appellant should be informed accordingly." +97,"Under RTI, can a husband obtain EPF account statement of his wife?",,,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission ruled that accounts of customers/ subscribers maintained at post office/ banks/ EPFO are held under fiduciary relationship.,"Under RTI, can a husband obtain EPF account statement of his wife? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) seeking the details of EPF account number and EPF account statement of her wife from date of opening of account till date. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the appellant has a marital dispute with his wife and is seeking details of her EPF account including the balance. He submitted that this information related to a third party and that the subscriber had strongly opposed the disclosure and hence the exemption had been claimed under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The PIO also stated that he did not see any larger public purpose to override the objections of the third party.","The Commission ruled that accounts of customers/ subscribers maintained at post office/ banks/ EPFO are held under fiduciary relationship. Hence information relating to such accounts is exempt from disclosure to third party under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest to justify the disclosure." +98,Seeking information about unauthorized construction in commercial properties through RTI,North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission perused the contents of the RTI application and observed that the issue raised therein is a matter of larger public interest.The CIC directed the PIO to provide the current status of informationas held on record to the appellant.,"Seeking information about unauthorized construction in commercial properties through RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) seeking details in respect of alleged unauthorized construction in about 500 Commercial properties in Azad market area in Delhi. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information sought did not pertain to Civil Line Zone. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the queries sought by the appellant do not qualify to be “information” under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act and thus the same is not available on record with the public authority.",The Commission perused the contents of the RTI application and observed that the issue raised therein is a matter of larger public interest.The CIC directed the PIO to provide the current status of informationas held on record to the appellant. +99,Is the FAA supposed to give hearing to the RTI applicant?,,,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC held that FAA should take a careful note of the above for future.,"Is the FAA supposed to give hearing to the RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) seeking certified copies of documents relating to the payment made by EPF authorities to the subscriber’s account with the SBI. He also sought the inward/ outward number, copies of documents prepared for the payment of the amount to the employee, date of opening of PF account, name of account holder and details of EPFO staff who processed the payment.  The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the desired information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information sought related to a lady who had declined to give her consent for disclosure. She had stated that there is marital dispute between her and the applicant and no details should be furnished to him as the information is personal in nature and is disrupting her personal life. The appellant pointed out that he is not seeking any financial details. The PIO stated that the appellant in the past has asked for several details about the PF account of the same lady but the Commission in their decision (in file No. CIC/BS/A/2012/000025) held that the information was exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The appellant argued that the respondent is trying to mix two RTI applications and the Commission should decide the issue at hand on its merits. He further stated that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) neither decided the appeal nor gave him any opportunity of hearing. The PIO submitted that he can provide the inward/ outward number, date of opening of PF account, name of account holder and the name of the EPFO staff who processed the payment. He also submitted that the documents prepared for payment of the EPF amount contains sensitive personal details relating to the subscriber which cannot be provided being exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.","The Commission observed that the information which the PIO is willing to furnish should be provided to the appellant.  Regarding the copies of documents prepared for the payment of EPF amount to the subscriber, the CIC held that the same was exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act as no larger public interest has been cited by the appellant to justify its disclosure. The Commission further ruled that deciding an appeal after rendering an opportunity of hearing to the parties is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence. It is conducive to fairness and transparency and accords with the principals of natural justice. As per Section19(6)An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.of the RTI Act the FAA is required to dispose of an appeal within 30 days of the receipt thereof and as far as possible also give the appellant as well as third party an opportunity of hearing specially if he so requests, without forgetting that the essence of RTI Act is to provide complete, correct and timely information to the appellant. The CIC held that FAA should take a careful note of the above for future." +100,Information about pension benefits and nomination done by late husband,Bhartiya Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),"total amount due and nomination done by his late husband for his GPF, gratuity, insurance, pension during the period 1991 to 2009",['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC dropped the penalty proceedings noting that the explanation offered by the PIO is plausible and he has not malafidely denied the information sought.,"Information about pension benefits and nomination done by late husband + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bhartiya Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking information regarding total amount due and nomination done by his late husband for his GPF, gratuity, insurance, pension during the period 1991 to 2009. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information. During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that instead of providing the information sought in her RTI application the PIO as well as the FAA have given an evasive reply stating that her late husband’s terminal dues viz. pensionary benefits, PF, gratuity etc. could not paid due to non-receipt of essential documents from her. The PIO did not attend the hearing. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO stating that by not furnishing the complete, correct and timely information the concerned CPIO has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the show cause hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that he had no intention to give any evasive reply and the fact of the matter is that when the claim of the appellant was being processed another lady claiming to be the first wife of the deceased husband, appeared before him with a marriage certificate and laid claim to his terminal benefits. Under such circumstances, the rules of the department prescribe that the claimant(s) should bring a ‘succession certificate’ from the competent court. Therefore, he informed the appellant that the pension case was not settled for want of some essential documents by which he meant the ‘succession certificate’. The document (viz. succession certificate) was also necessary to decide whether the information sought by the appellant could be disclosed to her as a bona-fide successor or she is a third party to whom the information cannot be disclosed being exempt under Section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. He pleaded that there was no intention whatsoever to deliberately delay/deny the information, which in any case was disclosable only to a bona-fide successor after proper identification.","The Commission observed that the information was disclosable only to the bona-fide successor of the deceased, for which purpose the ‘succession certificate’ was an essential document and that there was no intention on part of the PIO to deliberately deny the information. The CIC dropped the penalty proceedings noting that the explanation offered by the PIO is plausible and he has not malafidely denied the information sought." +101,Information cannot be denied merely because disciplinary proceedings are pending,Ministry of External Affairs (MEA),a disciplinary proceeding instituted against him along with the details of the authority which had sanctioned the institution of the disciplinary proceedings,['8(1)(h)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission also observed that some of the documents are to be disclosed to the charge-sheeted officer routinely under the rules governing the disciplinary proceedings and directed the PIO to verify the relevant records including the file noting relating to the various items of information sought.,"Information cannot be denied merely because disciplinary proceedings are pending + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) seeking information relating to a disciplinary proceeding instituted against him along with the details of the authority which had sanctioned the institution of the disciplinary proceedings. He also wanted the orders issued in the course of enquiry along with the file notings. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that it would impede the process of investigation. + +ProceedingsDuring the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO could not have denied the information without showing how it was exempt under the said provision. The appellant also argued that the particular exemption provision did not apply to disciplinary proceedings against civil servants. He stated that neither the PIO nor the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had passed speaking order. The respondent submitted that all the information sought concerned the disciplinary proceedings still pending and that was the reason why it was considered that the disclosure of such information might adversely affect the proceedings underway.","The Commission held that while denying any information, the PIO should explain in detail how a particular exemption provision is attracted to the information under question. It is not enough to invoke an exemption provision and deny the information. The CIC further stated that not every single file noting recorded by the competent authority while approving the institution of the disciplinary proceedings or the appointment of the enquiry officer or while rejecting the representation made by the appellant would attract the above exemption provision. The information can be denied only if the competent authority in the organisation thinks that the disclosure would make the disciplinary proceedings difficult or impossible. + +The Commission directed the PIO to revisit the RTI requests and list out that information which he can disclose without affecting adversely the process of the disciplinary proceedings. The CIC held that the file noting in which the competent authority had approved of instituting disciplinary proceedings or the appointment of the enquiry and presenting officers or decided to reject the representation of the appellant can probably be disclosed without affecting the pending disciplinary proceedings. The Commission also observed that some of the documents are to be disclosed to the charge-sheeted officer routinely under the rules governing the disciplinary proceedings and directed the PIO to verify the relevant records including the file noting relating to the various items of information sought. In case, the PIO decides not to disclose any of this information, he must pass a speaking order explaining in some detail why a particular exemption provision is being invoked to withhold the information." +102,Information pertaining to the registration of Basmati as a Geographical Indication in India,,the registration of Basmati as a Geographical Indication in India along with any other documents pertaining to the efforts to coordinate a joint-registration with Pakistan etc,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(e)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no reason to interfere in the replies of the respondent.,"Information pertaining to the registration of Basmati as a Geographical Indication in India + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) seeking information pertaining to the registration of Basmati as a Geographical Indication in India along with any other documents pertaining to the efforts to coordinate a joint-registration with Pakistan etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the application filed by APEDA to register Basmati as a geographical indication has been opposed by various parties representing competitive interests and the matter is pending before the Geographical Indications Registry. The PIO also stated that as such the matter is sub-judice and disclosure of any information would affect the competitive positions of the stake holders on whose behalf the application has been filed, hence disclosure of information was exempt under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that APEDA is representing the rights of the stakeholders in the geographical indication Basmati in various proceedings, all over the world. The proceedings in Pakistan involve commercially and politically sensitive information. Disclosure of such information could lead to unwarranted public debate which in turn could prejudice or unduly influence the outcome of these proceedings. The FAA further ruled that they hold this information in fiduciary capacity. Thus, the disclosure of such information is exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.","The Commission observed that the respondent have no disclosure obligation under the provisions of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act and the appellant has failed to establish any larger public interest which warrants the disclosure of such information. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no reason to interfere in the replies of the respondent." +103,Seeking information related to UNICEF and NGOs using RTI,Registrar General of India,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,25000.0,,"Under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission levied a penalty of Rs.","Seeking information related to UNICEF and NGOs using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Registrar General of India seeking information related to proposal either mooted by or received from UNICEF/ NGOs in respect of imparting training to the DCO wise Master Trainers/ Enumerators for conducting House Listing operation and Census 2011 and the National Population Register with 50% participation etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information sought is available with UNICEF and as soon it is received the same would be provided. While hearing the second appeal, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information and also issued show cause notice to the PIO for causing a delay of more than 100 days in providing information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing of the show cause notice, the PIO submitted that the information asked by the appellant was held jointly by his office and the UN Organization. Since UN organizations did not fall under the control of Government of India and involved international relations, it was felt necessary to seek inputs form the UN Bodies before sharing any information with any third person. In due course of time, the information held by them and as received from the UN Bodies was uploaded on the office website for free download. He further stated that on the directions of the Commission, the requisite information under the control of his office has already been provided to the appellant free of cost.","The Commission observed that the PIO committed that as soon as the information was received, he would provide the same to the appellant but he never provided the information till the matter was heard in the Commission. The CIC also noted that most of the information was already available with the PIO / public authority and the PIO did not bother to part with the information. Holding that there was no application of mind on the part of the PIO., the CIC ruled that the explanation given by the PIO does not fall within the reasonable cause of section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act and he is liable for the penalty. Under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission levied a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the PIO for obstructing the disclosure of information to the appellant." +104,Can copy of documents be sought in vigilance cases citing ‘public interest’?,Department of Posts (DoP),,"['8(1)(h)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC ruled that the appellant wanted the information for his own benefit and not for the welfare of the public at large and hence this would not be an appropriate case for the Commission to override the statutory exemption provided under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","Can copy of documents be sought in vigilance cases citing ‘public interest’? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Posts (DoP) seeking copy of Departmental charge-sheet issued to two people in relation to KVP Embezzlement at Medical College Post Office. He also sought the copy of departmental order disposing the charge sheet of one individual. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the third party has declined to give his consent for the disclosure of the information and hence the same was exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The appellant argued that the accused is involved in a huge fraud of Rs. 3 crores and the entire process of disciplinary proceedings against him has been concluded. He has also been held guilty and hence the information is disclosable in larger public interest. The PIO further stated that the appellant himself is involved in the aforesaid fraud and is only trying to obtain advantage for himself by seeking third party information and hence he does not see any larger public interest in disclosing the information to him. He added that the appellant is litigating his matter before the Honourable High Court and he can seek access to any information which he needs for his defense through the Court and not through the RTI Act as it may amount to interference in the Court’s discretion.","The Commission referred to an earlier decision of Supreme Court [Bihar Public Service Commission Vs. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi & Anr.- Link :http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/BiharPublicServiceCommission-v-SaiyedHussainAbbasRizwiDec20121358759307.pdf] wherein it was held that the expression ‘public interest’ has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression ‘public interest’, like ���public purpose’, is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs. [State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252)]. It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recommendation and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition)]. The CIC ruled that the appellant wanted the information for his own benefit and not for the welfare of the public at large and hence this would not be an appropriate case for the Commission to override the statutory exemption provided under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act." +105,Addressing the issue of non-receipt of PF through RTI,,Form number 6A and 3A of EPF deposits for employees working at a particular Industry and a godown,['8(1)(e)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to get the appellant’s matter investigated by an enforcement officer and provide a copy of the report to him within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.,"Addressing the issue of non-receipt of PF through RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) seeking information about Form number 6A and 3A of EPF deposits for employees working at a particular Industry and a godown. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that appellant had asked for copies of annual returns filed by the employees which cannot be disclosed as it contains sensitive details relating to various PF subscribers and is exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The appellant submitted that he is a contractual employee but his provident fund is not being deposited by the contractor(s) and he wanted the matter to be investigated by an enforcement officer. The respondent further stated that he will get the matter investigated and a copy of the report would be provided to the appellant.",The Commission directed the respondent to get the appellant’s matter investigated by an enforcement officer and provide a copy of the report to him within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order. +106,"CIC - Commissioner, DMC to take cognizance of delay in property tax entry",North Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission held that this recommendation is made in the spirit of the preamble of the RTI Act which supports the efficient operation of the Governments along with optimum use of limited financial resources.,"CIC - Commissioner, DMC to take cognizance of delay in property tax entry + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) seeking details of the posting of realization in the Ledger Accounts of Tax Payer (Property Tax). The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that there is usually a huge time gap between the payment of property tax and its entry in the ledger account and sometimes as long as over four years. He also stated that neither superior officer regularly monitors the timely and accurate entry of the tax realization in the ledger nor are the entries in the ledger tallied with the cash book through which receipts for property tax are issued. The respondent stated that he has taken over charge recently and can provide information for the year 2012 – 2013 onwards and that he has personally addressed the issue. The respondent further stated that as the appellant has not sought information in respect of a particular property, he is unable to provide information in response to a general and wide query. The appellant stated that through his RTI application, he is addressing a larger malaise/ lacuna in the existing system. He submitted that it was not uncommon for individuals to approach the property tax department and have large number of entries made in the ledger account on the basis of receipts held by them on a single day. Such a practice could result in entries being made in the ledger account on the basis of unverified receipts resulting in huge losses to the exchequer.","The Commission observed that the issue highlighted through the RTI application is a matter of larger public interest which warrants information to be provided even if it is to be collected from several sources/ files. The CIC directed the PIO to provide information to the appellant regarding property tax entries made in the ledger account and tallied with the entries in the cash book for the certain period. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide the information where such entries had not been made even though the cash book shows receipt issued against property tax paid.The Commission further directed the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation to take cognizance of this matter and take necessary corrective action by issuing suitable directives to the concerned officials. The Commission held that this recommendation is made in the spirit of the preamble of the RTI Act which supports the efficient operation of the Governments along with optimum use of limited financial resources. + +Comments + +The situation remains more or less the same in the rest of the cities of the country. Can the property tax payment not be made online?" +107,Can a PIO transfer the application to one of his colleague in the same department?,Department of Posts (DoP),"total number of account holder in postal savings with saving bank, MIS, PPF etc",[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"CIC & Anrs) and held that the appellant has not been able to establish any mala-fide on the part of the PIO; hence, penalty cannot be imposed on him.","Can a PIO transfer the application to one of his colleague in the same department? + +Background: +An application was filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Posts (DoP) seeking information regarding total number of account holder in postal savings with saving bank, MIS, PPF etc. at the respective post offices in Bangalore Urban Area during the financial years 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 respectively. The appellant also sought the monthly turnover/collections at the above post offices during the said financial years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he had requested for sub post office wise information but only the consolidated number of accounts was furnished to him. The respondent submitted that the information requested by the appellant it is not being compiled at the central level and was scattered in 187 sub-post offices and compilation of the same would have disproportionately diverted the resources of the public authority. He also stated that there were some PIOs covering Bangalore Urban area whose names and other details are mentioned in the website and if the appellant makes an RTI application to them they will transfer the same to the respective sub-post offices with instructions to furnish the information directly to the appellant. The appellant pointed out that in response to one of the queries, the PIO intimated that the information can be obtained by filing an application with the Director of Accounts (Postal) Bangalore, whereas he should have either sought his assistance under section 5(4) or transferred his application as per section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The appellant demanded that penal action should be initiated against the respondent under section 20 for not providing the information.","The Commission observed that PIO is expected to provide the information available with him. He is not required to collect and compile the information on the demand of a requester nor is he expected to create a fresh one merely because someone has asked for it. The CIC accepted the contentions of the PIO relating to the collecting and compiling of data from 187 sub post offices stating that such attempts would not allow for scrutiny of public action to detect and determine the nature and extent of deviation from the accepted polices. The Commission, however, agreed that the PIO should either have sought the assistance of his counterpart in the office of the Director of Accounts (Postal) Bangalore or transferred this part of the RTI application to him for supply of information. The CIC directed the PIO to furnish the information to the appellant.  Regarding the appellant’s plea for imposition of penalty, the Commission referred to a decision of Delhi High Court in WP(C) 3114/2007, decided on 03/12/2007 (Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs) and held that the appellant has not been able to establish any mala-fide on the part of the PIO; hence, penalty cannot be imposed on him." +108,Seeking submissions made by public authority before CIC in an earlier hearing,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also directed the PIO to inform the appellant about the non - availability of terms and conditions in respect of ‘covered area while also clarifying why the term has been used.,"Seeking submissions made by public authority before CIC in an earlier hearing + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) with reference to a decision given by the Commission in case no. CIC/AD/A/2012/002723. The applicant sought  the copy of terms and conditions based on which the Commission was informed by the respondent in the earlier hearing that a license is given for operating a kitchen in the open only on condition that it operates under a covered area and in sanitary/ hygienic conditions. The applicant also sought the details of the definition of the word ‘Covered’ along with the rules/terms & conditions to operate a kitchen under a cloth roof and open on all 4 sides. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the copy of site plan of the Hotel to which the matter related and stated that the definition of the covered area can be obtained from Civil Engineering/ Architect Department. The First Appellant Authority (FAA) stated that copy of the site plan, health license and the terms & conditions of the health license issued to Hotel Diplomat have already been provided to the appellant in the earlier case. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that Health License has been issued to the Hotel Diplomat for the preparation, storage and sale of aerated water, tea, coffee, bakery products and food items inside the building from health point of view under section 331 of NDMC Act. The appellant pointed out that this reply is proof of the fact that license is to be given for preparation of food items in the kitchen only inside the building and not in the garden. The respondent explained that the term inside the building that he had used in his reply referred to the whole premises of the hotel including the covered area of the garden and hence there is no contradiction in his replies. Regarding the terms and conditions which reflect the submission of the respondent to the Commission in the earlier case, the respondent clarified that there are no such terms and conditions and that he had mentioned “Covered area” since while implementing the section 331 of NDMC Act it is understood that the kitchen in the garden is automatically covered with some kind of roof in order to ensure sanitation and hygiene.",The Commission directed the PIO to intimate the appellant in writing that the term ‘inside the building’ also meant the covered area in the garden. The CIC also directed the PIO to inform the appellant about the non - availability of terms and conditions in respect of ‘covered area while also clarifying why the term has been used. +109,Who appoints the Ministers in Minister of Environment and Forests?,,that news report,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating that none of the public authorities which had handled the RTI application have any information on these queries.,"Who appoints the Ministers in Minister of Environment and Forests? + +Background: +The appellantreferred to some news item published in a daily newspaper regarding the removal of the then Minister of Environment and Forests. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with Prime Minister's Office (PMO) seeking information regarding that news report. The Public Information Officer (PIO) PMO, Cabinet Secretariat andtheMinistry of Environment and Forest (MoEF),separately informed the appellant that there was no information available in respect of his queries. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the MoEF had nothing to do with the appointment of the Minister.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the PIO cannot validate the news item report. The CIC held that under the Constitution of India, the President of India appoints ministers at the sole prerogative of the Prime Minister and it is not for the PIO of one or the other establishments of the Government of India to speculate why a particular Minister is posted to any Ministry. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that none of the public authorities which had handled the RTI application have any information on these queries." +110,Seeking information regarding a government bungalow's occupation under RTI,,,[],REMANDED,,,"Comments + +What is required to be done by the Information Commission if an appeal is filed to it pointing out that there is conflicting information from different public authorities?","Seeking information regarding a government bungalow's occupation under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with theCentral public works department (CPWD) seeking detailed information regarding a news item about a government bungalow's occupation, unauthorized structures, rent, various permissions and authorizations. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the points raised in the RTI application do not concern CPWD. The appellant stated that to avoid giving information, the respondent has sent copies of the RTI application to various departments as mandated by section 5(4) of the RTI Act without any coordination. This has resulted in waste of public resources with the appellant getting no information. The respondent stated that CPWD is related to the bungalow maintenance, and the issues of allotment, rent recovery and other matters in the RTI application is not part of their work. The appellant argued that his RTI application was actually meant for the Directorate of Estates and that the various points need to be handled comprehensively, which can best be done by the Directorate of Estates functioning under the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD). The appellant also submitted that coordination among the different wings of MoUD is important to avoid confusion, for instance, he had been informed by the CPWD that the house in question was under occupation whereas the Directorate of Estates on the same issue had informed him that the house was un-allotted.","The Commission observed that the possibility for conflicting pieces of information from different wings of the government could not be ruled out. The Commission ruled that issues in the present RTI application have been addressed earlier by the Commission and directions given to the concerned public authorities. The points are not new; hence agitating the matter again through the present RTI application would not be appropriate. This is not a case for de novo adjudication. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that no further intervention is required at the level of the Commission. + +Comments + +What is required to be done by the Information Commission if an appeal is filed to it pointing out that there is conflicting information from different public authorities?" +111,Information about the quantum of land being held by the Delhi WAKF Board,Delhi Wakf Board,"the total hectares of land being held by the Delhi WAKF Board,the detail of number of Masjids and Madrassas under its jurisdiction, the number of employees and their salaries etc",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission also directed the PIO under the supervision and guidance of the competent Authority to disclose the complete information as it exists in their records on the concerned website of the Delhi WAKF Board as per provisions of section4(2)It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.of the RTI act.","Information about the quantum of land being held by the Delhi WAKF Board + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Wakf Board seeking information about the total hectares of land being held by the Delhi WAKF Board,the detail of number of Masjids and Madrassas under its jurisdiction, the number of employees and their salaries etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) providedsome information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), therespondent submitted that this information in hectares is not available in their records. The respondent also stated that the area on which various properties are situated are not available on record in several cases and a register is available in the office which contains areas of land on which some properties are situated. He also showed the willingness to allow the appellant to inspect the register to the appellant.","The Commission held that the information sought by the appellant is voluminous in nature and directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the said register so that the appellant can compile the information for himself. The Commission also directed the PIO under the supervision and guidance of the competent Authority to disclose the complete information as it exists in their records on the concerned website of the Delhi WAKF Board as per provisions of section4(2)It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.of the RTI act. + +Comments + +WAKF properties in many parts of the country have been in dispute for alleged mismanagement. Putting up the details of the same in public domain is likely to lead to a better administration of the same." +112,"Who authorizes the declaration of National Flag, National Tree, and National Fruit?",Ministry of Environment and Forest(MoEF),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed thatthat the MoEF may have some notification declaring the National River, National Fruit and the National Tree.The CIC directed the PIO that if they have any such notification, then he shouldsend a copy of that to the appellant.","Who authorizes the declaration of National Flag, National Tree, and National Fruit? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Environment and Forest(MoEF) seeking copies of those orders by which the Central government had declared the National Flag, National Tree, National Fruit etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed thatthat the MoEF may have some notification declaring the National River, National Fruit and the National Tree.The CIC directed the PIO that if they have any such notification, then he shouldsend a copy of that to the appellant." +113,Should inward and outward call lists of official phone be provided under RTI?,Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL),,"['8(1)(e)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC rejected the appeal stating that there is every possibility of certain call(s) being personal; hence, in the absence of any public interest the appellant’s contention cannot be sustained.","Should inward and outward call lists of official phone be provided under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) seeking the inward and outward call lists in respect of a particular telephone number for certain period. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to give the information under RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information is related to third party and is exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. Further, the appellant has not cited any public interest in seeking the information. The appellant argued that in a similar case the BSNL authorities have given him third party information and hence, MTNL should do likewise. He further contended that the telephone for which he is seeking the information is an official phone.","The Commission referred to two of its earlier decisions (Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/09/00329) and (Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000836) wherein it was held that the facility of telephone provided by a public authority to its employees was to facilitate their work. The installation, maintenance and the usage of these phones are financed by the public authority’s budget. Norms and guidelines have been provided covering the usage of the phone, especially about when the private use of the ‘phone was to be paid for by the employee. Such call details, where public as well as private calls are intertwined, cannot be provided to avoid invasion of privacy under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that there is every possibility of certain call(s) being personal; hence, in the absence of any public interest the appellant’s contention cannot be sustained. The appellant’s other argument that BSNL authorities have disclosed third party information and hence, MTNL should do likewise is without merit." +114,Seeking information regarding complaint against Reliance entities using RTI,Directorate of Prosecution,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Regarding the file notings on movement of the RTI petition, the Commission directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant file and provide him with the file noting/any other document identified by him thereafter.","Seeking information regarding complaint against Reliance entities using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Prosecution seeking to know whether any legal opinion was sought by the Economic Offenses Wing, Delhi Police from the Directorate of Prosecution in respect of the complaint filed by him against Reliance Money Limited, Reliance Securities Limited, Reliance Capital Limited and Reliance Commodities Limited. He also sought the file notings on every aspect of the RTI petition and on the movement of the RTI petition. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the case file of the matter was received in the Prosecution Branch for legal opinion and after examining the matter, the file was returned to the investigating agency and the office does not have the copy of the said matter.On the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO provided some additional information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), theappellant stated that the PIO had not provided complete reply in compliance with the FAA’s order. The appellant also alleged that there had been a delay in transferring the RTI application to the PIO of Delhi Police. The respondent stated that the appellant has already been informed that the concerned file was returned to the Delhi Police and that the details of movement of file were provided to the appellant.","The Commission held that since information is not available with the Directorate of Prosecution, no point specific reply can be authorized for disclosure by the Commission. However, the CIC directed the PIO, Directorate of Prosecution to furnish an affidavit affirming the fact that the file(s) have been returned to the Delhi Police and that no further information is available in the records of the Directorate of Prosecution. The Commission also noted that the PIO, Directorate of Prosecution had transferred the RTI Application to the Delhi Police after a delay of nearly a month from the receipt of the RTI application. A show cause notice was issued to the PIO, Directorate of Prosecution by the CIC to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for obstructing the supply of information by violating section 6(3) of the RTI Act which stipulates that such transfer should take place within 5 days of receipt of the RTI application. Regarding the file notings on movement of the RTI petition, the Commission directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant file and provide him with the file noting/any other document identified by him thereafter." +115,How is the work distributed between the MoEF of centre and state?,Ministry of Environment and Forest(MoEF),if it was the responsibility of the Central Government to implement the standard of providing six big trees for every human being in order to fulfill his oxygen needs,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant a copy of the relevant extracts from the allocation of business rules listing the items of subjects falling within the domain of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.,"How is the work distributed between the MoEF of centre and state? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Environment and Forest(MoEF) seekingvariety of information such as the nature of the work distribution between the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Central Government and the counterpart department in the State Government. He also wanted to know if it was the responsibility of the Central Government to implement the standard of providing six big trees for every human being in order to fulfill his oxygen needs. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant expressed his dissatisfaction that his queries had not been properly answered. The Commission observed that most of queries were beyond the purview of the RTI Act. The CIC held that it is the Constitution of India which clearly lays down the list of subjects falling in the respective domain of the Central and State Governments; it is not for the Ministry to advise any citizen in this regard. Regarding the other query, the CIC noted that it is a purely presumptive question based on the personal opinion of the information seeker. The PIO cannot be expected to manufacture information for the pleasure of the appellant. The Commission also held that the type of queries made by the appellant shows complete lack of clarity or specificity in his articulation.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant a copy of the relevant extracts from the allocation of business rules listing the items of subjects falling within the domain of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. +116,Report of bus accident prepared by the investigator of New India Assurance Company Limited,New India Assurance Company Limited(NIACL),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also held that the disclosure of the information would further the larger public interest of Administration of Justice.,"Report of bus accident prepared by the investigator of New India Assurance Company Limited + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the New India Assurance Company Limited(NIACL) seeking Investigation report of a particular case and other connected cases as prepared by the Public Authority pending before MACT. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the court/ police authorities are the holder of information and not the Public Authority. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant clarified that he is not seeking a copy of the police report but wishes to have a copy of the Investigators Report which was commissioned by the insurer. The appellant also submitted that many persons were hurt in the bus accident in which two persons died and the NIACL had appointed Investigator who prepared the report after visiting the homes of many victims. The respondent submitted that the MACT and other courts will only accept the police report and that the evidence value of the investigators report is minimal and therefore there is no larger public interest in the disclosure of this report that was commissioned by the insurer for their own use.",The Commission observed that the appellant is closely related to the matter as he is the legal counsel for the victims of the accident. TheCommission directed the PIOto provide the investigators report to the appellant. The CIC also held that the disclosure of the information would further the larger public interest of Administration of Justice. +117,PIO should give specific date to the applicant for inspection of records,Department of Revenue,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission dropped the penalty proceedings against the PIO.,"PIO should give specific date to the applicant for inspection of records + +Background: +The appellant had filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue seeking some information related to the service of Justice R.M.S Khandeparker, Ex. President of CESTAT from the date of appointment till the date of his retirement. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information after the inspection done by the appellant of the relevant file. The Central Information Commission (CIC) issued show cause notice to the Public Information Officer (PIO) for not providing the sought information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the second hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the file was inspected repeatedly by the RTI applicant on various dates under various RTI applications. The respondent also submitted the details of the inspection and copies supplied to the appellant. The respondent further submitted that the applicant has filed many RTI applications and he visits the department on regular basis for inspection, therefore, he was offered inspection of relevant file on his next date of visit. The appellant submitted that the entire file was not made available to him for inspection only certain pages were made available to him for inspection.","The Commission observed that while inviting the appellant for inspection it would have been appropriate to give a certain date of inspection rather than stating that the appellant may inspect the file on his next visit. The Commission held that there do not seem to be malafide intention of the PIO in doing so and the information has already provided to the appellant. The Commission dropped the penalty proceedings against the PIO. + +Comments + +This site recommends that 2 to 3 alternative dates may be provided by the PIO for inspection of records. This would show the sincerity on the part of the PIO and also avoid unnecessary correspondence in case the applicant is unable to come for inspection on a particular day." +118,Demanding for the details of staff working at IIM Indore through RTI,"Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Indore",staff working in IIM Indore,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) concurred with the decision of the PIO/FAA and directed the PIO to provide inspection of the concerned records to the appellant.,"Demanding for the details of staff working at IIM Indore through RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Indore seeking information relating to staff working in IIM Indore. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that information on several of the queries was available on their website and in respect of others information, he observed that it was voluminous and would require compilation which would disproportionately divert the resources of the Institute. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) offered inspection of documents to the appellant which was not availed by him.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) concurred with the decision of the PIO/FAA and directed the PIO to provide inspection of the concerned records to the appellant. + +Comment + +It is seen that on many occasions, the RTI applicants seek information which is not specific. Such applications are a drain on the public time and money. Asking for information which is huge and vaguely worded should be avoided." +119,Should the copy of RTI application be enclosed while filing the second appeal?,South East Central Railway,the food being served in 2nd and 3rd AC coaches including the officials to whom complaint can be lodged in the event the food is not up to the mark etc,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission observed that since the appellant has enclosed the wrong RTI application, the Commission is constrained to dismiss the instant appeal.","Should the copy of RTI application be enclosed while filing the second appeal? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the South East Central Railway seeking information about the food being served in 2nd and 3rd AC coaches including the officials to whom complaint can be lodged in the event the food is not up to the mark etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information while enclosing copies of some relevant documents. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the CIC noted that the appellant has enclosed the wrong RTI Application. The appellant stated that the PIO’s and the FAA’s replies that were enclosed by him pertained to another RTI Application in which he sought information in respect of duties of GRP in reserved coaches. The Commission held that the original RTI application is not available in the records, hence they were not able to adjudicate on this matter. The respondent stated that complete information as available in the records has been furnished to the appellant and that no further information on the subject matter is available in their records.","The Commission observed that since the appellant has enclosed the wrong RTI application, the Commission is constrained to dismiss the instant appeal. + +Comments + +If a document has been wrongly enclosed by the appellant, shouldn’t he be given an opportunity to make an amendment? As per the Right to Information Rules, 2012 (Link:http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/RTIRules2012dated31July2012.pdf), “No appeal shall be dismissed only on the ground that it has not been made in the specified format if it is accompanied by document as specified in rule 8”." +120,Disclosure of the details of top 100 defaulters of the Bank,Canara Bank,"top huge loan defaulters, copy of the audit report conducted by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) during a certain period and action taken report submitted by the bank to RBI","['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(e)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the approach of the bank was in conformity with the RTI Act.,"Disclosure of the details of top 100 defaulters of the Bank + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Canara Bank seeking information about top huge loan defaulters, copy of the audit report conducted by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) during a certain period and action taken report submitted by the bank to RBI. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information to the appellant under section 8(1)(d), section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent referred to an earlier decision of the Commission (in Appeal No. CIC/PB/A/2007/01082) wherein it was held that a onetime settlement arrived at by the bank in respect of a Nonperforming Account was a matter of commercial confidence and the bank was under no obligation to disclose such information. The respondent also referred to Commission's another decision (No.451/IC (A)/2006 F.No. CIC/MA/A/2006/00511), in which it was held that for effective management and recovery of loans for which the Bank is responsible, if any lapses are detected in the audit reports, it is not necessary for a citizen to scrutinize such action.",The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the approach of the bank was in conformity with the RTI Act. +121,Using RTI to obtain the details of text and picture messages received from a mobile number,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),whether there is any exemption from disclosure of such information under the RTI Act,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the information requested by the appellant is not available in the records.,"Using RTI to obtain the details of text and picture messages received from a mobile number + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking details of text and picture messages received from a particular number to his mobile. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a response to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that technically it is not possible to extract any information relating to text and picture messages from the system. He further clarified that even CDR relating to the above period cannot be provided as the preservation period for such information is only one year. The appellant wanted to know whether there is any exemption from disclosure of such information under the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that there is no bar in disclosing the information, if available in the system.",The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the information requested by the appellant is not available in the records. +122,Should information about employees who were removed from service be revealed?,,employees who were imposed with penalty of compulsory retirement or were removed from service,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission upheld the decision of respondent and rejected the appeal.,"Should information about employees who were removed from service be revealed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with Canara Bank seeking information about employees who were imposed with penalty of compulsory retirement or were removed from service. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded to the RTI application. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant had sought information about the details of various personnel in the bank who have been penalized with the punishment of removal of service or dismissal or who have been compulsory retired during the period specified. The respondent stated that the appellant also wanted to know about the gratuity that was paid to the employees and any other settlement with the employees along with the details of any forfeiture of the benefits consequent to disciplinary proceedings. The respondent further stated that this information was personal and confidential hence it was denied under the pertinent clauses of the RTI Act. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.",The Commission upheld the decision of respondent and rejected the appeal. +123,Reasons for charging extra premium on insurance policy was sought,Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC),the reasons for charging extra premium from her,"['8(1)(e)', '8(1)(d)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC directed the PIO to provide attested photo copies of the documents to the appellant, after severing the names of the medical referees as per section10(1)Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.of the RTI Act.","Reasons for charging extra premium on insurance policy was sought + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking information regarding the reasons for charging extra premium from her. She desired the copy of letter/ remarks of the Zonal/ Divisional referees addressed to LIC, which they have given the advice with detailed reasoning to charge CL II health extra based on the test reports of ECG and CTMT submitted by the panel doctors of the Corporation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that what has been sought by the appellant does not fall under the definition of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The First Appellate authority (FAA) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that she had the right to know the recorded reasons on the basis of which the insurer had taken decision to increase the premium in respect of insurance policy even though her health parameters as shown by the ECG report and tracing and CTMT report summary are clearly within the normal limits.","The Commission observed that the applicant has the right to access information which pertains to her own health status. The Commission held that the formula/ calculations on the basis of which the figure of higher premium had been arrived at certainly falls within the exemption clause of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act but it has not been sought by the appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to provide attested photo copies of the documents to the appellant, after severing the names of the medical referees as per section10(1)Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.of the RTI Act." +124,Seeking Income Tax details of a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) using RTI,Income Tax (IT) Department,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +The order of the CIC calls for interesting observations:-","Seeking Income Tax details of a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) Department seeking to know the income tax paid by a particular Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), Aligarh City for certain period. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the Permanent Account Number (PAN) of said person was not available and hence, the requested information cannot be supplied.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the view taken by the PIO could not be approved, as in a small city the MLA is an important person. If he is an income tax assessee, then it is not difficult for the PIO to trace his PAN Card number. The Commission directed the PIO to trace the PAN and then take a decision as to whether requested information is to be supplied or not under the law. The CIC also held that the appellant can exercise his right under section 19 of the RTI Act for filing appeals as per law if he is not satisfied with the decision of thePIO. + +Comments + +The order of the CIC calls for interesting observations:-" +125,Does the third party have a veto in case of RTI application seeking information about it?,All India Council,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission ordered that a fresh notice may be issued to the Trust under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act and it may be asked to take a decision as to whether it is agreeable to the disclosure of the requested information and then the PIO should decide the matter as per law.","Does the third party have a veto in case of RTI application seeking information about it? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) seeking the list of Engineering Colleges and Technical Institutions belonging to the Veltech Group of Institutions and its deemed universities which have been given AICTE and University Grant Commission (UGC) approvals. The appellant also wanted some more information in respect of each of these Institutions. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the list of the Institutions of the Trust to the appellant. Regarding the rest of the information the PIO issued a notice to the Trust under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act. The Secretary of the Trust denied the information stating that the related issue was pending before the State Government of Tamil Nadu and details of properties held by the private trust are not available for public.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the response of the Trust cannot be said to be a proper response under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act. The Trust seems to have virtually decided the case on behalf of the PIO, ACITE. The CIC observed that a notice was issued to the Trust for intimating its views as to whether it was agreeable to the disclosure of the requested information. Instead of saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’, the Trust usurped the authority of PIO. The Commission ordered that a fresh notice may be issued to the Trust under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act and it may be asked to take a decision as to whether it is agreeable to the disclosure of the requested information and then the PIO should decide the matter as per law. + +Comments + +A PIO is expected to take into account the submissions of a third party before deciding a case. But, the third party does not have the right to veto the decision, the PIO should use his judgment based on facts on record." +126,Should Universities provide copy of research theses under RTI?,Jawahar Lal Nehru University (JLNU),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC ruled that the appellant has liberty to visit the Central Library to consult these dissertations’.,"Should Universities provide copy of research theses under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Jawahar Lal Nehru University (JLNU) seeking information regarding M.Phil, Ph.D. and D.Lit degree awarded to various scholars in Sanskrit etc. He also wanted the copies of the theses submitted by the scholars.The Public Information Officer (PIO) supplied the list of scholars who were awarded M.Phil and Ph.D degrees. Regarding the D.Lit degree he informed the appellant that no such degree has been awarded to anyone. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that it is not possible to supply copies of the theses to the appellant as this would put undue strain on the resources of the University. The respondent also stated that they have no objection to give inspection of the theses to the appellant in their Central Library on a mutually convenient date and time.",The Commission held that it was not practical possible to supply copies of such a large number of dissertations’ to the appellant. These dissertations were maintained at the Universities for consultation by successive generation on scholars. The CIC ruled that the appellant has liberty to visit the Central Library to consult these dissertations’. +127,Can an Income Tax assessee seek copies of documents said to be in his possession?,Income Tax department (IT),,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to furnish details of the seized documents which pertain to the period prior to dissolution of the firm.,"Can an Income Tax assessee seek copies of documents said to be in his possession? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax department (IT) seeking list of books of account and other records seized by the IT department during a raid on a particular Woolen Mills in 1993. The Public Information Officer (PIO) observed that during the course of search proceedings, a copy of the panchnama is provided to the assessee stating details of seizures. As such the appellant is already in possession of the same and seeking information under the RTI Act would amount to diversion of public resources disproportionately. Hence the information was denied under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the said firm was dissolved as per his notice dated 12.5.1993 and IT authorities conducted search in the premises in October 1993.  He also clarified that the details sought by him are in the custody of other partners and no documents are available with him. The appellant also stated that he needed the information for the case pending in Ludhiana court.",The Commission observed that the information sought by the appellant can be classified under two categories as the documents pertaining to the period before dissolution and after dissolution of the firm. The CIC directed the PIO to furnish details of the seized documents which pertain to the period prior to dissolution of the firm. +128,Who regulates the private courier companies in the country?,Department of Posts (DoP),whether they are required to be registered with the post offices,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to confirm the aforesaid in writing to the appellant.,"Who regulates the private courier companies in the country? + +Background: +The appellant claimed that a large number of illegal courier agencies are operating in Delhi which accepts the goods of the dealers /retailers / whole sellers. At these agencies, the goods for delivery are under billed or fake bills are produced and in some cases there is no bill and there is huge loss to the exchequer. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Posts (DoP) seeking information regarding such illegal agencies such as whether any action has been taken by the department for huge loss incurred to the State exchequer, whether any survey has been conducted by the department to eradicate such menace at the instant/behest of the courier company etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not give any information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that there are a number of illegal courier companies operating in Delhi and he wanted to know whether they are required to be registered with the post offices. The PIO stated that the post offices are not the competent authority for registering and regulating courier companies and this would be to the appellant also.",The Commission directed the PIO to confirm the aforesaid in writing to the appellant. +129,Application filed under RTI is valid only if it is accompanied by the application fee,Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD),laptop ‘Akash’ Project and the matters related there-with,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the delay stands explained and the requisite information has already been supplied to the appellant.,"Application filed under RTI is valid only if it is accompanied by the application fee + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) seeking information about laptop ‘Akash’ Project and the matters related there-with. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. The appellant claimed that the PIO had not responded within the prescribed time frame and filed the second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC). + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the RTI application was not accompanied by the requisite fee and only when the fee was deposited by the appellant the application was duly responded to and that there has been no delay.",The Commission observed that a citizen acquires the legal right to seek information only if his RTI application is accompanied by the requisite fee and non-deposition of fee disentitles him from seeking information. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the delay stands explained and the requisite information has already been supplied to the appellant. +130,The level of the roads seems to be rising over the years – Should the residents suffer?,East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Further, a copy of the orders issued by the three MCD Commissioners in regard to the computerization and digitization of the old permanent record will also be provided to the Commission.","The level of the roads seems to be rising over the years – Should the residents suffer? + +Background: +The adjunct case was discussing in the case in which the appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) seeking copy of the approved sanction plan of property. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the said document is not traceable but they have been able trace out the sanction plan of another property, which was approved around the same time as the appellant's property in 1970. The PIO presented the file and showed to the original sanction plan in respect of this property, and also provided to the appellant. Further the Assistant Engineer (B) stated that he had submitted note to his superior officers, highlighting the problems arising on account of raising of road level. In his note, the officer highlighted the plight of those house owners who construct their houses while adhering to the minimum prescribed mandatory plinth height but are made to suffer when the surrounding road is raised by the concerned public authorities. As a consequence, the plinth height as measured from the road level is reduced due to no fault of the house owners leading to demolition orders as this deficiency is neither permissible nor compoundable.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the sincere efforts have been made for locating the information but it cannot be denied that due to poor record management, the file holding the sanctioned building plan of the appellant’s property is not traceable even though it is part of permanent record. After viewing the condition of the files pertaining to 1970 which have been brought before the it, the CIC noted that the records are in a state of complete disintegration. The CIC strongly recommend in terms of section 19(8)(a)(iv) of the RTI Act that special funds for digitizing the old permanent record of the three MCDs be made available for conducting special drive for computerization. In view of the larger public interest in the issue that has come to light during the hearing pertaining to the unauthorized raising of roads while carpeting/ repairing to the detriment of the house owners (as this causes flooding of houses), the CIC asked for a copy of the final outcome of the proposal mooted by the AE/ Building Plan – II and current status of the proposal. The Commission directed the PIO that a copy of this order should be marked to the Commissioners of the three MCDs so that the issues that have come to the fore in the present hearing also pass through their eyes. Further, a copy of the orders issued by the three MCD Commissioners in regard to the computerization and digitization of the old permanent record will also be provided to the Commission. + +Comments + +All over the country, the house owners who construct their houses while adhering to the minimum prescribed mandatory plinth height are facing this problem of rising road levels. They suffer when the surrounding road is raised by the concerned municipal corporation. This calls for a review of the whole process of repair and maintenance of roads." +131,Forum of Information Commission should not be used for settling personal scores,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,This Commission rejected the appeal stating that the CIC cannot be allowed to be used as a forum for settling personal scores.,"Forum of Information Commission should not be used for settling personal scores + +Background: +The appellant had made a representation to the Defence Minister of India making allegations against the Chief Administrative Officer, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences (INMAS), regarding his involvement in corrupt practices etc. and seeking reasons for his continued posting in INMAS for almost 10 years. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with theDefence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) seeking to know the action taken on his representation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) referred to an earlier decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) regarding a similar RTI application, (Appeal No. CIC/LS/A/2012/001804), wherein it was held that the appellant was not seeking information but was articulating his grievance.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has leveled allegations of corruption against the said officer and he is not seeking any information, besides the allegations were not accompanied by any evidence. This Commission rejected the appeal stating that the CIC cannot be allowed to be used as a forum for settling personal scores." +132,Are the details of physically handicapped government employees liable to be disclosed under RTI?,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to furnish the details to the appellant without disclosing the nature of disability of the employees.,"Are the details of physically handicapped government employees liable to be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking to know the names and nature of disabilities of handicapped employees of BSNL Nellore District who have been getting the facilities of Professional Tax Exemption, double rate of transport allowance etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information while denying the rest under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the appellant has asked for various personal information regarding physically handicapped employees who have been provided various concessions as per laid down guidelines. The Commission asked the respondent as to how the disclosure of name, designation, post and place of posting is covered by the said exemption. The PIO agreed to furnish the information, excluding the details sought in nature of disability.",The CIC directed the PIO to furnish the details to the appellant without disclosing the nature of disability of the employees. +133,Can a “token” penalty be imposed on the PIO under the RTI Act?,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,25000.0,,The Commission imposed a token penalty of Rs 500/- on the PIO.,"Can a “token” penalty be imposed on the PIO under the RTI Act? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with theCentral Government Health Scheme (CGHS) seeking some information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any response to the appellant. On the directions of the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO provided a response to the RTI application. The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIO for not providing the information within the stipulated period. + +Proceedings + +During the show cause hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the representative of the PIO submitted that the RTI application was not addressed to the relevant quarters and it reached the PIO’s desk after a long journey.","The Commission noted that even after receiving the application, the PIO did not respond to it post haste. He responded only after receipt of notice from the Commission. The CIC held that it is not a case where full penalty of Rs 25,000/- should be imposed on the PIO and the ends of justice would be met by a token penalty. The Commission imposed a token penalty of Rs 500/- on the PIO. + +Comments + +The only provision in the RTI Act under which penalty can be imposed on a PIO is section 20 which talks of a penalty of 250/- for each day of dealy." +134,Are the records of Rajya Sabha Secretariat catalogued and indexed?,Rajya Sabha Secretariat,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC ruled that there is no further information to be disclosed by the PIO to the appellant.,"Are the records of Rajya Sabha Secretariat catalogued and indexed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat seeking to know the kind of data maintained by the Rajya Sabha secretariat in compliance of section4(1)(a)Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;of the RTI Act and if no such record was being maintained, he wanted the reason as per the section4(1)(d)Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that most of the work of the Rajya Sabha Secretariat was being done on computers and that much of this information was also being uploaded in the Rajya Sabha website.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that as per section4(1)(a)Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;, every public authority should publish the list of all the files and records along with the subject of each of these so that the information seekers find it easy to identify the exact record they need. The CIC held that appellant has misunderstood the implication of this particular provision; no public authority is required to maintain any specific data relating to this provision. Instead, it is expected to manage its data by properly cataloguing and indexing it with a view to facilitating the right to information. Computerisation of the records is only a means to achieve the goal of better management of records so that the retrieval and publication of information is made easy. The Commission noted that from the response of the PIO, it is not clear if the Rajya Sabha secretariat has catalogued and indexed all its files and records. The CIC held that the Rajya Sabha Secretariat must publish the list of all its files along with the broad subject matter in its website and keep updating it, from time to time. The CIC directed the PIO to place this order before the competent authority in the Rajya Sabha Secretariat to initiate action in this regard at the earliest and upload the catalogue of all the files and records in its possession. Regarding the compliance of the provisions of section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;and section4(1)(d)Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons., the CIC held that this provision requires all public authorities to record and convey the reasons for their administrative and quasi-judicial decisions to the affected persons and there is nothing for the PIO to do in it. The CIC ruled that there is no further information to be disclosed by the PIO to the appellant. + +Comments + +This order raises a very pertinent question – If the public authority does not record and convey the reasons for their administrative and quasi-judicial decisions to the affected persons, who is the responsible for ensuring its implementation responsible? What steps are needed to ensure compliance of the provisions of the RTI Act?" +135,Can details of complainant and enquiry report be disclosed to the RTI applicant?,Income Tax (IT) department,the complaints made against him and copy of the enquiry report,"['8(1)(j)', '8(1)(g)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal holding that information has been correctly denied under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","Can details of complainant and enquiry report be disclosed to the RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) department seeking information about the complaints made against him and copy of the enquiry report. The Public Information Officer (PIO) declined the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the decision of the PIO and denied the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act stating that if the names of the complainant are disclosed to the appellant, their personal safety may be jeopardized. The appellant as well as the public authority did not attend the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC).","The Commission referred to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court (Bihar Public Service CommissionVs Sayed Hussain Abbas Rizvi; Link -http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/BiharPublicServiceCommission-v-SaiyedHussainAbbasRizwiDec20121358759307.pdf) wherein it was held that names of the interviewers or the Members of the Interview Board cannot be disclosed as doing so, would expose them to danger to their lives or physical safety. Besides, it would hamper them in effective performance and discharge of their duties as examiners. The CIC ruled that disclosure of names of the complainants would expose them to danger to their lives and physical safety. It will also be inhibited in filing complaints in future thereby depriving the Income Tax Department of a potent source of information which may adversely affect the revenues of the State. The Commission rejected the appeal holding that information has been correctly denied under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act." +136,Refusal to receive the RTI applications due to incomplete address on the envelopes,East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC),the work orders and lap certificates of all jobs done by the Corporation for certain period,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected all the three appeals stating that the appellant has failed to annex the correct order of the FAA and thus it was not possible to adjudicate upon the matter.,"Refusal to receive the RTI applications due to incomplete address on the envelopes + +Background: +The appellant filed three applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) seeking information pertaining to the work orders and lap certificates of all jobs done by the Corporation for certain period. He also sought to do core testing of the materials used. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any response to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the three RTI applications referred to by the appellant had not been received by them. The appellant produced the three envelopes vide which the RTI applications had been sent to the PIOs and stated that the same had been returned back to him by the postal authorities with the statement that an official of the Department has refused to receive the same. The respondent stated that the address written on the envelopes is incomplete and the full designation of the PIO was not given. The respondent further stated that the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), which has been annexed by the applicant with second appeal, did not pertain to the three RTI applications which were being heard by the Commission.",The Commission observed that the website of the MCD displays the full designation of the PIOs and the appellant has erred in not providing the correct address on the envelopes of his RTI application. All three envelopes were opened in the presence of the Commission and it was confirmed that these three RTI applications were never delivered to the respondent nor did the appellant deposit the prescribed fees. The CIC rejected all the three appeals stating that the appellant has failed to annex the correct order of the FAA and thus it was not possible to adjudicate upon the matter. +137,Can the age of beneficiaries of the Old age pension schemes be disclosed?,North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the respondent to provide the information regarding the age of beneficiaries of the Old age pension schemes to the appellant for the said period.,"Can the age of beneficiaries of the Old age pension schemes be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) seeking details in respect beneficiaries of the Old Age Pension including widows pension and physically challenged person beneficiaries of different categories in Ward No. 9 (years 2011 and 2012). The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that information regarding age of the beneficiaries of the Old age pension scheme has still not been provided. The respondent submitted that the information is not available in collated manner with the Public Authority regarding the age of the beneficiaries of the Old age pension scheme and hence it would not be possible to provide it to the appellant.",The Commission observed that the information has to be available with the Public Authority regarding the age of the beneficiaries of the Old age pension scheme because the age is the minimal criteria in granting the pension under this scheme. The CIC directed the respondent to provide the information regarding the age of beneficiaries of the Old age pension schemes to the appellant for the said period. +138,DU asks the applicant to seek answer scripts as per their guidelines,University of Delhi,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal.,"DU asks the applicant to seek answer scripts as per their guidelines + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the University of Delhi seeking copies of answer sheets of the five papers of LLB first year and a copy of his representation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the University had issued two notifications giving guidelines for obtaining copy of evaluated answer script. The appellant was advised to contact OSD, Controller of Examinations for obtaining copy of the evaluated answer sheets. The PIO also asked the appellant to deposit Rs.12/- for providing the rest of the information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant questioned the legality of Rs. 750/- per answer script when as per the RTI Act the fee prescribed is Rs 2/- per page.","The Commission observed that as per the section2(j)“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; +(iii) taking certified samples of material; +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;of the RTI Act, the Right to Information means the Right of Information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to information. The CIC also referred to another case which has been dealt with by the High Court of Delhi (in the case of Registrar of Companies and Others Vs Dharmendra Kumar Garg) wherein it was held that information in respect of which there is a statutory mechanism evolved (independent of the RTI Act) which obliges the public authority to share the same with the citizenry by following the prescribed procedures and upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions, cannot be said to be information which is held by or under the control of any public authority. The CIC rejected the appeal. + +Comments + +As per section22The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.of the RTI Act, the provisions of the RTI Act shall have effect if there is any inconsistency between the RTI Act and any other law. Can a huge difference in the fee demanded not be termed as an ‘inconsistency’? Giving freedom to different public authorities to fix the fee is bound to give rise to confusion and appears to be against the spirit of transparency for which the RTI Act stands." +139,Can PIO deny the information by simply stating that the information is not available?,National Saving Institute,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The CIC also held that if any of the information is not available for any particular reason, the PIO has to clearly state so and provide a copy of the relevant record retention schedule as well as the document showing the destruction of the respective record.","Can PIO deny the information by simply stating that the information is not available? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Saving Institute seeking two sets of information. In first set, he wanted information regarding certain observations made by the CAT and the recruitment rules for various posts. In the second set, he sought information relating to the proposal for making changes to the recruitment rules as well as to the demands made by the Department to the 4th and 5th Pay Commission in respect of certain posts. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the information for first set of queries. Regarding the second set the PIO denied the information stating that the information was not available. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that all the information had not been provided to him and the PIO had deliberately suppressed much of this information. He also claimed that the copy of an appointment order which was provided to him was not legible. The respondent submitted that he had scrupulously called for all the available records from the respective sections and had sent the copies of all those records to the appellant.","The Commission noted that some of the queries of the appellant do not come in the purview of the RTI Act. He had cited some observation by the CAT and expected the PIO to find out the details of the matter and inform him about it. The CIC further observed that the appellant had sought clarification on how joint seniority could be maintained on the basis of some recruitment rule, such queries cannot be addressed by the PIO under RTI for its outside his remit to offer clarifications or comments on issues. The CIC however, noted that there is merit in his objection to the fact that a number of information has been denied to him by a simple statement that it is not available. The CIC ruled that if any record is not available in any public authority, there must be some reason for it and if the records have been weeded out because of passage of time, the PIO must clearly state so giving the date for such destruction and also citing the relevant record retention guidelines. The CIC directed the PIO to provide a more legible copy of the appointment order along with the copies of the letters/notes mentioned in the some queries in his RTI application. The CIC also held that if any of the information is not available for any particular reason, the PIO has to clearly state so and provide a copy of the relevant record retention schedule as well as the document showing the destruction of the respective record." +140,"Is a time barred appeal liable to be rejected, if no reasons for delay are given?",State Bank of India (SBI),,"['8(1)(j)', '8(1)(d)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC rejected the appeal observing that in the absence of any supportive documents to show any sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing the appeal in time, it will be appropriate to consider that the first appeal was time barred.","Is a time barred appeal liable to be rejected, if no reasons for delay are given? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking copies of register of RTI applications for a particular period and list of RTI applications seeking information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was time barred and that no reasonable ground was given by the appellant for delay in filing the first appeal. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the information sought by the appellant contained the names and addresses of other persons, therefore the information was denied under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the Act. They further submitted that the FAA dismissed the first appeal because the appellant had filed it after 6 months from the date of order of the PIO and therefore it was time barred and not maintainable. The respondent also added that no ground was given by the appellant for the delay in filing the first appeal.","The Commission observed that the second appeal was filed against the order of the FAA dismissing the first appeal being time barred. The CIC rejected the appeal observing that in the absence of any supportive documents to show any sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing the appeal in time, it will be appropriate to consider that the first appeal was time barred. + +Comments + +An appellant should be careful about the time limit for filing an appeal to the FAA which is 30 days. Unless there is justifiable reason, the FAA can reject the appeal under the RTI Act" +141,Can the information regarding under trial case be disclosed to the accused?,Delhi Police,a case in which he was an under trial,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide requested information to the appellant.,"Can the information regarding under trial case be disclosed to the accused? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information pertaining to a case in which he was an under trial. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the case is pending trial in the Tis Hazari Court and the requisite information could not be provided under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act as providing the same would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The First Appellate authority (FAA) upheld the reply of the PIO and observed that the appellant is accused in the said case and the case is pending trial so the appellant can obtain the certified copy of the said case from the concerned Tis Hazari Court.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the respondent have not explained how the disclosure of the requested information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The CIC directed the PIO to provide requested information to the appellant. + +Comments + +It is seen very often that the PIO/ FAA fail to issue a speaking order which becomes unsustainable at the level of the higher judicial fora." +142,Are the audit reports of commercial entities liable to be disclosed under RTI?,State Bank of India (SBI),a fraud in a particular branch of the bank,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal holding that no further action in the matter is required.,"Are the audit reports of commercial entities liable to be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information relating to a fraud in a particular branch of the bank. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the audit report of commercial entities was exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act and hence the information cannot be provided.","The Commission observed that the approach taken by the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act. The CIC rejected the appeal holding that no further action in the matter is required. + +Comments + +A plea of public interest may be sustainable in a few such cases." +143,Should a wife be permitted to inspect the service book of her husband under RTI?,Income Tax (IT) Department,whether her husband had sought permission of the competent authority before a second marriage with another lady,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to offer inspection of the service book and other personal records of appellant’s husband to her.,"Should a wife be permitted to inspect the service book of her husband under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant was the wife of an Income Tax (IT) Inspector. She filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) Department seeking to know whether her name had been mentioned as wife in the service book of her husband. She also wanted to know whether her husband had sought permission of the competent authority before a second marriage with another lady. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the appellant that her husband had not mentioned the name of anyone as his wife in the service book and that her husband had not sought permission from the department for the second marriage.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the appellant is legally wedded wife and therefore cannot be treated as third party. The CIC directed the PIO to offer inspection of the service book and other personal records of appellant’s husband to her. +144,CIC directs Department of Revenue to ensure compliance of section 4(2) of the RTI act,Department of Revenue,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"The CIC also issued the show cause notice to the PIO, All Collector of Stamps for not complying with the order of the FAA.","CIC directs Department of Revenue to ensure compliance of section 4(2) of the RTI act + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue seeking particulars of the ‘FAQ’ that have been uploaded on the concerned website. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the application to the SDMII (HQ). The SDMII (HQ) provided the reply in respect of some points and for remaining points, the RTI application was further transferred to All Collector of Stamp of Revenue District, New Delhi. The appellant thereafter received replies from different PIOs. Not satisfied with the replies, the appellant filed second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC) requesting the Commission to direct the public authorities to display the norms prescribed and required formalities on the notice boards of each SDM Offices, and to provide precise copy of the FAQ. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the purpose of his appeal is to ensure that the Revenue Department puts up all the information related to registration of instruments executed out of India given in section18(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,- +(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be; +(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act; +(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under this Act; +(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable; +(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and +(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and section 33(c) of the Registration Act, 1908 along with the procedures / documents required to be submitted by the general public to get such documents registered in the SDM’s office etc. The appellant also stated that the said information should be uploaded on their website in pursuance of section 4 of the RTI Act as it was in public interest.","The Commission directed the PIO/SDM (HQ) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to consult with the competent authority and place the information sought by the appellant in respect of all 9 Revenue districts, on the website of the public authority. The CIC also held that in case the information or part thereof attracts any exemption clause as given in section 8(1) of the RTI Act, the FAA would not put up that piece of information on the website. In that case the FAA has to formally inform the appellant the reasons for not placing the information on the website. The CIC also issued the show cause notice to the PIO, All Collector of Stamps for not complying with the order of the FAA." +145,Is the National Heart Institute Hospital a charitable organisation?,Income Tax (IT),National Heart Institute Hospital,"['8(1)(e)', '8(1)(j)']",PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO for failure to provide a response to the appellant in the wake of the directions of the FAA.,"Is the National Heart Institute Hospital a charitable organisation? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) seeking information relating to National Heart Institute Hospital. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the sought information was related with the third party and he sent notice under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act. The third party clarified that they are not carrying on any commercial activity and requested the PIO not to disclose any information to the appellant. The PIO denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that the appellant wanted to know whether the National Heart Institute Hospital is registered as a charitable hospital or not. He directed the PIO to disclose as to whether the above entity is filing its returns of income as a charitable Trust or not, without disclosing details of the returns filed. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC) the appellant submitted that he has not received any information from the PIO even after the directions of FAA. He further submitted that a penalty should be imposed on the PIO for failure to provide information. The public authority did not attend the hearing.","The Commission observed that the PIO has failed to provide a specific response to the orders of the FAA, thereby showing a complete disregard for the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO for failure to provide a response to the appellant in the wake of the directions of the FAA." +146,Can one of the legal heirs seek information about a joint bank account?,State Bank of India (SBI),a joint account in which her husband was one of the account holders,['8(1)(j)'],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC held that the order of the FAA will hold till the appellant establishes herself to be the successor and legal heir in the present context in conformity with the pertinent rules.,"Can one of the legal heirs seek information about a joint bank account? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information on a joint account in which her husband was one of the account holders. She wanted to know the details of some withdrawals from the account after her husband’s death and related issues. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that a surviving joint account holder through a lawyer has asked the bank not to divulge information about this account to anyone. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that her husband had passed away and as the legal heir, she wanted to get the name of the person who had withdrawn the sum mentioned in the RTI application and the reason for making the withdrawal as shown in the withdrawal slip. The respondent stated that they denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act and they received a letter from an advocate representing the joint account holders that the information was not to be given to anyone. The appellant stated that she had provided various documents to support her right to get the information to the respondent. The respondent stated that there appears to be a family dispute and that it is the relatives of the appellant’s husband who are the joint account holders and the appellant was not an account holder in that account. The respondent also said that the appellant has not provided the succession certificate establishing the appellant as the legal heir. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that the account is operated jointly with the mode of operation as any one account holder or survivor. After the death of first account holder, the account will be operated by surviving joint account holders. As if the surviving joint account holders do not give consent, the information cannot be furnished to any other person.",The Commission noted that the surviving joint account holder through the lawyer has already requested the branch not to divulge any information regarding the account. The CIC held that the order of the FAA will hold till the appellant establishes herself to be the successor and legal heir in the present context in conformity with the pertinent rules. +147,Should the name of women employee who files a complaint of sexual harassment be disclosed?,North Western Railway,,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"For a contrary view, please refer tohttp://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/details-sexual-harassment-complaints-bhu-was-soughThere is a need to maintain harmonious view on the issue and a consistent stand should be taken by the CIC.","Should the name of women employee who files a complaint of sexual harassment be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Western Railway seeking information related to women officials in various Divisions of NW Railway as also action taken on a letter written by him and other employees to the General Manager. He also wanted the names of the women employees who had lodged complaints about being sexually harassed. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the information. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant once again approached the Commission stating that the decision of the Commission has not been complied with. + +Proceedings + +During the second hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the number of women employees in the Jaipur Division and the names of 3 women employees who had filed complaints were provided to the appellant. The respondent further stated that the details regarding the name, designation etc. of women employees were not furnished as the same were not available in a compiled form. The respondent also submitted that RTI application was transferred to other divisions by the HQ and that she is not aware whether information has been supplied by them or not to the appellant.","The Commission directed the PIO, Jaipur division to allow the appellant to inspect the records pertaining to the details of women staff, so that he can compile the information for himself. The Commission however, held that the copies of the complaints cannot be provided under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act as they are personal in nature and that the disclosure of the information has no relation to any public interest or activity. The Commission also directed the PIO, North Western Railway HQ to transfer the RTI application to all other Divisions of NW Rly along with a copy of this order directing the concerned PIOs to furnish the information. + +Comments + +The different benches of the CIC are taking different views on identical issues. For a contrary view, please refer tohttp://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/details-sexual-harassment-complaints-bhu-was-soughThere is a need to maintain harmonious view on the issue and a consistent stand should be taken by the CIC." +148,CIC issues show cause notice to the PIO for providing irrelevant information,Directorate of Education,issues related to selection of cricket teams in zone no,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The CIC also directed the PIO to provide complete point wise information to the appellant as sought in the RTI application.,"CIC issues show cause notice to the PIO for providing irrelevant information + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Education seeking information on issues related to selection of cricket teams in zone no. 28 and the details of Education Officers in all zones under Central District. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the name of the Education Officer, Zone 27 and informed the appellant that the remaining points pertain to sports branch. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO, DDE to provide the details of officers to the applicant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that information was provided to the appellant in compliance with the orders of the First Appellate Authority.","The Commission observed that the information provided by the PIO was totally irrelevant to the information sought by the appellant since the PIO had responded to 10 points whereas the appellant had sought information only against five points in the RTI application. The CIC issued show cause notice to the PIO, DDE for the irresponsible way in which irrelevant information was furnished to the appellant thereby obstructing the supply of information. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide complete point wise information to the appellant as sought in the RTI application." +149,Can the RTI Act be used to direct the Public Authority to act or not to act in a particular way?,Delhi Police,action taken by the Police on alleged unauthorized construction at forty places within the jurisdiction of various police stations of North East District,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC rejected the appeal stating that only information as defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;can be provided under the RTI Act.","Can the RTI Act be used to direct the Public Authority to act or not to act in a particular way? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information regarding action taken by the Police on alleged unauthorized construction at forty places within the jurisdiction of various police stations of North East District. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that sincere efforts were made to trace out the addresses but the properties could not be identified due to wrong addresses provided. The PIO also explained that when any construction is carried out, the concerned Civil Agency is informed and it is the duty of the MCD/ Civil Agency to check the construction site as to whether the construction is as per sanctioned plan or otherwise. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that as per section 466A of DMC Act, unauthorized constructions are a cognizable offence and the CrPC shall apply for the purpose of investigation. The respondent submitted that requisite information has been provided by them to the appellant.","The Commission held that the RTI Act could not be used to direct the Public Authority to act or not to act in a particular way. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that only information as defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;can be provided under the RTI Act." +150,Details of sexual harassment complaints at BHU was sought under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission however, directed the PIO to provide statistical data and guidelines of the University regarding such complaints.","Details of sexual harassment complaints at BHU was sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with theBanaras Hindu University (BHU) seeking someinformation relating to details of sexual harassment complaints. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that information in respect of some queries would be provided by Deputy Registrar (RAC) and Member Secretary, Complaints Committee Cell. The PIO also asked the appellant to deposit Rs. 2 /- as photocopying charges for rest of the information. On directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Deputy Registrar provided a response to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that no response has been provided to some of the queries. The Deputy Register submitted that they have not provided the information as it involved disclosure of names of girl students and names of persons against whom complaints have been filed and also quoted CIC decision in this connection.","The Commission concurred with the submissions of the Deputy Register regarding non-disclosure of names of girl students and names of persons against whom complaints have been filed. The Commission however, directed the PIO to provide statistical data and guidelines of the University regarding such complaints." +151,"Seeking details of educational loan given to students from IIT, IIM, AIIMS, PGIMS from bank",Bank of Baroda,"the students from IIT, IIM, AIIMS, PGIMS who had applied for educational loan",[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comments + +On many occasions it has been observed that a public authority tends to collect information when an application is filed to them.","Seeking details of educational loan given to students from IIT, IIM, AIIMS, PGIMS from bank + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bank of Baroda seeking information about the students from IIT, IIM, AIIMS, PGIMS who had applied for educational loan. He wanted to know as to how many students were finally selected with amount distributed and how many were rejected along with reasons. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent explained that the information sought was not available with the Bank in any consolidated form and that it would need to be collected from the various branches of the bank spread all over India. The respondent also informed that collecting such information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority [section 7(9)]. The respondent further stated that the bank has acted in accordance with the RTI Act and no further action is required to be done in the matter.","The Commission agreed with the response of the respondent and rejected the appeal observing that no intervention is required in the matter. + +Comments + +On many occasions it has been observed that a public authority tends to collect information when an application is filed to them. This is not required, as depicted in the case above, as per the letter and spirit of the RTI Act." +152,Has a particular assessee filed income tax return for a certain period?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to inform to the appellant as to whether the assesse in question has filed the Income Tax Returns for the impugned years without disclosing any other information.,"Has a particular assessee filed income tax return for a certain period? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Income-Tax (Systems) seeking to know whether a particular assessee had filed his Income Tax Returns (ITR) for certain period, and if not, the action taken by the Department against the defaulter assesse. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that it was third party information.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant wanted to know whether a particular assesse has filed income tax returns for certain years or not and is not seeking copies of ITRs filed by the assesse. The CIC held that filing of Income Tax Return is a public duty and it legitimately falls in public domain. The Commission directed the PIO to inform to the appellant as to whether the assesse in question has filed the Income Tax Returns for the impugned years without disclosing any other information. +153,Should appellant seek information on a single issue only through one RTI application?,Department of Revenue,proficiency of staff in Hindi in the office of SDM,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal holding that available information has been furnished to the appellant and that there is no need to authorize disclosure of any further information.,"Should appellant seek information on a single issue only through one RTI application? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue seeking information regarding proficiency of staff in Hindi in the office of SDM. He also sought information about action taken by SDM in respect of stopping smoking of cigarettes in public places and sealing of factories. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the applicant. + +Proceedings + +The appellant as well as the respondents did not attend the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC). The Commission adjudicated the matter based on submissions available on record.","The Commission observed that the appellant has sought miscellaneous information against queries that do not have any common thread running through them. He has sought 4 categories of information totally unrelated to each other which makes it rather difficult for the PIO to provide easily. The CIC advised the appellant to seek information on a single issue so that the PIO is able to easily furnish the information within the stipulated time period. The Commission also noted that the appellant has not bothered to specify what information is required by him, even while filing the second appeal. The Commission rejected the appeal holding that available information has been furnished to the appellant and that there is no need to authorize disclosure of any further information. + +Comments + +As per the provisions of the RTI Act, there is no bar on the number of subjects about which information can be sought by the applicant through one application." +154,List of defaulters of bank and the correspondence regarding settlement reached with them,State Bank of India (SBI),the list of defaulters and the correspondence which the Public Authority has had in this regard and the settlements reached along with note sheets and legal opinion obtained by the bank,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the reply of the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act and there is no need to intervene in the matter.,"List of defaulters of bank and the correspondence regarding settlement reached with them + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking certified copies of various documents in respect of certain branch managers posted in a branch of the bank at Indore. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated he had sought information about the list of defaulters and the correspondence which the Public Authority has had in this regard and the settlements reached along with note sheets and legal opinion obtained by the bank. The respondent stated that whatever information was available with them that have been provided. The respondent elaborated that the loans of Rs.5 crores and above are in the public domain in keeping with the banking guidelines. He further stated that the RTI application was vague and lacked specific issues in some of the queries as well it was of the presumptive and hypothetical nature. The appellant stated that the appellant’s invoking the exemption from disclosure clauses is on the basis of wrong interpretation of the law and that he expected the bank to provide complete information on the list of defaulters, correspondence and settlement. The respondent stated that the manner in which the bank addresses NPA issues involve an elaborate decision making process in which the bank uses their understanding to arrive at balanced conclusions on where to press for dues realization and where to go for OTS. The respondent stated that the confidentiality maintained is as per banking norms. The respondent also stated that the responses provided to the appellant are quite detailed and appropriate.",The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the reply of the respondent is in conformity with the RTI Act and there is no need to intervene in the matter. +155,Does the Lok Sabha website contain correct information about the MPs?,Lok Sabha Secretariat,the composition of the Lok Sabha from the very beginning,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission observed that if the Lok Sabha website has been updated with all incorrect entries suitably amended, the PIO should also advise the appellant to revisit the Lok Sabha website and find out the details.","Does the Lok Sabha website contain correct information about the MPs? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Lok Sabha Secretariat seeking information relating to the composition of the Lok Sabha from the very beginning. The Public Information Officer (PIO) referred the appellant to the Lok Sabha website to find out about the details of the composition of each Lok Sabha. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that as per the advice of the PIO, he visited the Lok Sabha website and found that a lot of wrong information was uploaded there in which the reservation status of the Members of Parliament (MPs) from various constituencies had been wrongly entered. The respondent agreed that there could have been some mistakes which were later corrected.","The Commission observed that it is the Election Commission (EC) which is responsible for publishing the final list of MPs elected at the end of an election process against various constituencies including the reserved ones and the PIO should have transferred the request to the Election Commission. The Lok Sabha secretariat has a specific section dedicated to preparing the information about the MPs and publishing it through their website. The Commission held that much time has been already wasted thus the application should not be transferred to the EC now. The CIC directed the PIO, Lok Sabha secretariat to provide a copy of the notifications issued by the EC containing the list of all the candidates elected as MPs from various constituencies for the period such notifications. The Commission observed that if the Lok Sabha website has been updated with all incorrect entries suitably amended, the PIO should also advise the appellant to revisit the Lok Sabha website and find out the details." +156,List of officers working in sensitive posts who have exceeded the stipulated tenure of three years,Southern Railway,whether any other name has been left out erroneously in the same manner,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to furnish an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the appellant affirming his position that name of no other official holding a sensitive post and exceeding a tenure of 3 years has been left out.,"List of officers working in sensitive posts who have exceeded the stipulated tenure of three years + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Southern Railway seeking information about the officers working in sensitive posts in Chennai Division and who had exceeded the stipulated tenure of three years, thereby violating the directions given by Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), from their date of posting in the last seven years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided information to the applicant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that while furnishing the information, the PIO had withheld the name of one of the official deliberately. The PIO also submitted that FAA had covered up this omission by stating that the name was erroneously left out. The appellant wanted to know whether any other name has been left out erroneously in the same manner. He requested that he should be provided with an affidavit by the Public Authority confirming the fact that name of no other official has been left apart from those furnished to him.",The Commission directed the PIO to furnish an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the appellant affirming his position that name of no other official holding a sensitive post and exceeding a tenure of 3 years has been left out. +157,Information about insurance case pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC),"some insurance policies of his son, issued during the period 1996 – 2004",['8(1)(j)'],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,A show cause notice was issued to the PIO by the CIC for not having provided information to the appellant within the timeframe prescribed under the RTI Act.,"Information about insurance case pending before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission + +Background: +The appellant’s son had been abducted and killed. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking information pertaining to some insurance policies of his son, issued during the period 1996 – 2004. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that the case was pending before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) provided the documents to the appellant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the PIO had respond after some delay and has not explained the applicability of the exemption provision invoked by him. A show cause notice was issued to the PIO by the CIC for not having provided information to the appellant within the timeframe prescribed under the RTI Act. +158,Contact details of the office where the work undertaken by the Property Dealers is registered,Department of Industries,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also noted that no information is available for authorization for disclosure.,"Contact details of the office where the work undertaken by the Property Dealers is registered + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Industries seeking the name and contact details of the government office wherein the work that has been undertaken by the Property Dealers is being registered. The RTI application was transferred to PIO, Firms & Societies and also to the ADM HQ O/o the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi. The Public Information Officer (PIO), Firms & Societies stated that the information sought in the RTI application does not pertain to the Firms & Societies office and hence no such information is available in the office. The appellant filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC) stating that the PIO, Firms & Societies has not given the details of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) because of which he could not file the first appeal.","The Commission observed that the appellant is not seeking any information but has grievance that the PIO has failed to provide details of the FAA. The Commission held that not providing details of the FAA by the PIO in his reply would be construed as violation of the provisions under section 7(3)(b) of the RTI Act. The CIC warned the PIO to be more careful while responding to RTI applications. The Commission also noted that no information is available for authorization for disclosure. + +Comments + +It may happen that the RTI applicant is not satisfied with the information provided by the PIO even though the PIO might have provided all the available information. Therefore, a PIO should always provide the details of the FAA irrespective of whether the information is provided or not." +159,Should government introduce RTI stamps for payment of fee under RTI?,Indian Statistical Institute (ISI),the resignation of the former Union Finance Minister from the post of Chairman of ISI,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission held that they could only forward a copy of the order to the Secretary, DoPT and Secretary, Department of Posts so that the suggestion made by the appellant can be examined.","Should government introduce RTI stamps for payment of fee under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) seeking information pertaining to the resignation of the former Union Finance Minister from the post of Chairman of ISI. The Public Information Officer (PIO) returned the IPO attached with the RTI application to the appellant stating that it was not drawn in favour of ISI and requested to resubmit fresh IPO/DD drawn in favour of Indian Statistical Institute. The appellant filed a complaint under section 18 of RTI Act with the Central Information Commission (CIC). + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before the CIC, the appellant objected to the non-acceptance of the IPO by the public authority and stated that as per the rules, the public authorities were bound to accept all IPOs in the name of the accounts officer of the public authority. The appellant further submitted that he has already received the requested information through another RTI application and wishes to close the matter by recommending the CIC, department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and Department of Posts, Government of India to examine the proposal to introduce RTI stamps (like revenue stamps) which will remove the harassment to RTI petitioners as well as heavy handling cost on postal orders.","The Commission held that they could only forward a copy of the order to the Secretary, DoPT and Secretary, Department of Posts so that the suggestion made by the appellant can be examined. + +Comments + +Unconfirmed reports have pointed to the fact that the government incurs a cost of nearly Rs 25 to 30 for ensuring that a postal order of Rs 10/- is cleared. A TI stamp or even a regular postal stamp would be a useful alternative mode for the payment of fees." +160,Who has the authority to exclude MPs from the boards of autonomous government institutions?,Rajya Sabha Secretariat,as to who has the authority to exclude MPs from such boards,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Regarding the notification issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, the CIC directed the PIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat to revisit the case and inform to the appellant if any action has been taken by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat on the intimation received from the Department of Pharmaceuticals and communicate the same to the appelant.","Who has the authority to exclude MPs from the boards of autonomous government institutions? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat seeking to know the details of the governing bodies of the autonomous government institutions to which Members of Parliament (MPs) were nominated by the Chairman of Rajya Sabha. He also wanted to know as to who has the authority to exclude MPs from such boards. He further referred to a particular notification issued by the Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers, Department of Pharmaceuticals and had wanted to get the copies of the file noting from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat in which concurrence had been given for issuing that notification. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the available information and clarified that they had no information about the authority which could exclude MPs from the boards of any autonomous government institutions. For the query regarding the notification issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, the PIO, Rajya Sabha Se retariat transferred the RTI application to the Department of Pharmaceuticals. The PIO, Department of Pharmaceuticals informed the Rajya Sabha secretariat that MPs could not represent on the board of this institution because, as held by the Ministry of Law, it would amount to holding an office of profit. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that since the Chairman, Rajya Sabha nominated MPs to a large number of boards, the decision of any particular ministry not to allow the nominated MPs to act on a particular board under that ministry should have the approval of the Chairman Rajya Sabha and hence this information should be furnished to him. The respondent submitted that they had no information in this regard.","The Commission observed that on the requisition of individual ministries, the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha nominates MPs to various boards and committees. The information regarding such nomination is available with the Rajya Sabha secretariat but if any ministry decided not to allow the nominated members to function on the board to which they have been nominated, it is that ministry which may have some information about the rationale of its decision. Regarding the notification issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, the CIC directed the PIO, Rajya Sabha Secretariat to revisit the case and inform to the appellant if any action has been taken by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat on the intimation received from the Department of Pharmaceuticals and communicate the same to the appelant." +161,Action taken on recommendation for admission in Springdale School,Lok Sabha Secretariat,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal ruling that there is no information to be disclosed in the case.,"Action taken on recommendation for admission in Springdale School + +Background: +The appellant claimed that the consultant to the Speaker of Lok Sabha had written a letter to the Principal of the Springdale School recommending admission of two students to that school. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Lok Sabha Secretariat seeking to know the action taken on that letter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that no action was required to be taken on that letter. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the said school had taken no action on this. The respondent stated that the Lok Sabha Secretariat had no information on this since there was nothing that it could do in the matter.","The Commission observed that a private school was not under any obligation to accede to such recommendations and such recommendations generate hope in the mind of the individual concerned that it would bear fruit and the school would admit the students. The CIC noted that private schools follow their own admission procedure, which is sometimes under the supervision of Superior Courts and therefore, no student can be admitted merely on the recommendation of some high level authority hence such recommendations should be disregarded. The Commission rejected the appeal ruling that there is no information to be disclosed in the case. + +Comments + +Private schools follow their own admission procedure. Should senior dignitaries write to private institutes to recommend the interest of an individual? Does such an action border on immoral or illegal behaviour?" +162,Can CIC conduct the hearing in absence of RTI applicant?,Rajya Sabha Secretariat,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission held that the PIO, EC had already offered to provide the copies of records to the appellant against payment of photocopying charges and if the appellant is interested in getting the information he should deposit the photocopying charges with the EC and get the copies of the relevant records.","Can CIC conduct the hearing in absence of RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat seeking information concerning the Presidential election which took place in 2012. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Rajya Sabha secretariat provided some information and transferred some of his queries to the Election Commission (EC) of India. The PIO, EC asked the appellant to deposit the photocopying charges so that they could provide the copies of 719 pages of the relevant records. The appellant however, did not deposit any photocopying charges and hence no information was disclosed. The First Appellate Authority (FAA), Rajya Sabha Secretariat held that if the appellant was not able to access the website of the Rajya Sabha where a number of information could be found, the PIO could provide him the hardcopy of that information. The appellant did put in any such express request. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant refused to make any submissions demanding that his case could not be explained on telephone. The respondent from EC submitted that it is the EC which is responsible for the Presidential election. The Secretary General of Rajya Sabha had been appointed by the EC as the Returning Officer in the last Presidential election. The respondent also submitted that when the election process completed, the records relating to the election of the President was transferred to the EC for safekeeping and most of the factual information relating to the queries of the appellant were available with the EC.","The Commission observed that the cases were mostly heard through video or audio conferencing wherever the parties live outside Delhi and if the appellant wanted to be present in person during the hearing, no body stopped him from appearing before the CIC. The CIC decided to go ahead with the hearing stating that the appellant chose not to appear in person. The Commission held that the PIO, EC had already offered to provide the copies of records to the appellant against payment of photocopying charges and if the appellant is interested in getting the information he should deposit the photocopying charges with the EC and get the copies of the relevant records." +163,Seeking details of MPs charged with rape and murder from the Lok Sabha/ Rajya Sabha secretariat,Rajya Sabha Secretariat and the Lok Sabha Secretariat,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC advised the appellant to visit the website and see for herself such details about the MPs of the present Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.,"Seeking details of MPs charged with rape and murder from the Lok Sabha/ Rajya Sabha secretariat + +Background: +The appellant filed two identical applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat and the Lok Sabha Secretariat seeking to know the details of the present Members of Parliament (MPs) charged with the offence of rape and murder. The Public Information Officers (PIO) informed that no such information was available with them. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that neither the Lok Sabha nor the Rajya Sabha maintained such information about the MPs and also had no knowledge about any other public authority having such information therefore they could not transfer the RTI application elsewhere.","The Commission observed that the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha secretariats are not maintaining such details about their MPs. The CIC also stated that at the time of the election, the candidates are required to file affidavits listing the criminal cases registered and pending against them and such affidavits are routinely uploaded on the website of Election Commission of India. The CIC advised the appellant to visit the website and see for herself such details about the MPs of the present Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha." +164,Should the applicants keep in mind the costs involved in compilation of the information?,Election Commission of India,if networking sites like Google,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no reason to interfere in the decision of the FAA.,"Should the applicants keep in mind the costs involved in compilation of the information? + +Background: +The appellant claimed himself to be a RTI activist and filed an elaborate application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Election Commission of India seeking huge amount of information pertaining to the elections to the State legislative assemblies in five states during 2012, such as, the pre and post voters list along with the address and the photo ID of each voter in all these five states.  He also wanted information regarding the use of EVMs such as whether there is any guarantee that the EVMs could not be manipulated by inserting virus or similar complex destructive programs. He also wanted to know if networking sites like Google.com, Rediff.com, Yahoo.com and Microsoft.com etc. played any role in the Commission's work and if the sites are friends of the Commission. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a lot of information which was readily available in recorded form. He also informed the appellant that the information sought by him was voluminous and had to be compiled and had the potential of disproportionately diverting the resources of the Election Commission [section 7(9)]. The PIO also stated that some of the queries of the appellant such as whether there is any guarantee that the EVMs could not be manipulated by inserting virus or similar complex destructive programs were beyond the purview of the RTI Act being totally impressionistic in nature.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) examined the contents of the RTI application, the reply given by the PIO and the order of the FAA and held that the PIO has already provided the available information. The CIC accepted the contentions of the PIO that some of the information, such as the list of voters along with their photo ID for all the five states which went into polls cannot be provided because of the volumes involved. The Commission observed that such information is already available in the relevant websites. The Commission further observed that this case is an example of how the RTI is being used without any concern for the costs involved in compilation of the information. This also illustrates how a serious right given to the citizens is being reduced to the level of a farce. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no reason to interfere in the decision of the FAA. + +Comments + +Some RTI applications require considerable patience and skill on the part of the PIO to make out much sense out of most of the so called questions." +165,Is over workload a reasonable cause for delay? Can PIO claim as a ground to escape penalty?,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,10000.0,10000.0,"Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act the CIC awarded a compensation of Rs.","Is over workload a reasonable cause for delay? Can PIO claim as a ground to escape penalty? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application u der the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking copy of the evaluated OMR sheet for the examination in which he had appeared. Even after the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) the Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide information to the appellant. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information and also issued a show cause notice to the PIO for not providing the desired information in time. Nearly 14 months after the appellant had filed the RTI application, the information was provided to him. + +Proceedings + +During the show cause hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that he had not been able to provide the information because of the huge volume of work he had to handle during the period being in charge of the confidential branch of the SSC. He explained that this branch dealt with very large number of examination related papers and extracting any specific answer sheet from the pile of documents was very time consuming if not impossible.","The Commission observed that the explanation of the PIO was not appropriate. The CIC held that even if it is assumed that the PIO had been making efforts to locate the answer sheet, he should have informed the information seeker about such efforts. The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the PIO for the delay in providing the information. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act the CIC awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant  for the detriment and harassment caused to him." +166,Can PIO respond to RTI application without giving any enclosures?,Delhi Police,a particular FIR in which five people were listed as accused,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also directed the PIO to provide complete status regarding bail to the accused of the case.,"Can PIO respond to RTI application without giving any enclosures? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information pertaining to a particular FIR in which five people were listed as accused. The appellant wanted to know who among the accused were released on anticipatory bail and the names of persons who executed the bail-bonds. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO has replied without providing any enclosures. He has not provided information on whether the aforementioned accused persons named in the FIR were granted anticipatory bail nor have they provided the name of persons who executed the bail bonds. The respondent stated that as per record, one person was arrested and released on bail. He also provided the name of the person who had given the surety of accused person. The respondent also stated that the investigation of the case is complete and challan has been filed in the Court and the complete case file is in the Women Court for judicial trial.","The Commission observed that the PIO has sent his reply without the enclosure, this action has caused delay in providing information to the appellant. The Commission cautioned the PIO to be more careful while dealing with the RTI matters. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide complete status regarding bail to the accused of the case." +167,Disciplinary action to be taken against PIO for willful acts of commission and omission,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,10000.0,10000.0,"Under section19 (8)(b) of the RTI Act, the CIC also awarded a compensation of  Rs.","Disciplinary action to be taken against PIO for willful acts of commission and omission + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking some information. On not receiving the information, he filed the first appeal and subsequently the second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC). The CIC directed the concerned Public Information Officer (PIO) to provide the information and also issued a show cause notice to the PIO for not providing the information in time. + +Proceedings + +During the show cause hearing, the PIO claimed that the original RTI application never reached him and that he came to know about it only after the First Appellate Authority (FAA) sent him a copy of the RTI application along with his order. He also submitted that after receiving the application he had searched for the information stored in the strong room of the SSC and after accessing the information he had provided it to the appellant. The PIO further stated that the FAA had forwarded several queries contained in the RTI application to the other office located in Chandigarh since the matter concerned that regional office but the officer concerned in that office took more than 4 months to write to the appellant. The concerned officer at Chandigarh, explained that did not received the RTI application from the FAA and he came to know about the application only when he received a reminder from the FAA.","The Commission observed that the explanation provided by the officer at Chandigarh appears to be an afterthought. It is most unlikely that neither the RTI application nor the order of the FAA forwarding therewith a copy of that application reached the Chandigarh office. The officer concerned is trying to use a clever ploy to avoid the imposition of any penalty by disowning the receipt of the RTI application itself in any manner. The CIC also stated that the communication received from the FAA might have been deliberately misplaced or destroyed to remove any trace of it and such a thing is reprehensible and goes completely against the spirit of the RTI Act. Under section20(2)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.of the RTI Act, the Commission directed the Chairman of the SSC to institute disciplinary action against the PIO concerned in the Chandigarh office of the SSC for willful acts of commission and omission in the case. The CIC further held that the appellant was deprived of the information for a very long period of time because of complete inaction on the part of the PIO both in the headquarters of the SSC as also in the Chandigarh office. Under section19 (8)(b) of the RTI Act, the CIC also awarded a compensation of  Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant for the detriment and harassment caused to him in the process." +168,Seeking the pit mouth of value of iron ore per tonne from IBM using RTI,Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM),,['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide a CD containing the entire data as received from the iron ore miners in various states for the months prior to the period for which the information has already been disclosed.,"Seeking the pit mouth of value of iron ore per tonne from IBM using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM), seeking information regarding the pit mouth of value of iron ore per tonne as declared by the leading iron ore miners in various states since August 2009 to July 2012 on the basis of which the average sale value was arrived at by the Indian Bureau of Mines for payment of ad valorem royalty. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. On the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO provided some information for the period July 2011 to July 2012. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant insisted that there was no reason why the entire information should not have been given to him. The respondent submitted that for the information pertaining to the period before July 2011, no compiled data was available and the information would have to be collated from the voluminous data received from several states. The respondent stated that the entire data was available electronically.","The Commission observed that if the data is available in electronic format, it can be copied in a CD and provided to the appellant for him to make sense of it. The CIC directed the PIO to provide a CD containing the entire data as received from the iron ore miners in various states for the months prior to the period for which the information has already been disclosed." +169,Are disciplinary proceedings against an individual liable to be called as personal?,Geological Survey of India (GSI),,"['8(1)(h)', '8(1)(j)']",PENALTY_IMPOSED,7500.0,,"The CIC however, imposed the penalty of Rs.7,500/-  on the PIO noting that he failed to give any reasonable reason for the delay of more than 30 days.","Are disciplinary proceedings against an individual liable to be called as personal? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Geological Survey of India (GSI) seeking copy of some enquiry report and copies of several other documents relating to disciplinary action against some officers and employees of GSI. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a response more than a month beyond the stipulated period and denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. Later, the enquiry report was provided to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to the Supreme Court order dated 3 October 2012 in the SLP(C) no. 27734 of 2012 (http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt/SCDecision.pdf) in which it has held that records and documents relating to disciplinary proceedings against a government employee cannot be ordinarily disclosed to any third party this being in the nature of personal information. The Commission rejected the appeal observing there is no further information to be disclosed in the case. The CIC however, imposed the penalty of Rs.7,500/-  on the PIO noting that he failed to give any reasonable reason for the delay of more than 30 days." +170,Is the audit report liable to be disclosed to an applicant seeking it under RTI?,Indian Audit and Accountants Department,,"['8(1)(e)', '8(1)(c)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the desired information as the entire body of correspondence and communications between the AG and the Coffee Board including all the Annexure and enclosure, if the respective final audit report has already been presented to the Parliament.","Is the audit report liable to be disclosed to an applicant seeking it under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant referred to some audit queries and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Audit and Accountants Department seeking to know whether the said audit queries had been partly or fully dropped and the justification for the same. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information claiming that the audit report was yet to be placed before the Parliament. He also claimed exemption under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act stating that the desired information was held in fiduciary capacity. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the audit team had noted many financial irregularities in the functioning of the Coffee Board and pointed out that if the audit inquiries had been dropped then it should be disclosed so that all the facts should come out in the public.","The Commission held that the Parliament and the State Legislature has the first right to see the audit report and thus the communications and correspondence exchanged between the audited entity and the AG should not be disclosed until the final audit report is placed before the Parliament or the State Legislature. The CIC observed that the disclosure of the contents of the audit report or the material which can form part of it before it is presented to the Parliament or the State Legislature, may cause a breach of privilege of the Parliament and the State Legislature hence such information was exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(c)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;of the RTI Act. The Commission further noted that once the final audit report is presented to the Parliament or the State Legislature then all the relevant documents including the audit inquiry /draft para and the reply given by the audited entity can be put in the public domain. The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the desired information as the entire body of correspondence and communications between the AG and the Coffee Board including all the Annexure and enclosure, if the respective final audit report has already been presented to the Parliament." +171,Can Directorate General of Income Tax deny information regarding complaint of tax evasion?,DGIT (Investigation),three complaints filed by him relating to tax evasion committed by certain people,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to apprise the appellant of the broad outcome of the investigation without giving any specific details.,"Can Directorate General of Income Tax deny information regarding complaint of tax evasion? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the DGIT (Investigation) seeking information regarding three complaints filed by him relating to tax evasion committed by certain people. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the Office of Directorate General of Income Tax (DGIT) (Investigation) is exempt from the purview of the RTI Act and rejected the request. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he has not been provided information in respect of the queries raised by him and alleged wrong doing on the part of the Public Authority. The PIO submitted that the Office of DG (Investigation) has been included in the second schedule of the RTI Act as Intelligence and Security organization and excluded from the purview of the RTI Act.","The Commission observed that though the Office of DGIT (Investigation) is an exempted organization, a blanket ban on disclosure of information regarding action taken on a tax evasion petition is not the best policy. The CIC held that some sort of feedback should be provided to the person who provides information. The Commission directed the PIO to apprise the appellant of the broad outcome of the investigation without giving any specific details." +172,Should the applicant provide the details of the person about whom information is sought?,Delhi Police,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal.,"Should the applicant provide the details of the person about whom information is sought? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking the documents submitted by a particular officer, posted in Special Cell based on which he was appointed in Delhi Police. He also wanted the documents signed by the said officer from the date of employment in Delhi Police till the current date. The Deputy Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi transferred the RTI application to Police Headquarter (PHQ). The Public Information Officer (PIO) requested the appellant to provide the PIS No., Belt No. and present place of posting of the said officer so that he may provide a proper reply. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant was not present to present his case. The PIO stated that no such officer as submitted by the appellant has been posted since November 2011 nor is presently working in Special Cell and for this reason the appellant was requested to give particulars of that officer in order to locate the person.",The Commission observed that appellant’s RTI application has been properly handled by the respondent and if the appellant desired for the information he ought to have provided some particulars to the PIO. The Commission rejected the appeal. +173,Using RTI to deal with the issue of excess fare charged on the train,Ministry of Railways,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +It is not understood who would deal with the issue of delay if the CIC expresses helplessness.","Using RTI to deal with the issue of excess fare charged on the train + +Background: +The appellant claimed that he was charged with excess fare on from Delhi to Jaipur while travelling in train, although he was only traveling till Rewari.  He also alleged that the TTE had demanded Rs.500/- and when the same was refused by him, the TTE issued the excess fare ticket. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Railways seeking copy of the relevant rule that allows the charging of such excess fare. The Public Information Officer (PIO) requested the applicant to send the IPO in favour of Pay and Account Officer, Railway Board. The applicant then filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stating that no information has been received despite paying the fee through correct IPO. Vide his second appeal, the appellant submitted that the Railway Board had informed him that the RTI application was sent to North West Railway, but the North West Railway had informed him that the letter was received by them without the RTI application. The Advisor (Freight Marketing) again informed the appellant that the copy of the RTI application is once again being sent to NWR for furnishing requisite information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had been informed that a memo has been issued to the TTE but a copy of the memo has not been supplied to him. He also argued that the information was supplied late. The respondent submitted that the letter did not contain the RTI application and that the same was received later on. Accordingly, the reply was furnished to the appellant within one month of receiving the RTI application.","The Commission directed the PIO, North West Railway to provide the copy of the memo to the appellant along with the information on any further action taken against the TTE. Regarding the delay in furnishing of information, the Commission held that they are not in a position to take a decision on the matter since the PIO, North West Railway received only the covering letter and that the RTI application was not enclosed along with the covering letter. + +Comments + +It is not understood who would deal with the issue of delay if the CIC expresses helplessness." +174,Applicant should specify time period for which information is sought,"UTI Infrastructure, Technology and Services Limited",,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the salary and allowances drawn by the particular employee for certain period.,"Applicant should specify time period for which information is sought + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the UTI Infrastructure, Technology and Services Limited seeking to know the salary and allowances drawn by his wife. He also wanted the details of the reimbursement of her medical bills and the bill for the education needs of the child. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that the sought information was personal in nature.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the salary details of an employee of any public authority must be placed in the public domain as mandated in section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the RTI Act. Such details cannot be claimed as personal information and hence are not exempted under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The CIC also held that the total amount of claims reimbursed against the medical bills and the child's education needs should disclosed without giving any further details only if there is any particular time frame for such information. The CIC noted that the appellant has not indicated any timeframe for the information and in the absence of any such reference to any particular period, the PIO cannot be expected to collate such information for the entire service period of the employee concerned. The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the salary and allowances drawn by the particular employee for certain period." +175,Issuance of Lal Dora certificate to villagers by Department of Revenue,Department of Revenue (DoR),whether these certificates were issued legally or otherwise since they have all been issued after 1983,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the FAA to provide a copy of the enquiry report along with action taken based on the outcome of the enquiry to the appellant.,"Issuance of Lal Dora certificate to villagers by Department of Revenue + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue (DoR) seeking information with respect to Lal dora/ Extended Abadi certificate in respect of Nathupura village. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided information to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed that the PIO already provided the reply and stated that the said village has been declared as Aabadi vide notification dated 18.11.83 and thus no Lal dora certificate can be issued for this village. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent clarified that no Lal Dora certificate has been issued in the said village after 1983 and therefore copies of such Lal Dora certificates pertaining to the years after 1983 could not be provided to the appellant. The appellant produced some Lal Dora certificates which were issued in year 1990 2001 and 2002 etc. to some individuals and wanted to know whether these certificates were issued legally or otherwise since they have all been issued after 1983. The respondent stated that he is not aware of issuance of any such certificates.","Under section18(2)Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.of the RTI Act, the Commission remitted the case to the FAA with the direction to enquire into the matter of issuance of Lal Dora certificates as contented by the appellant and to take appropriate action based on the outcome of the enquiry. The CIC also directed the appellant to share copies of the certificates produced with the FAA. The CIC directed the FAA to provide a copy of the enquiry report along with action taken based on the outcome of the enquiry to the appellant." +176,Disconnection of the electricity supply to a temple near RML hospital,New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC),restarting supply of electricity to the Shiva Temple in Kalibari lane,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission further ruled that the complaint of the appellant that the PIO had deliberately provided wrong information is unjustified since the Shiva Temple is situated right in the middle of the said Colony and there is no reason as to why the temple should be mentioned separately as it is a part of structures in the Colony.,"Disconnection of the electricity supply to a temple near RML hospital + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) seeking information on restarting supply of electricity to the Shiva Temple in Kalibari lane. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and stated that the electricity supply to the colony in which the temple is situated was disconnected at the request of DUSIB who in return had received a request from Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital for removal of that colony which was next to the hospital. The appellant stated that the NDMC had informed that the Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital had requested them to disconnect the electricity and water supply to the Temple and that when he sought information under RTI application from RML Hospital, he was informed that RML Hospital has not written any such letter requesting for disconnection of water and electricity supply to the temple and that they have no problem if the electricity supply to the temple is restored. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he had filed a first appeal at the same time as his complaint to the Commission and that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that the information sought pertains to disconnection of electricity to old Shiva Temple. It was informed that a perusal of the enclosed documents reveals that the issue was earlier dealt with by the Electricity Department and therefore C.E.(E) in his capacity as the FAA should deal with and dispose off the appeal under reference. The appellant argued that the PIO, NDMC has furnished wrong information to him when he stated that the electricity supply to the temple was cut off at the request of RML Hospital.","The Commission noted that the appellant has been provided with information but has not been furnished with copies of supporting documents within the mandatory time period. The Commission directed the PIO, NDMC to transfer the RTI application to the concerned PIO, DUSIB along with the direction to provide copy of the letter if received from RML Hospital requesting for disconnection of water and electricity supply to the temple in the said Colony and if no such letter has been received from RML Hospital mentioning the Shiva temple the PIO, DUSIB has to intimate accordingly to the appellant. The CIC also directed the PIO, NDMC to provide a copy of letter received from DUSIB requesting for disconnection of water and electricity supply to the said Colony; the NDMC Competent Authority’s order directing disconnection of water and electricity supply to the Jhuggi Jhopdi area along with copy of any communication, file notings etc. mentioning the Shiva Temple in particular. The Commission further ruled that the complaint of the appellant that the PIO had deliberately provided wrong information is unjustified since the Shiva Temple is situated right in the middle of the said Colony and there is no reason as to why the temple should be mentioned separately as it is a part of structures in the Colony." +177,Should CAG disclose the special audit report of National Technical Research Organization?,Director General of Audit (Central Expenditure),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission stated that there is no ground for disclosing any such information held or supplied by the NTRO.,"Should CAG disclose the special audit report of National Technical Research Organization? + +Background: +Referring to some special audit done by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of the office of the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO), the appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Director General of Audit (Central Expenditure) seeking some information including the details of the composition of the audit team. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that it is related to the NTRO which is an exempted organisation from the operation of the RTI Act under section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:and is placed in schedule II. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO had wrongly interpreted the provisions of section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:of the RTI Act. He argued that the information provided by an exempted organisation to another Central Government public authority may not be disclosed but the CAG was not a Central Government public authority being an independent Constitutional body. The CAG could not take cover under this provision and deny the information even if it had received the information from the NTRO. He also submitted that the PIO should disclose the information which had been exclusively generated in the office of the CAG. The respondents submitted that the CAG had audited the NTRO as a special case and as per the terms of an agreement between the two organisations, the report of the audit had been provided to the Secretary of the organisation and that it could not disclose the information relating to the special audit to anyone else. The appellant also invoked the proviso to section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:relating to the violation of human rights and demanded that the information should be disclosed as it related to the violation of his own human rights. He claimed that some newspaper had published certain reports allowing to the special audit and casting aspersions on him thereby causing hurt and humiliation.","The Commission observed that the RTI Act excludes certain organisations in a qualified manner and extends the exemption even to the information provided by such organisations to other government ministries and departments and agencies. The Commission ruled that the expression Central Government in section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:includes all public authorities which receive information from the organisations included in the Second Schedule. The CAG cannot be an exception and cannot be expected to disclose the information received from the exempted organisations like the NTRO. The Commission directed the PIO to revisit the relevant records and find out if there is any information which has been exclusively generated by the CAG in respect of the appellant’s queries and provide it. The CIC also ruled that the information provided by the NTRO should not be disclosed. + +The CIC further held that just because some newspaper had reported something disparaging about the appellant, it cannot be concluded that the NTRO could be held responsible for it. The allegation of human rights violation contemplated in this particular subsection should be against the exempted organisation. There is nothing to show that the NTRO or the CAG has caused any such violation. The Commission stated that there is no ground for disclosing any such information held or supplied by the NTRO." +178,Can PIO refuse to accept RTI application if higher fee is paid than that prescribed?,"Principal Accountant General, West Bengal",the recruitment of multitasking staff,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also advised the appellant to make a fresh application with the appropriate application fee if he is interested in the information.,"Can PIO refuse to accept RTI application if higher fee is paid than that prescribed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Principal Accountant General, West Bengal seeking information relating to the recruitment of multitasking staff. The Public Information Officer (PIO) returned the RTI application along with the IPO Stating that it was not drawn in favour of the Pay and Accounts Officer (Audit) and office of the Principal Accountant General (A&E). The PIO also advised him to reapply along with the appropriate application fee. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that they did not entertain the RTI application because the appellant failed to endorse the IPO in favour of the appropriate officer and sent an IPO Rs. 100/- instead of sending only Rs. 10.5/-.","The Commission held that the PIO should not have declined to accept the RTI application on such technical grounds as the public authority has not published in advance the exact manner in which the citizens must endorse the IPO. On visiting the website of the public authority, the Commission found that there is no mention of payment of application fee by IPO. The CIC ruled that the appellant cannot be faulted if he had no idea of how to endorse the IPO. The PIO has to provide the information and ask separately the information seeker to deposit the application fee in the appropriate manner. The CIC directed the PIO to bring this to the notice of his superiors in the office so that the departmental website is suitably modified to include the IPO as a way of depositing the application fee. The CIC also advised the appellant to make a fresh application with the appropriate application fee if he is interested in the information." +179,Failure to provide free medical care to EWS patients as per land allotment conditions,Directorate of Health Services (DoHS) requesting,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC however, held that the balance sheets of private hospitals is third party information and directed the PIO to follow the provisions under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act and thereafter take a decision on the matter after considering the submissions of third party.","Failure to provide free medical care to EWS patients as per land allotment conditions + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Health Services (DoHS) requesting for inspection of the hospital records related to registration and renewals of hospitals with the Delhi Government and the records related to the Committee formed as per order a particular High Court order. The Public Information Officer (PIO) requested the applicant to visit the DoHS to inspect the file pertaining to the renewals and registrations. He also provided point wise information against the remaining points. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the government agencies have allotted land for hospitals and that the allottees were expected in return to provide free medical care to EWS persons as per land allotment conditions. He requested for information on amounts to be recovered from Private Hospitals in this connection and the reasons for delay in recovery. The respondent explained that after the High Court had pronounced its judgment, the Public Authority had taken action to recover the money from the private hospitals. As part of this process, some Chartered Accountants (CA) have been identified for collecting the relevant information from the Private Hospitals so that the amount to be recovered from each hospital can be calculated. The respondent pointed out that the appellant has already inspected the relevant files and that he is still seeking soft copies of all the records related to private hospitals based on which the recoverable amounts are to be calculated as per Delhi HC decision. The appellant further clarified that he is seeking details of balance sheets submitted by the private hospitals to the CAs so that he can identify the expenses incurred by each hospital for providing free medical care to weaker section.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information regarding the amounts to be recovered from each hospital and calculations in a CD. The CIC however, held that the balance sheets of private hospitals is third party information and directed the PIO to follow the provisions under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act and thereafter take a decision on the matter after considering the submissions of third party." +180,When does the property become the “enemy” property?,Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property,some property belonging to a person who left for Pakistan in 1947,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission observed that if on perusal of additional documents which the appellant has agreed to submit, the PIO finds that the said property is enemy property, then the PIO should provide a point wise reply to the RTI application.","When does the property become the “enemy” property? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Office of the Custodian of Enemy Property for India seeking information regarding some property belonging to a person who left for Pakistan in 1947. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI application to the office of District Magistrate stating that such information is not available with the office. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that as the property is enemy property, the respondent must be in possession of the desired information. The respondent submitted that if a property is qualified to be enemy property only then it is declared as enemy property and the records pertaining to the said RTI application were not with them. The respondent also stated that the application was transferred to the office of District Magistrate and hence the appeal should also have been filed before the FAA for the office of District Magistrate. The appellant stated that the property mentioned in RTI application is related in some way to the property of Sh. Shawas Ali and the appellant can file some documents in relation to the same.","The Commission observed that if on perusal of additional documents which the appellant has agreed to submit, the PIO finds that the said property is enemy property, then the PIO should provide a point wise reply to the RTI application." +181,Does DDO of C&AG have powers to punish its employees without a disciplinary process?,Accountant General (AG),,['8(1)(j)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The CIC directed to provide the copy of the circulars/ guidelines/ office order authorizing the DDO to order NTP in respect of any employee, the copies of the file noting relating to NTP in respect of specific employees and the relevant notes sheets/file noting leading to the issue of circulars/office orders.","Does DDO of C&AG have powers to punish its employees without a disciplinary process? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Accountant General (AG) seeking the copy of rules/ regulations under which the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) can instruct not to make any payment to any particular employee. He also sought the copies of the file noting and orders relating to NTP (a form of punishment). The appellant further sought the copies of the file noting based on which three specific circulars/ office orders had been issued. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the DDO could at his sole discretion implement NTO in order to maintain discipline and decorum. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that the NTP was a management tool conventionally used to regulate unauthorized leave, insubordination, recovery of excess payment etc. which was totally the decision of the administrative authority and that it was used as a temporary measure. He also held that the file noting relating to the implementation of NTP in respect of the employees could not be disclosed under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The FAA disallowed the disclosure in respect of the file noting based on which three specific circulars/ office orders had been issued.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO and the FAA have contended that there is some form of punishment called NTP which the DDO can inflict on any errant employee to bring him to discipline. The CIC held that the disciplinary rules for Central Government employees including those working in the establishment of the C & AG do not propose any such punishment which the DDO can award to an employee at his sole discretion and there cannot be such an arbitrary provision under which a senior officer can withhold the salary of a subordinate for any length of time without going through the disciplinary process and without giving the employee concerned an opportunity of hearing. + +The CIC also observed that since the office of the AG is employing this conventional artifice to discipline the employees they must be having some set of rules, which must be provided to the appellant. The Commission further held that if this particular punishment has been inflicted on many individuals, there must be some order in file. Holding that there would be corresponding file noting in which the competent authority would have approved the issue of such circulars/ orders if any, the CIC directed the PIO to provide all the information to the appellant. The CIC directed to provide the copy of the circulars/ guidelines/ office order authorizing the DDO to order NTP in respect of any employee, the copies of the file noting relating to NTP in respect of specific employees and the relevant notes sheets/file noting leading to the issue of circulars/office orders." +182,Should the PIO calculate the interest payable on late payment of gratuity?,North Western Railway,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"However, the CIC directed the PIO to provide a copy of Rule available on record under which the payment of interest on late payment of gratuity in the cases like the one the appellant has mentioned is made by the public authority.","Should the PIO calculate the interest payable on late payment of gratuity? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Western Railway seeking to know the period for which the interest is payable on the late payment of gratuity to an employee who has been absolved of all the charges and declared not guilty. He also asked about his own case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the applicant that interest to him is payable for 21 days and also stated that the applicant has not been fully exonerated from the charges leveled against him.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that factual information has been communicated to the appellant. However, the CIC directed the PIO to provide a copy of Rule available on record under which the payment of interest on late payment of gratuity in the cases like the one the appellant has mentioned is made by the public authority. + +Comment + +Under RTI the PIO should provide the related documents and avoid giving any comments." +183,Seeking information regarding security guards and gunmen employed at BSNL using RTI,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),number of telephone exchanges in the Ghaziabad along with the complete details of Security Guards and Gunmen who were appointed by Security Agencies with their salary detail,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Regarding the details of ESI, EPF & DGA deductions from salary of the security guards, the CIC upheld the decision of the PIO stating that the same were exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act and the appellant has not cited any larger public interest to justify their disclosure.","Seeking information regarding security guards and gunmen employed at BSNL using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking information regarding number of telephone exchanges in the Ghaziabad along with the complete details of Security Guards and Gunmen who were appointed by Security Agencies with their salary detail. The appellant also wanted to know the details of some deductions (ESI, EPF, and DGA) which were being made from the salaries of Security Guards and Gunmen for a certain period with monthly detail. The appellant also sought the details of contractors i.e. the name of owner of the company along with their details of their tender and work order copies. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information requested was very voluminous and compiling the same would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Hence, the appellant can inspect the records and take whatever documents/information he needs. The PIO however denied the information relating to the details of salary allowances deductions under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that it is personal information and is related to third parties. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent reiterated the same position. He also submitted that the information relating to the number of telephone exchanges, number of security guards, names of the contractors and other readily available information will be furnished.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to furnish the information to the appellant. The CIC also held that if the appellant wanted to inspect the files he should be permitted to inspect and take photocopies/ extracts there from up to 25 pages. Regarding the details of ESI, EPF & DGA deductions from salary of the security guards, the CIC upheld the decision of the PIO stating that the same were exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act and the appellant has not cited any larger public interest to justify their disclosure." +184,Does govt. of India and Maharashtra government follow different rules for appointment in reserved categories?,Ministry of Civil Aviation (MCA) Commissioner of Railway Safety,percentage of reservation from Maharashtra List in appointment of Group ‘D” employees to SC/ ST/ OBC,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the FAA to provide specific information regarding the percentage quota of reservation for SC/ ST/ OBC from Maharashtra list as followed by their office to the appellant.,"Does govt. of India and Maharashtra government follow different rules for appointment in reserved categories? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MCA) Commissioner of Railway Safety seeking information regarding percentage of reservation from Maharashtra List in appointment of Group ‘D” employees to SC/ ST/ OBC. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that there is no such provision prescribed by Government of India in this regard. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) clarified that the State Government of Maharashtra List has been followed in all appointments made in the SC/ST/OBC Categories. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that his query regarding percentage of reservation from Maharashtra list has not been replied to by the FAA.",The Commission directed the FAA to provide specific information regarding the percentage quota of reservation for SC/ ST/ OBC from Maharashtra list as followed by their office to the appellant. +185,Inspection of records in respect of action taken on the complaint to Serious Fraud Investigation Office,Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO),,"['8(1)(h)', '8(1)(g)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal ruling that allowing inspection of the files at this stage would impede the process of investigation and prosecution of offenders as the matter is under active consideration/ investigation by the SFIO.,"Inspection of records in respect of action taken on the complaint to Serious Fraud Investigation Office + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) seeking inspection of records regarding action taken on the complaint against three firms. By notice through their counsel, information was also sought about the company from ICICI bank. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that no such complaint has been received by them and that no such information exists. He also informed that Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has never ordered any investigation in relation to the affairs of the aforesaid companies. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the decision of the PIO and further stated that case investigation/ inspection under section 235, 237 & 239 of the Companies Act 1956 were under progress and provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;and section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act get attracted. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that in compliance of directions of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, MCA has issued an order and a new team has been constituted and the investigation is being proceeded with. The respondent referred to a previous order of the Commission in the case of Muniraja G Vs. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, SFIO and stated that this case attracts the provision of section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;and8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.",The Commission rejected the appeal ruling that allowing inspection of the files at this stage would impede the process of investigation and prosecution of offenders as the matter is under active consideration/ investigation by the SFIO. +186,Can further fee be charged for taking consent of employees for supplying the information?,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),all existing concessional telephone connections and BSNL Broad Band facilities provided to working and retired employees of DoT/BSNL and etc,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"CIC/MA/A/2008/01085) and held that the fees as prescribed under section7(1)Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:and section7(5)Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed: +Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.of the RTI Act can only be charged and there is no provision for levy of any other further fee.","Can further fee be charged for taking consent of employees for supplying the information? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking information relating to all existing concessional telephone connections and BSNL Broad Band facilities provided to working and retired employees of DoT/BSNL and etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the desired information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the PIO had demanded an additional fee of Rs. 3375/- for taking consent of 151 employees/ ex-employees @Rs.25/- per employee for supply of information whereas there is no such provision under the RTI Act. The Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) stated that the appellant had given a particular format for supply of information and that they do not hold the information in the said format and compiling the same would have been very cumbersome and would have disproportionately diverted the resources of the public authority. The APIO admitted that the then PIO had erroneously demanded a fee of Rs.3375/- and the concessions in billing being provided to the employees/ ex-employees were as per extant rules and he would provide the name and the quantum of rebate allowed to each employee along with a copy of circular permitting such rebate.","The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the name and quantum of rebate being allowed to the employees/ ex-employees in billing (telephone & broadband) along with a copy of the relevant circular permitting such rebate to the appellant.  The Commission referred to its earlier full bench decision (order in appeal no. CIC/MA/A/2008/01085) and held that the fees as prescribed under section7(1)Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:and section7(5)Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed: +Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.of the RTI Act can only be charged and there is no provision for levy of any other further fee." +187,Are all the zonal offices of LIC supposed to provide same information to the same applicant separately?,,expenditure incurred in providing hospitality to the members of the external audit parties by the zonal offices by way of vouchers and the related file notings,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission also directed that prior to the inspection, the identified office will flag all the vouchers pertaining to the expenditure on the audit and inspection party for last one year.","Are all the zonal offices of LIC supposed to provide same information to the same applicant separately? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with various zonal offices and the head office of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking information pertaining to expenditure incurred in providing hospitality to the members of the external audit parties by the zonal offices by way of vouchers and the related file notings. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the information was not available in the format as requested and that they were not obliged under the RTI Act to expend their scarce resources on compiling and collating information that were scattered in many files. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the expenditure incurred on hospitality offered to the members of the audit parties was part of their entertainment expenditure and other miscellaneous expenditures. The respondent stated that this fall within the powers of the head of office in each of the departments and as no separate head of account/ list of such expenditure is maintained for this expenditure, the same could not be provided to the information seeker. The respondent provided data pertaining to the total income, net total income and total management expenses along with the entertainment expense ratio and miscellaneous expenses ratio for the certain years which is less than 0.04% of the total income. The respondent further submitted that the expenses incurred on the audit and inspection teams were nominal and also within the sanctioned budget by the competent authority and were petty in nature.","The Commission, in the larger context of transparency in public expenditure where certain amount of discretion is inbuilt, directed the appellant to identify any one of the offices at which he wishes to inspect the documents pertaining to the issue of his RTI application and identifies the same to the PIO, Head office. The CIC also directed the PIO to then fix a mutually convenient date and time within 2 weeks thereafter on which the appellant can visit the said office at his own expense and inspect the documents for two hours, free of cost. The Commission also directed that prior to the inspection, the identified office will flag all the vouchers pertaining to the expenditure on the audit and inspection party for last one year. This procedure will minimise the cost of 'collecting and collating' information to the public authority and will also meet the appellant's ultimate goal of suitably highlighting this matter so that in future all concerned will take adequate care to keep this expenditure at a reasonable level." +188,Is MTNL supposed to provide the records of incoming STD calls?,Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that as no records were available with the respondent regarding the incoming STD calls the same could not be furnished.,"Is MTNL supposed to provide the records of incoming STD calls? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) seeking incoming and outgoing STD Call details of a particular number. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the details of the outgoing STD calls and intimated that no details of incoming calls are maintained unless the telephone is kept under observation.",The Commission rejected the appeal observing that as no records were available with the respondent regarding the incoming STD calls the same could not be furnished. +189,Blank postal order – Does an application filed under RTI become invalid?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comment + +Readers may like to refer to another case in which a different view was taken by the Commission.","Blank postal order – Does an application filed under RTI become invalid? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) seeking some information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) returned the postal order sent by the appellant with the RTI application stating that the name of the payee had not been mentioned therein.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the postal order becomes a valid instrument only when it is made payable to a particular payee and that an application for information under the RTI Act becomes valid only when it is accompanied by a valid postal order. The CIC held that as the postal order did not contain the name of the payee hence the RTI Act cannot be said to have come into operation. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the grievance of the appellant is misconceived. + +Comment + +Readers may like to refer to another case in which a different view was taken by the Commission." +190,Should PIO speculate about the exact information that the information seeker needs?,Ministry of External Affairs (MEA),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal observing that there is no further information to be disclosed in the case.,"Should PIO speculate about the exact information that the information seeker needs? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) seeking varied information like the Transfer of Power documents; the documents entered between the Government of India and the UK in 1947; the status of the British Queen in India; the status of India in the Commonwealth of Nations etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information sought spans over a very long period of time and seeks to elicit information generally covering the entire transaction between the British and newly independent Government of India relating to its independence. The CIC held that the information seeker has to specify the information according to section 6(1) of the RTI Act and it is not for the PIO to speculate about the exact information that the information seeker needs. Accepting the contentions of the PIO that some of the information is not held centrally in a compiled form in the manner in which it has been sought and that collating the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the Ministry, the CIC observed that the appellant has not clarified as to why he finds the information provided by the PIO deficient or incomplete. In the absence of any such clarity, it was not sure what additional information needs to be disclosed. The Commission advised the appellant that if he has any specific information in his mind, he should approach the PIO again clearly stating the information he needs. + +The CIC also held that the query like what is the status of the British Queen in India is not only vague and does not yield any readymade information but is clearly outside the purview of the RTI Act. The Commission ruled that for the purpose of RTI, information denotes only an existing material record; it does not refer to any information or record to be created only to satisfy the immediate demand of the information seeker. The CIC rejected the appeal observing that there is no further information to be disclosed in the case." +191,Is restructuring of revenue districts a reasonable cause for delay?,Department of Revenue,action taken on his application regarding mutation of khasra in the Revenue estate of Village Massodpur in favour of the actual owners/ proprietors,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,25000.0,,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission imposed a maximum penalty of Rs.","Is restructuring of revenue districts a reasonable cause for delay? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue seeking information on action taken on his application regarding mutation of khasra in the Revenue estate of Village Massodpur in favour of the actual owners/ proprietors. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any information even after the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that he has brought the information with him to the hearing and with the permission of the Commission handed over the same to the appellant.  The Commission directed the appellant to review the information provided by the respondent during the hearing and to inform the PIO about any missing information that is still to be supplied to him. It was further directed that the PIO should furnish the information, if available on record. The Commission also directed the PIO to show cause as to why penalty under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.should not be imposed upon him for not responding to the RTI application within the mandatory period and for not complying with the order of the FAA. + +Proceedings + +During the show- cause hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant had not raised any further objection to the information provided during the first hearing, it reflects that information desired by the appellant had been provided to him. The respondent also submitted that that due to restructuring of revenue districts at that time, the information desired by the appellant was not readily available, which caused the delay. Moreover, the information sought by the appellant was mostly based on why, when where, whether and the reply of the same could not be provided under the RTI Act.","The Commission observed that ‘restructuring’ of revenue districts was carried out in the month of September, 2012 that is much later to the date of the appellant’s RTI application and the date of the order of the FAA. Thus, the explanation provided by the respondent is not acceptable and the same cannot be construed as ‘reasonable cause’ for not responding to the appellant. The CIC ruled that the PIO is a statutory authority under the RTI Act who is duty bound to adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act, especially the time limit, which is the key element in the RTI Act. The PIO could have provided an interim reply to the appellant which he did not and had thus failed to discharge his statutory duty. Further, the defiance of the order of the FAA by the PIO is highly objectionable. + +Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission imposed a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the PIO holding that the PIO has delayed/obstructed the supply of information to the appellant without any reasonable cause." +192,Disciplinary action recommended by CIC against the PIO for not following their orders,National Insurance Company Limited (NICL),,['8(1)(j)'],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Under section20(2)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.of the Act, the CIC recommended disciplinary action to be taken against the PIO under the service rules applicable to him.","Disciplinary action recommended by CIC against the PIO for not following their orders + +Background: +The appellant had filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Insurance Company Limited (NICL) seeking information regarding the third party such as the official relationship of the third party with his employer; name of his wife and children; their medical history and details of property against which house building advance was taken by the third party etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the information pertaining to the official relationship of the third party with his employer. However, under section 8(1)(j), the PIO denied the personal details like the name of the wife and children; their medical history and details of property against which house building advance was taken by the third party. The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal filed by the appellant against which the re-approached the Commission.","The Commission denied the disclosure of the information sought by the appellant stating that the Commission does not have the power to review its own decision and no new grounds have been brought forth by the appellant which could perhaps merit such reconsideration. + +The CIC, however, observed that the conduct of the PIO in this entire matter was unacceptable. The Commission had directed the PIO to bring before the Commission the record held by the public authority pertaining to the marital status and family composition of the third party. The PIO appeared before the Commission and presented an unattested photocopy of letter addressed to the public authority and signed by the third party pertaining to his marital status and did not bring before the Commission the complete original records in this regard. The Commission chided him for this disregard and wilful disobedience of the Commission’s directions given to him under Rule 11(ii) and Rule 11(iii) of RTI Rules, 2012 and directed the PIO to appear once again before the Commission along with the full and complete record. However after the hearing the PIO took these documents presented before the Commission with him. Subsequently, when this was discovered, the PIO was asked by the registry of the Commission to fax a copy of the very same letter. While acting on this direction, the PIO chose to convey slanted information to the third party who feared the disclosure of his personal information even prior to any decision of the Commission. The Commission held that such actions can only be described as 'mischievous' and unbecoming of a public servant. Under section20(2)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.of the Act, the CIC recommended disciplinary action to be taken against the PIO under the service rules applicable to him." +193,Are the details of income and assets of a person liable to be disclosed to his wife?,Income Tax (IT),"her husband’s monthly salary details, personal assets/ property details, Bank investments/savings and other sources of income","['8(1)(e)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission accepted the contentions of the PIO and rejected the appeal.,"Are the details of income and assets of a person liable to be disclosed to his wife? + +Background: +The appellant’s divorce proceedings were in process and the issue of and maintenance to be given by her husband was to be decided. In this relation she filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) seeking information regarding her husband’s monthly salary details, personal assets/ property details, Bank investments/savings and other sources of income. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the third party had objected to disclosure of information stating that it was personal information and that litigation was pending between him and his wife and as such disclosure of information was being sought with intention to harm him. The PIO denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that the information was held by the department in fiduciary capacity and was personal in  nature. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO referred to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande, to support his contentions. (Link -http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt/SCDecision.pdf) The appellant submitted that the matter regarding finalization of her maintenance was pending in a court of law and she wanted to know the financial status of her husband.",The Commission accepted the contentions of the PIO and rejected the appeal. +194,Can the Central Information Commission decide the cases related to the State government?,,the reasons if the FIR was not registered for his written complaint in respect of cognizable offences,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission advised the appellant to approach the concerned SIC in this regard.,"Can the Central Information Commission decide the cases related to the State government? + +Background: +Referring to the newspaper advertisements that the Delhi Police has to mandatorily register an FIR in all cases of written complaint made for cognizable offences and provide a copy of FIR to the complainant free of cost, the appellant sought a certified copy of such an order. He sought the present status of his written complaint dated 15.2.2008 filed against officials of Indian Navy and Air Force for alleged illegal confinement and torture. He further wanted to know the reasons if the FIR was not registered for his written complaint in respect of cognizable offences. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the requisite information was a query and does not fall under the category of information as per section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. However, he advised the appellant to consult law books for detail as his complaint was still pending enquiry. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the appellant that his complaint was pending enquiry and the same has now been sent to the Commanding Officer, Naval Headquarters for necessary action as the matter pertained to their department. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the appellant filed another identical RTI application which was transferred to the state police department as the matter belonged to them.",The Commission observed that the appellant has been adequately replied to by the PIO and the CIC has no jurisdiction over the matters pertaining to the State Governments. The Commission advised the appellant to approach the concerned SIC in this regard. +195,Should AG maintain list of pensioners - department or designation wise?,Accountant General (AG),the amount of gratuity payable in each case and the amount withheld,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The CIC further held that if there is any other names which have been left out the appellant should send those names to the PIO so that the PIO would forward the desired details to him.,"Should AG maintain list of pensioners - department or designation wise? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Accountant General (AG) seeking the list of pensioners of the Agriculture Department of the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir who retired and were affected by a particular government order issued on 31 January, 2010. He specifically wanted to know the amount of gratuity payable in each case and the amount withheld. He also requested for a copy of the order of the competent authority by which some amount of the gratuity had been withheld. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that they did not maintain the list of pensioners department wise or designation wise nor against any specific government orders and therefore it was not possible for the PIO to provide any such list except by collecting such information from various other public authorities. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant complained that the information had been sent to him in several installments and was not complete. The respondent submitted that they did not have any readymade list of such officers with them and could provide the information only if the list of the officers is provided to them by the appellant.",The Commission observed that the office of the AG does not maintain lists of pensioners either on the basis of their department or their designation and they do not have information on how many pensioners had been affected by which government order. The CIC held that in such cases the appellant should assist the PIO by providing the list of officers by obtaining the same from the state government authorities so that the PIO can then provide the other details. The omission ruled that the appellant had already provided a long list of pensioners to the PIO and in turn the PIO had also provided the desired information. The CIC further held that if there is any other names which have been left out the appellant should send those names to the PIO so that the PIO would forward the desired details to him. +196,Can students’ assessment of a Professor be disclosed to a RTI applicant?,Pondicherry University,"selection of lecturers in the Department of Performing Arts, Pondicherry University through an interview",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the full clarification to the appellant on the subject of Ph.D degrees of the two aforesaid candidates and also to inform whether the candidates have completed Ph.D in English medium or through any other medium.,"Can students’ assessment of a Professor be disclosed to a RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Pondicherry University seeking information regarding selection of lecturers in the Department of Performing Arts, Pondicherry University through an interview. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant contented that the PIO wrongly informed him that two persons (who qualified the selection) are Ph.D qualified whereas they were not Ph.D qualified at the time of the selection. The appellant also submitted that his query whether the candidates have completed Ph.D in English medium has not been replied to by the PIO. The respondent informed that these two candidates were NET qualified candidates and were yet to be awarded Ph.D degree. The PIO stated in their biodata it was mentioned that they have submitted their Ph.D thesis and are awaiting award of degree. The respondent further submitted that copy of the students’ assessment of a particular Professor, School of Performing Arts was denied as it was the personal information of third party and covered under the provisions of section 8(i)(j) of the RTI Act.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide the full clarification to the appellant on the subject of Ph.D degrees of the two aforesaid candidates and also to inform whether the candidates have completed Ph.D in English medium or through any other medium. +197,Is submission of details for issue of passport a public activity?,Passport Office,third party passport holders like the copies of their passport applications and their travel details,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the contentions of the PIO and rejected the appeal.,"Is submission of details for issue of passport a public activity? + +Background: +Three individuals filed separate applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Passport Office seeking information regarding third party passport holders like the copies of their passport applications and their travel details. The Public Information Officer (PIO) claimed that the information was personal in nature and is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the contentions of the PIO and rejected the appeal. + +Comments + +The travel details of an individual and the details furnished by a citizen for getting a passport contain a lot of personal information. Just because it is used for issuing an official document does not mean that it has a relation to a public activity or public interest. The disclosure of such information has a potential of causing unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the passport holder and is, therefore, exempt from disclosure until it serves larger public interest." +198,Status of pensioners drawing maximum pension under the 6th pay commission,,if the pensioners drawing the maximum pension under the 5th pay commission would continue to draw the maximum pension under the 6th pay commission,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC rejected the appeal holding that the appellant cannot expect the PIO or the public authority to revise or modify an existing piece of information in order to suit his requirement, under the RTI Act.","Status of pensioners drawing maximum pension under the 6th pay commission + +Background: +The appellant referred to a particular letter the reply of which was sent by the Accountant General (AG) to the Finance Department of the State Government. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the AG seeking copy of the reply and whether AG had consulted the Ministry of PG and Pensions before replying to the State Government. He also wanted to know if the pensioners drawing the maximum pension under the 5th pay commission would continue to draw the maximum pension under the 6th pay commission. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided him with a copy of the letter they had sent in response to the communication from the State Government. He also clarified that they had not consulted the Ministry of PG and Pensions. The PIO further stated that they had no information regarding the entitlement of the pension. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant demanded that the reply given by the AG to the Principal Secretary, Finance should be revised because it did not disclose that the maximum pensioners under the previous pay commission had been granted maximum pension under the 6thpay commission also. The respondent pointed out that they can only provide the information which existed in material form and cannot invent some new information just because the appellant wanted it. The respondent also stated that the reply given by the AG to the Principal Secretary, Finance and State Government of Kerala had no other record to support the demand of the appellant.","The Commission observed that the PIO had provided a copy of the letter and if the appellant finds that the contents of that letter are incorrect then he can challenge it in any other appropriate forum like a court of law. The CIC rejected the appeal holding that the appellant cannot expect the PIO or the public authority to revise or modify an existing piece of information in order to suit his requirement, under the RTI Act." +199,Reasonable causes for delay can safeguard the PIO from penalty,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission accepted the explanation of the PIO and dropped the penalty proceedings.,"Reasonable causes for delay can safeguard the PIO from penalty + +Background: +The Central Information Commission (CIC) issued show cause notice to the Public Information Officer (PIO), Estate Office, UT Chandigarh for delay in providing the information. During the hearing of the show cause notice, the PIO submitted that special efforts were made to collect the information sought by the appellant as it was not readily available. The building plans of the school were required to be checked by the field staff as the school authorities were making claims that they had submitted building plans. Therefore, in order to avoid legal implications at any stage, the field staff had to make sure that no wrong action is taken. The PIO submitted that all of this exercise resulted in delay in furnishing the information to the appellant.",The CIC perused the copies of the communication signed by the Estate Officer and addressed to the Finance Secretary and Administrator stating that the department is working with only half of the staff which was sanctioned in 1960s – 70s when in fact the work load had since increased hugely. The Commission accepted the explanation of the PIO and dropped the penalty proceedings. +200,Seeking payment of amount withheld by BSNL due to lack of work order,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission however, directed the PIO to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records and to take photocopies free of cost.","Seeking payment of amount withheld by BSNL due to lack of work order + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) in which she submitted that her husband had carried on certain contractual work on behalf of BSNL on the verbal instructions from the concerned officers but the payment of Rs.7,00,000 /- was not released. Later, her husband got brain hemorrhage and lost his memory. She also submitted that her husband was the only earning member in her family and she wanted information in this context. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the matter was very old and no work order has been issued for the job(s) undertaken by the appellant’s husband and the concerned officers have also been either transferred or retired and in the absence of the original work order(s)/valid document(s) it is not be possible to pay the claim. The appellant requested that an inspection of relevant records would be permitted.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and there are other appropriate forum(s) for resolving such matters. The Commission however, directed the PIO to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records and to take photocopies free of cost." +201,Jammed ATM machine – Addressing disputed transaction through RTI,State Bank of India (SBI),this disputed ATM transaction,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide the details of the action taken on the letters mentioned along with a copy of the relevant daily cash audit balance sheet to the appellant.,"Jammed ATM machine – Addressing disputed transaction through RTI + +Background: +The appellant had used his ATM Card to withdraw about Rs.13,000/- from an ATM machine. The appellant had made a complaint to the bank stating that he was unable to withdraw the amount but the amount had been shown as debited against his account.  In this regard he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information about this disputed ATM transaction. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent explained that the appellant had withdrawn the amount from an ATM machine and that this fact was also logged under the prescribed logging system. The appellant stated that the machine which he had used for taking the money out had jammed and that the security guard there posted had also noticed this and had requested for help to rectify the defect. The appellant emphasised to know what action has been taken by the bank on such complaints that he had filed and copy of the relevant daily cash audit balance sheet of the ATM used to take out the cash. The respondent stated that the applications had been responded and the FAA has already informed the appellant that the transaction pertains to a period as old as 2 and 1/2 years and the bank retains the recordings for 6 months only and it is no longer available. The respondent further stated that it will be checked whether copy of daily cash audit balance sheet of that particular day is available.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide the details of the action taken on the letters mentioned along with a copy of the relevant daily cash audit balance sheet to the appellant. +202,Non transfer of amount to an account deposited through banker’s cheque,State Bank of India (SBI),non transfer of an amount of Rs,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the respondent has fulfilled their obligations under the RTI Act and no further action is required in the matter.,"Non transfer of amount to an account deposited through banker’s cheque + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information about non transfer of an amount of Rs. 80, 000/- to his account deposited through a banker’s cheque. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he has received only part information.The respondent explained that the appellant sought copies of bankers’ cheque and deposit slips which have been provided. The information about the register containing the information about all the bankers’ cheque and deposit slips of a particular day was denied under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.The respondent also stated that the CCTV footage that the appellant was seeking had also been denied because the bank did not want to compromise with the security of the bank as the footage had details of the bank’s lockers. The respondent explained that this matter had also gone to the consumer court where the appellant did not get any relief.",The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the respondent has fulfilled their obligations under the RTI Act and no further action is required in the matter. +203,Seeking documents ‘to know the quality of the students’ in Pondicherry University,Pondicherry University,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant has been appropriately replied to by the public authority.,"Seeking documents ‘to know the quality of the students’ in Pondicherry University + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Pondicherry University seeking source documents for the Vice Chancellor Prof. and the Registrar ‘to know the quality of the students’ in Pondicherry University. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the Vice Chancellor has conveyed that ‘the quality of the students’ in any university is ensured through the process of selection adopted in the university. Since Pondicherry University adopts the procedure of all India entrance and the ratio of selection averages to nearly 1:20, which is one of the highest in Indian universities, the quality of students is presumably good. The second parameter is the score in earlier examinations. The third parameter is the performance of the students in the examinations and the performance of the students in the examination in chemistry which is one of the best in the campus. While filing the second appeal before the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that through his RTI application he has requested for a document and not an explanation from the University.",The Commission observed that the respondent can only provide information that is held by them or is under their control. The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant has been appropriately replied to by the public authority. +204,Disclosure of one’s own credit proposals by a bank under RTI,State Bank of India (SBI),"the date of credit proposal, recommendation, sanction of credit facility, copy of credit proposals etc","['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(j)']",PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The CIC also issued the show cause notice to the respondent for contravening the timelines in the RTI Act.,"Disclosure of one’s own credit proposals by a bank under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information regarding the date of credit proposal, recommendation, sanction of credit facility, copy of credit proposals etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and denied the rest. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the substance notings should be given to him. The appellant also stated that there was a delay of more than hundred days in getting a response on the RTI application. The appellant argued that he was not asking for third party information but it was about his own credit proposals and thus denial under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act is without justification. The respondent stated that they had provided whatever information was available with them. Regarding the rest of the information, it was submitted that the same pertains to the authorities who had evaluated the credit proposals of the appellant. Furnishing the same would have an impact on the internal processes of the Bank and would reveal the particulars of the officers who had done the evaluation hence information was denied under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.",The Commission held that since the appellant is asking about his own credit proposals the ground as stated by the respondent is not tenable. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant. The CIC also issued the show cause notice to the respondent for contravening the timelines in the RTI Act. +205,Am I a whistleblower? Seeking list of whistleblowers from the CVC,,,"['8(1)(h)', '8(1)(g)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC however, directed the PIO to inform the appellant if the CVC has ever considered him as a whistleblower in respect of any of his complaints.","Am I a whistleblower? Seeking list of whistleblowers from the CVC + +Background: +The appellant filed complaints with the Secretary Information and Broadcasting (I&B). Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in which he referred to two complaints and wanted the copies of all correspondence made in regard. He also wanted the list of 937 whistleblowers whose complaints had been processed by the CVC as per the Times of India report and whether his name appeared in the said list. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that the correspondence and other documents were related to an ongoing investigation and the disclosure would impede the process of investigation. He also refused to disclose the list of whistleblowers or provide any information in this regard on the ground that according to the scheme under which complaints from whistleblowers were being handled by the CVC and their identities could not be disclosed. Later on, the direction of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) he provided copies of some of the correspondence. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he should be provided all the information regarding the progress on his complaints so that he could keep himself apprised about the action being taken. He emphasised to get the information about his inclusion in the list of whistleblowers maintained by the CVC. The respondent submitted that the complaints filed by the appellant were under various stages of enquiry and investigation hence no information in this regard could be disclosed lest it would affect the course of investigation. Regarding the list of whistleblowers, the respondent submitted that it is a matter of policy and such information could not be disclosed.","The Commission observed that the correspondence made between the CVC and other authorities on the complaints of the appellant should be disclosed unless any investigation has been ordered by any competent authority either under the conduct rules for government servants or under any criminal law. The PIO was directed to provide the copies of all the correspondence made by the CVC with either the Central Government or the Prasar Bharti or any other authority regarding the complaints specifically mentioned by him in his RTI application. Regarding the list of the whistleblowers or the inclusion of appellant in that list, the CIC accepted the contentions of the PIO observing that section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act specifically exempts such information from disclosure as it would endanger the life of an individual or expose the source of information. The CIC however, directed the PIO to inform the appellant if the CVC has ever considered him as a whistleblower in respect of any of his complaints." +206,Disciplinary proceedings against the officer who directed wrong officers to appear for hearing,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The Commission directed the Director General of the GSI to institute disciplinary proceedings against the officer on account of whose irresponsible direction the above two officers had to travel all the way from Shillong and Kolkata respectively by air thereby causing considerable financial loss to the government.,"Disciplinary proceedings against the officer who directed wrong officers to appear for hearing + +Background: +The Central Information Commission (CIC) issued show cause notice to the PIO, Geological Survey of India (GSI) who failed to respond to the RTI request and did not provide information within the stipulated period. Senior Administrative Officer and Administrative Officer appeared before the CIC and submitted that they had received an RTI application dated 31.08.2012 from the nodal officer of the RTI Cell and had provided some information against that RTI application. The same appellant had also filed an RTI application dated 29.05.2012. The nodal officer of the RTI Cell had transferred that application to the Administrative Officer Grade II for replying to the information seeker directly and to provide the information. During the hearing before the CIC, the appellant alleged that he has not received any information against this application. The Commission directed the PIO to forward the order to the officers responsible for this information as the officers who had dealt with the RTI application dated 29.05.2012 should have appeared for the show cause hearing but the officers who attended the hearing had no idea about that particular RTI application.",The Commission observed that these officers were in no position to show cause why no information had been given against the RTI application dated 29.05.2012 and again issued a show cause notice to the officers responsible for not providing the information against that particular RTI application. The CIC held that the PIO had behaved irresponsibly and deputed the officers to come all the way to New Delhi from Kolkata at considerable expense to the government to appear in a matter with which they have no relation. The CIC held that the cost of travel of these two officers must be recovered from the PIO concerned. The Commission directed the Director General of the GSI to institute disciplinary proceedings against the officer on account of whose irresponsible direction the above two officers had to travel all the way from Shillong and Kolkata respectively by air thereby causing considerable financial loss to the government. +207,Should a copy of charge sheet served on a bank officer be disclosed under RTI?,Punjab National Bank (PNB),certain disciplinary proceedings that have already been concluded,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(e)']",INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission observed that there is no convincing ground to deny the information to the appellant particularly in context of his submissions and directed the respondent to provide the information to the appellant.,"Should a copy of charge sheet served on a bank officer be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab National Bank (PNB) seeking copies of a charge sheet served on a bank officer along with the reply to the charge sheet and final order with reference to the charges made. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied for discloser under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he is seeking information pertaining to certain disciplinary proceedings that have already been concluded. The respondent stated that the information was denied on grounds of third party information.The appellant stated that the information could not be denied to him because the appellant and the person about whom the information is being sought were both connected as the other officer was a senior in the same branch for which he was seeking the information. The appellant also submitted that the bank has shown partiality in a departmental proceeding to the disadvantage of the appellant and for this reason he is seeking the information.",The Commission observed that there is no convincing ground to deny the information to the appellant particularly in context of his submissions and directed the respondent to provide the information to the appellant. +208,Can a translator accompany the applicant for inspection?,Department of Revenue (DoR),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC ruled that photocopies of 100 pages of the documents identified by the Appellant may be provided to the Appellant free of cost and remaining pages charged at Rs 2/- per page.,"Can a translator accompany the applicant for inspection? + +Background: +The appellant had inherited some land from his late father vide Jamabandi for the year 1897-98. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue (DoR) seeking to know whether any such land has been left un-acquired by any awardee till date; whether any compensation has been paid to the acquired land or whether the same is laying pending payment to legal heirs etc. He also sought the names and addresses of people to whom the acquired land has been released along with photocopies of documents. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that the information would be available in the Central Record Room, Tiz Hasari and directed the PIO to transfer the RTI application to Tehsildar (HQ) Central Record Room. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that after searching in the godown they were able to retrieve some records related to the information being sought by the applicant. The respondent produced some papers which were more than 100 years old and torn and were in Urdu language. The respondent also stated that they had put together the torn papers and photocopied them. They agreed to hand over the copies to the appellant.","Taking note of the fact that the records sought by the appellant are almost 100 years old, the Commission directed that the appellant should be allowed to visit the PIO’s office along with an Urdu translator and inspect all the records pertaining to the Jamabandi so that the Urdu translator can help identify the documents required by the appellant. The CIC ruled that photocopies of 100 pages of the documents identified by the Appellant may be provided to the Appellant free of cost and remaining pages charged at Rs 2/- per page." +209,Is it necessary to sign the indemnity forms to claim compensation for natural calamities?,State Bank of India (SBI),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide the information to the appellant.,"Is it necessary to sign the indemnity forms to claim compensation for natural calamities? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information about nonpayment of compensation to flood victims such as, the reasons for the delay in the payment of the insurance scheme; the day to day progress report about the action taken on the insurance claims; action taken by the respondent on the application of the appellant requesting for a loan account closure in the wake of the natural calamity; reasons why the appellant was asked to sign blank papers; and the payment of compensation to the appellant for the mental harassment caused to him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that whatever information was available was provided to the appellant and that an important reason for the delay in the settlement of the insurance claim was the reason that the appellant did not sign the indemnity forms which the bank had provided to him. The respondent also stated that in the meanwhile the appellant had approached the bank ombudsman also.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide the information to the appellant. +210,Can the student be detained in same class without informing him in advance?,Directorate of Education (DoE),"whether his son can re enter in class XI or not, if yes then the reasons as to why the Principal has not yet let his son be readmitted to class XI etc",[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"The CIC issued the show cause notice to the PIO, Act Branch as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not providing the reply to the transferred RTI application.","Can the student be detained in same class without informing him in advance? + +Background: +The appellant’s son was a XI class student of a Public School of Delhi was detained in class XI. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Education (DoE) seeking to know whether the Principal has the authority to detain the boy in class XI without informing him in advance. He also wanted to know whether his son can re enter in class XI or not, if yes then the reasons as to why the Principal has not yet let his son be readmitted to class XI etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the applicant that a part of his application concerning some rules has been transferred to Act Branch of CBSE. Regarding the action taken on his representation, the PIO stated that a letter has been sent to the concerned school and that no reply has been received. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the DEO Zone XIII had written to the Vice Principal of the school directing the Principal to admit the appellant’s son who was detained in class XI. He also informed that matter regarding discipline/ behavior of the student may be taken up with the parent at school level and the school may take assurance from the parents about good conduct of the student. In respect of the action taken on the appellant’s complaint, the respondent reiterated that the complaint was transferred to the Principal of the school.","The Commission observed that the appellant has not received any reply from the school and that the said school is not a Public Authority. The Commission however, agreed that as per the directions given by the DEO Zone XIII to the Principal of the said School, he has to provide the required information to the appellant. The CIC issued the show cause notice to the PIO, Act Branch as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not providing the reply to the transferred RTI application." +211,Organisation beyond the purview of RTI Act to provide the information in public interest,19 JAK Rifles,excess drawl of liquor by him from URC 19 JAK Rifles etc,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also directed to provide the copies of the bills issued to the officer (both Grocery and Liquor).,"Organisation beyond the purview of RTI Act to provide the information in public interest + +Background: +The appellant was a Major in the army and claimed that his Liquor Card had been “hot listed” by URC 19 JAK Rifles. He also claimed that he stays at Nasik (Maharashtra) and has never visited the location of URC 19 JAK Rifles and therefore hot listing of his Liquor Card is not understandable. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the 19 JAK Rifles seeking information regarding excess drawl of liquor by him from URC 19 JAK Rifles etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the requested information could not be supplied as the URCs did not fall under the domain of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that URCs are not public authorities under the RTI Act. However, the CIC noted that if the version of the appellant is correct then it is straightway a case of fraud which needs to be exposed and it would be in the larger public interest. The CIC directed the public authority to provide a copy of Station order for drawl of liquor from URC along with the month, date, description and quantity wise details of liquor drawn by the officer from the URC for the prescribed time period. The CIC also directed to provide the copies of the bills issued to the officer (both Grocery and Liquor)." +212,Action taken by IT department for delay in depositing TDS,Income Tax Department,action taken by the Income Tax (IT) authorities against a particular company,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to inform the appellant about the final decision, indicating the total amount assessed to be paid by the company and the portion of penalty levied.","Action taken by IT department for delay in depositing TDS + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax Department seeking information relating to action taken by the Income Tax (IT) authorities against a particular company. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that the information sought was personal in nature and had no relation to any public activity. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that a notice had been issued to the company to the tune of Rs. 1,25,963/- and formal orders are to be issued shortly. The appellant submitted that he had filed a complaint with IT authorities as the company had failed to deposit the deducted tax within the prescribed time and wanted to know what action had been taken by them.","The Commission directed the PIO to inform the appellant about the final decision, indicating the total amount assessed to be paid by the company and the portion of penalty levied." +213,Is there any law which permits porn actors like Sunny Leone to perform in India?,Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC),the specific law which allowed porn actors like Sunny Leone to perform in India,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the PIO has already provided whatever information was available with the CBFC.,"Is there any law which permits porn actors like Sunny Leone to perform in India? + +Background: +Two appellants filed three applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) seeking information only about the method of certification of films, their screening in theatres, and educational qualification of the chairperson and the members of the CBFC. They also wanted to know about the specific law which allowed porn actors like Sunny Leone to perform in India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and for the rest, he informed the appellant that the information does not exist.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that most of the queries did not qualify for information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act being clearly in the nature of seeking the comments of the PIO on the views of the information seeker. The Commission held that the PIO cannot offer any opinion on the queries like, likely effect of films on the viewers or whether the movies in the recent times had been affecting the local culture and the moral of the people. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the PIO has already provided whatever information was available with the CBFC." +214,Are the call details of the officers of Prasar Bharati their personal information?,Prasar Bharati,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC ruled that disclosing the details of those calls would not serve any particular public interest nor is it connected with any public activity  and hence was exempt for disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","Are the call details of the officers of Prasar Bharati their personal information? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prasar Bharati, seeking phone call details of a landline and a cell phone which were used by a particular officer. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the copies of the phone bills running into 96 pages against the payment of photocopying charges. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he wanted the call details and the list of all the numbers to which calls had been made locally or through roaming. The respondent submitted that they only received the bills but without the call details and that was what the PIO had already provided. They also clarified that the officer concerned using these two telephone numbers was entitled to certain ceiling in the use of the phones and the reimbursement for the telephone bills was limited to that ceiling.","The Commission observed that the organization receives only the summary telephone bills without the call details and therefore the PIO could not provide the call details because those are simply not available with the organization. Noting that the appellant expects the organization should summon such records from the service providers and provide to him, the Commission held that the PIO is not expected to generate the information about the call details and make it available under the RTI Act. The Commission also noted the view of the respondent that the entitlement of the officer concerned using these phones is a limited only to certain ceiling beyond which all payments have to be made by him and not by the organization and the telephone calls made by him are to an extent his personal information. The CIC ruled that disclosing the details of those calls would not serve any particular public interest nor is it connected with any public activity  and hence was exempt for disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act." +215,Can diploma holder pharmacists prescribe medicines to patients?,,if the diploma holder pharmacists could prescribe medicines to patients,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the PIO cannot act as an interpreter of the SC orders and tender advice to information seekers on such subjects.,"Can diploma holder pharmacists prescribe medicines to patients? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Supreme Court of India in which he referred to some matters pending before or decided by the Supreme Court (SC) and wanted to know if the diploma holder pharmacists could prescribe medicines to patients. The Public Information Officer (PIO) referred him to some relevant cases decided by the SC and also advised to see those orders in its website. The PIO further advised the appellant to follow the procedure laid down in the Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules, if he wanted the certified copies of those orders.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that under RTI, the supreme court cannot advise the appellant whether a diploma holder pharmacist is supposed to prescribe medicines or not. The CIC held that if there were orders passed by the SC on this or any related subject it is for the appellant to go through those orders and understand the direction of the SC on the matter. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the PIO cannot act as an interpreter of the SC orders and tender advice to information seekers on such subjects." +216,CIC visits the website of the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The PIO was directed by the Commission to place this order before the Chairman of the company immediately for him to take necessary steps to publish all the information required under section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act within two months of the receipt of this order.","CIC visits the website of the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India + +Background: +The appellant filed three applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd. (SPMCIL). The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information but with a delay. While hearing the second appeal, the Central Information Commission (CIC) issued show cause notice to the PIO for not providing complete information and not abiding with the time frame prescribed in the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing of the show cause for the imposition of penalty, the PIO submitted that in all the three RTI applications the appellant had raised a very large number of queries relating to information spread over a long period of time. The PIO also stated that he had sent an interim reply to him in all these cases stating that the information was being collected. Later, he provided some information. The PIO claimed that on the directions of the Commission, he had invited the appellant to inspect some of the relevant records.","The Commission dropped the penalty proceedings against the PIO holding that the volume and variety of information sought in all the three cases spanning over a long period of time caused the delay. The CIC observed that all the information sought by the appellant related to the service matters of the employees of the organisation, mostly belonging to various reserved categories. The Commission ruled that as per section 4 of the RTI Act, information such as the seniority list of the employees, the details about their educational qualification, caste status if they have secured appointment on the basis of reservation, promotion and other service details should be normally disclosed in the public domain without anybody having to ask for it. While noting that the SPMCIL (the corporate version of the old Mint) came into being in 2005, the Commission expressed surprise that the company has not taken any steps to implement the mandatory statutory provisions of section 4 yet. The Commission also visited their website and noted that it did not contain much of the information required to be published under section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The PIO was directed by the Commission to place this order before the Chairman of the company immediately for him to take necessary steps to publish all the information required under section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act within two months of the receipt of this order. + +Comments + +There is a statutory requirement under section 4 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act to place certain types of information, as applicable to the public authority concerned, in the public domain. Section 4 had mandated that the public authority must publish such information within 120 days of the enactment of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, which is yet to be done even after 8 years of its coming into force." +217,Who is responsible for rectifying seepage problems in DDA flats?,Delhi Development Authority (DDA),the responsibility for rectifying seepage problems in a particular DDA flat and the authority to be approached if the problem continues etc,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the respondent to collect the information from the concerned wings of the DDA and provide the same to the appellant.,"Who is responsible for rectifying seepage problems in DDA flats? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) seeking information regarding the responsibility for rectifying seepage problems in a particular DDA flat and the authority to be approached if the problem continues etc. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) transferred the application to the other wing of DDA.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that appellant has sought information which the respondent must provide. The CIC directed the respondent to collect the information from the concerned wings of the DDA and provide the same to the appellant. + +Comments + +There are problems persisting in the system for which no one seems to be responsible. RTI Act has helped in pointing to the same and has been instrumental in finding solutions for it." +218,Close quarter fight: Settling the issue of quarrel between neighbours through RTI,Delhi Police,"whether an FIR has been lodged against the lady, her daughters and her husband including their accomplices",[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the PIO has provided requisite reply to the appellant and no action is called for on the part of the Commission.,"Close quarter fight: Settling the issue of quarrel between neighbours through RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking to know the action taken by the Police on the complaint filed by him. He also wanted to know whether an FIR has been lodged against the lady, her daughters and her husband including their accomplices. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that his application has been attached with the case file and that no separate FIR was lodged against said lady and others. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant requested that an inquiry in respect of his complaints against said lady needs to be instituted to verify the facts before the reply is sent to him. The respondent stated that a quarrel took place between the appellant and his neighbor over a trivial issue. Both of them had filed a complaint against each other. The PIO further submitted that both the complaints were attached with the case file and no separate FIR was registered on the appellant’s complaints as the matter was related to the same incident.",The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the PIO has provided requisite reply to the appellant and no action is called for on the part of the Commission. +219,Can the name of the maid be entered in the ration card?,Food and Supplies Department,an APL ration card,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also directed the PIO to furnish an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the appellant affirming the fact that the information is not traceable.,"Can the name of the maid be entered in the ration card? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Food and Supplies Department seeking information regarding an APL ration card. He wanted to know whether the name of the house maid can be entered in the ration card of the owner of the card and if yes, then the copy of the relevant rule. He also wanted to know whether any verification was required for the same. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and for some of the information, the appellant was informed that the records are not available in the circle. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that if the records were not available in the circle then the RTI application ought to have been transferred to the concerned Public Authority where the information would be available. The respondent submitted that the holder of the APL card denied the disclosure stating that the appellant is not related to him. The respondent also added that no computer records or papers pertaining to this card were available in her circle or in any other circle and hence she cannot provide the information.","The Commission observed that since information is not traceable, no authorization for disclosure of information is possible. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the rule which allows the maid’s name to be entered in the ration card of the owner and if there is no such rule the appellant to be informed accordingly. The CIC also directed the PIO to furnish an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the appellant affirming the fact that the information is not traceable." +220,Should information related to technical and price bids be disclosed under RTI?,Union Bank of India (UBI),"a bank branch such as, about rain water harvesting systems; technical and price bids",['8(1)(d)'],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission held that the information related to technical and price bids could not be provided as they give layout and security plans, including for fortification, steel works, lockers and currency chests.","Should information related to technical and price bids be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Bank of India (UBI) seeking information relating to a bank branch such as, about rain water harvesting systems; technical and price bids . The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and denied the rest on grounds of commercial confidence and also stated that no larger public interest warranted the disclosure of such information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated the information sought was of commercial confidence and that no larger public interest was warranted in the disclosure of such information. Hence, information was denied under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The respondent also stated that some other points were not seeking information as per section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","The Commission held that the information related to technical and price bids could not be provided as they give layout and security plans, including for fortification, steel works, lockers and currency chests." +221,Is it mandatory to give service certificate to all the employees?,Bank of Baroda (BoB),the rules under which he was punished,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide the sought information to the appellant.,"Is it mandatory to give service certificate to all the employees? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bank of Baroda (BoB) seeking information about the rules under which he was punished. He specifically wanted to know as to why he was not given the service certificate; and under what rules was the departmental and vigilance inquiry done against him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the appellant is a dismissed employee of the bank and that the service certificate is given under certain rules and that issuance of this service certificate is not mandatory, i.e., the service certificate is given only to those employees whose services have been satisfactory. The respondent also stated that it is as per the normal banking administrative system under which whenever there is a delinquency, the bank, under its supervisory role and in the interest of good administration, is free to carry out the departmental proceedings. The respondent also cited clause 12(c) of Memorandum of Settlement on disciplinary action procedure for workmen. The appellant stated that what the respondent is stating about service certificate is not correct, as he has already received the service certificate. He further submitted that his grievance against the bank is that he had to wait for 7 years for the service certificate which shows the ad-hocism in the bank on account of which he has posed the questions.","The Commission directed the respondent to provide the sought information to the appellant. + +Comments + +While the information sought in the case does not merit much discussion, it highlights the ad-hocism prevalent in system and how the RTI Act is being used to put an end to it." +222,Details of all donations made eligible for tax relief under section 80G of the IT Act,Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO (Deputy Secretary), CBDT, New Delhi, to ascertain the factual position about the implementation of the above decision and send a report to the Commission","Details of all donations made eligible for tax relief under section 80G of the IT Act + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) seeking details of all trusts, organizations, societies etc., donations made to which are eligible for tax relief under section 80G of the Income Tax (IT) Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that no such list was maintained by them and the data relating to charitable entity was available on the departmental web site. The appellant filed the first appeal stating that he was unable to find out the details of charitable institutions on the departmental website. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to forward a screen print of the web page of the departmental web site clearly indicating the link for exempt institutions. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the data on the website cannot be accessed until the full name of the organization, PAN number, IT Circle and other details are fed in. As this information is not available to the common citizen, he cannot access the desired data. The appellant further referred to a full bench decision of the CIC (CIC/LS/A/2009/00190) dated 9.3.2010 in which the CBDT had been requested to make suo-motu disclosure on the website of organisations exempted and alleged that these orders of the CIC have not been implemented by the CBDT.","The Commission referred to its three Bench decision [appeal no. CIC/LS/A/2009/00190] wherein it was ordered that the identity of the charitable trusts/ institutions/ entities which have been granted exemption from income tax under section 10 & under section 11/12 of the Income Tax Act should be placed in public domain by way of suo-motu disclosure by the CBDT in terms of section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;read with section4(2)It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.of the RTI Act. Looking into the magnitude of the work involved, the Commission had granted a time of 8 months and had directed the Chairman, CBDT, to send a compliance report to the Commission after 8 months. The Commission directed the PIO (Deputy Secretary), CBDT, New Delhi, to ascertain the factual position about the implementation of the above decision and send a report to the Commission" +223,Can a different citizen file a second appeal before the Information Commission?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that since the RTI application and second appeal are filed by two different persons hence the same is not maintainable under the RTI Act.,"Can a different citizen file a second appeal before the Information Commission? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Highways Authority of India. Subsequently, the second appeal was filed by another person before the Central Information Commission (CIC).",The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that since the RTI application and second appeal are filed by two different persons hence the same is not maintainable under the RTI Act. +224,Does Indian judiciary have any mechanism to monitor the cases in the country?,Supreme Court of India,the case monitoring system followed in Indian judiciary,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to give whatever information available in material form and if there is no material record available in respect of any of the queries the PIO should state this clearly.,"Does Indian judiciary have any mechanism to monitor the cases in the country? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Supreme Court of India seeking information relating to the case monitoring system followed in Indian judiciary. He specifically wanted to know the manner in which the Supreme Court (SC) monitors the cases of the High Courts (HC) and the subordinate Courts. The Public Information Officer (PIO) observed that the Supreme Court did not have any administrative control over the High Courts and the subordinate Courts and therefore did not monitor the cases pending in or heard by those courts. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that after the RTI application had been filed the Supreme Court along with the central government took up an initiative to put in place an IT based case management system to create a database of all the cases pending before all the Courts of India and to assist the Courts at various levels to manage their case records in a better manner. The details of the initiative were available in the Supreme Court website. The appellant admitted to have already seen this and requested that the PIO should provide query wise response to all his queries.","The Commission directed the PIO to give whatever information available in material form and if there is no material record available in respect of any of the queries the PIO should state this clearly. + +Comments + +This case shows how RTI Act can be used effectively for bringing out reforms in the system. An effective IT based system to create a database of cases pending before all the Courts as follow up of RTI application would help in better monitoring and quicker disposal of cases." +225,Copy of complaint regarding unauthorized travel on a Railway pass was sought,Western Railway,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission observed that no complaint in written form is available in the records of the Public Authority and thus nothing can be furnished to the appellant.,"Copy of complaint regarding unauthorized travel on a Railway pass was sought + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Western Railway seeking copy of the complaint made against him by a person, about the unauthorised travel by his sister along with him in the train on a Railway pass to which only his wife is entitled. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that during a check that was conducted at the same time in the appellant’s residence, his wife was found to be residing in it and was not in the train with the appellant. The respondent further added that the appellant was informed by the Public Information Officer (PIO) that the complaint was only a verbal complaint.",The Commission observed that no complaint in written form is available in the records of the Public Authority and thus nothing can be furnished to the appellant. +226,Is it necessary to produce ID proof to get one’s own bank account details?,State Bank of India (SBI),,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission agreed with the decision of the respondent and noted that no further action is required in the matter.,"Is it necessary to produce ID proof to get one’s own bank account details? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking copies of account opening forms in respect of his own State Bank (SB) account, his PPF accounts and that of his wife. The Public Information Officer (PIO) was unable to verify the identity of the appellant and denied the information treating it as third party Information. The PIO also invited the appellant to prove his identity and to deposit a sum of Rs.8/- as photocopying charges. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that if the appellant provides an ID proof, then the sought information can be provided as per banking operational norms. The respondent also indicated an account holder should not resort to RTI route to seek information about his own account because the same can be provided as per the normal banking operational system.",The Commission agreed with the decision of the respondent and noted that no further action is required in the matter. +227,Using RTI for knowing the status in respect of notice issued under section 160 Cr PC,Delhi Police,the Notice under section 160 Cr,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide status report in respect of the aforementioned notice under section 160 Cr.,"Using RTI for knowing the status in respect of notice issued under section 160 Cr PC + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information regarding the Notice under section 160 Cr. P.C. issued to him and to another person regarding spreading rumors on the death of two persons. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that it was not clear what information the appellant wanted to seek as per definition of information under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The PIO also informed the appellant that the said person had been called on his complaint and his statement along with enquiry report has been attached with the said Notice. The First Appellant Authority (FAA) observed that the appellant wanted redressal of her grievance and advised the appellant to approach the competent authority for redressal of her grievance. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO has not provided status report in respect of notice under section 160 Cr. P.C.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide status report in respect of the aforementioned notice under section 160 Cr. P. along with relevant documents to the appellant. +228,Information regarding admissions under the provision of EWS / BPL scheme,Directorate of Education Government of NCT of Delhi,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission observed that the EWS scheme was notified by the government only in the year 2011and that this scheme is only for admissions at entry level while the information sought by the appellant pertains to VII and IV class admissions.,"Information regarding admissions under the provision of EWS / BPL scheme + +Background: +The appellant referred to two girls and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Education Government of NCT of Delhi seeking to know whether those two girls were admitted into Vivekanand School in the year 2006 under the provision of below poverty line (BPL) EWS scheme. He also wanted the copies of documents submitted by their parents to school in support of their claim of BPL/ EWS. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the said school is not a public authority within the meaning of section2(h)“public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted +(a) by or under the Constitution; +(b) by any other law made by Parliament; +(c) by any other law made by State Legislature; +(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- +(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; +(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;of the RTI Act. He also stated that the recognized school submit certain mandatory information to the Directorate under DSEA but the information sought by the appellant is not included in that category of information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that information sought by the appellant is not available with them and that it pertains to a school which is not a public authority under the RTI Act. The respondent further stated that the appellant has enquired about the admission held in 2006 when EWS scheme had not even been even introduced by the Government and hence there is no information available in this regard.","The Commission observed that the EWS scheme was notified by the government only in the year 2011and that this scheme is only for admissions at entry level while the information sought by the appellant pertains to VII and IV class admissions. Therefore, there is nothing which could provided to the appellant." +229,Filing of RTI application by a Company Secretary,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC held that the RTI applicant i.e.,"Filing of RTI application by a Company Secretary + +Background: +The Central Information Commission (CIC) received an appeal from M/s Lyka Labs Limited, Mumbai against Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers for deemed refusal to their Right to Information (RTI) request.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that RTI application and first appeal were filed in the name of Company Secretary, while the 2nd appeal was filed by the person. The CIC held that the RTI applicant i.e. Company Secretary is not a citizen and hence it did not qualify under section 3 of the RTI Act to initiate RTI proceedings. + +Comment + +The RTI Act, 2005 empowers only the citizen of India to obtain information from the public authorities. The company does not classify as citizen and hence is ineligible to seek information under the RTI Act, 2005. However, an application filed by “xyz”, Company Secretary should not be declined." +230,Should information in respect of reopening / review of criminal case be provided under RTI?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission upheld the decision of the PIO/FAA and ruled that the appellant’s RTI request do not fall within the ambit of the definition of information as provided under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","Should information in respect of reopening / review of criminal case be provided under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant, a life convict and lodged in Central Jail, filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Law & Justice seeking information in respect of reopening / review of his case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the information sought amounts to seeking legal opinion and hence the same was not covered within the ambit of the definition of information as given under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that the appellant has been sentenced by Court of law after observing due procedure of law. He is not satisfied with the conviction awarded by the Court of law and wants that all criminal cases in which he was sentenced to life imprisonment were false and they should be again opened and reinvestigated by the agencies involved therein. The FAA dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the subject matter of appellant’s RTI request is beyond the section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act and is therefore not legally tenable.","The Commission upheld the decision of the PIO/FAA and ruled that the appellant’s RTI request do not fall within the ambit of the definition of information as provided under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act." +231,Seeking performance evaluation review of Ministries and Departments under RTI,Cabinet Secretariat,,['8(1)(i)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the same to the appellant.,"Seeking performance evaluation review of Ministries and Departments under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Cabinet Secretariat seeking documents relating to the performance evaluation exercise undertaken by the central government of its various ministries and departments during 2010-11 and 2011-12, including the minutes of both the midyear and the end of the year review undertaken by the Task Force appointed for this purpose. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information but denied the report on the year - end review of the performance of the various ministries and departments under section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act stating that the outcome of the review was to be placed before the Cabinet. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the minutes of the year - end review would not constitute Cabinet papers since these were yet to be made part of any Cabinet note. He contended that all such information was only to be placed before the Cabinet for its information and not for any decision. He further pointed out that in spite of a definite time frame given in the scheme itself, the Department had not yet placed any of these records before the Cabinet for its information even though more than a year had elapsed. The respondents submitted that the Department was bound to place this information before the Cabinet as per the scheme itself and until it was placed before the Cabinet and they deemed these papers as Cabinet papers. They also informed that the Department had consulted the Cabinet Secretariat last year about the possibility of placing the documents before the Cabinet but had been advised to await further instructions.","The Commission observed that the RTI Act protects from disclosure the Cabinet papers before the Cabinet takes any decision on those proposals and the Ministry or the Department concerned implements the decisions fully. The class of documents constituting the evaluation of various Ministries and Departments would not become the Cabinet papers or Cabinet note until the Department would prepare a specific note and seek any particular decision from the Cabinet. As per the present scheme the Department has to place these records before the Cabinet not for any decision making but only for its information. A pronounced intention of informing the Cabinet in future cannot be a shield against disclosure of the information at present. The CIC held that the minutes of the mid- year or end of the year review conducted by the appointed Task Force for both these years need to be disclosed. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the same to the appellant. + +Comments + +The government has formulated a scheme for undertaking periodic review of the performance of various Ministries and Departments through the mechanism of constituting a Task Force. After evaluating the performance of the central government Ministries and Departments, this Task Force produces a mid-year and a year-end review report. The scheme postulates that the results of the evaluation would be placed before the Cabinet for its information by first June of the following year. Such documents which are placed before the Cabinet only for its information do not qualify to be cabinet papers and hence are disclosable under RTI Act, provided they are not covered under any of the other exemption provisions." +232,Passport offices should announce the reasons for delay in their website,Regional Passport Office (RPO),,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission observed that in all the cases of delay, the applicants are likely to resort to RTI to find out the reasons.","Passport offices should announce the reasons for delay in their website + +Background: +The appellant had filed a passport application and on not receiving the passport even after five months he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Regional Passport Office (RPO), seeking to know the reasons for the delay. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that his case was complicated and that the delay occurred because of the system being run by the Tata Consultancy Services (TCS). On the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO provided the photocopy of the entire passport application file to the applicant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the copy of the entire file has been sent to the appellant and no other information needs to be disclosed. The CIC however held that in all such cases of delay, the applicants for passports must have some way to know why their applications have not been processed fast enough.  The Commission also ruled that since the passport issuing mechanism has been changed from manual to the electronic, it should be much easier for the citizens to get the passports faster and without the involvement of any human agency. The Commission observed that in all the cases of delay, the applicants are likely to resort to RTI to find out the reasons. It would be better for the passport offices to announce the reasons for delay in their website on a case to case basis and from time to time, to keep the applicants informed." +233,Are file notings related to nomination of MPs to Rajya Sabha liable for disclosure?,Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),the criteria for nomination of Members of Parliament (MP) to Rajya Sabha by President of India,['8(1)(a)'],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission observed that as the requisite information has been provided to the appellant, there is nothing more required to be done.","Are file notings related to nomination of MPs to Rajya Sabha liable for disclosure? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking information pertaining to the criteria for nomination of Members of Parliament (MP) to Rajya Sabha by President of India. He also sought the file notings regarding nomination of Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar to the Rajya Sabha. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and denied information regarding the file notings under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act. He claimed that the notings relating to nomination of Members to the Rajya Sabha between Home Minister (HM), Prime Minister (PM) and the President was a classified document and exempt for disclosure under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the relevant documents including file notings related to the nomination of Shri Mani Shankar Aiyar to Rajya Sabha, have been provided to the appellant.","The Commission observed that as the requisite information has been provided to the appellant, there is nothing more required to be done." +234,CIC directs MEA to frame disclosure policy as per section 4 of RTI Act,Ministry of External Affairs (MEA),"the gifts received by visiting Indian dignitaries and officials abroad and the storage, management and disposal of such gifts by the central government",['8(1)(a)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also advised the Ministry to follow the provisions of section 4 of the RTI Act which demands progressive disclosure of a whole range of information by the public authorities and decide which of those need to be disclosed without anybody having to ask for it.,"CIC directs MEA to frame disclosure policy as per section 4 of RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) seeking information relating to the gifts received by visiting Indian dignitaries and officials abroad and the storage, management and disposal of such gifts by the central government. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he wanted the details of all such gifts for a period of nearly 11 years while he had been given the information only for one year. The copies of the rules and regulations and policy documents given to him did not seem to be comprehensive enough and some of the relevant instructions had been held back. He referred to similar disclosures made by many other countries in the world including the USA and the UK and argued that he must get all the information he wanted. The respondent submitted that the PIO disclosed the copies of all the rules and regulations including policy decisions in regard to the receipt, management and disposal of gifts and that there was nothing more to be disclosed in this regard. The respondent also submitted that making copies of the registers containing details of the gifts received for a period spanning over more than 10 years would be a very time consuming task and would divert their resources disproportionately. The respondent also referred to an earlier order of the CIC and stated that the identity the donors should not be revealed being covered under the provisions of section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act, as it had the potential to cause embarrassment to the donor country and thereby impact India's good relationship with those countries.",The Commission held that the details of the gifts received should be published in the website of the Ministry. The CIC ruled that it would be appropriate if the details of such gifts are published in a particular format to be decided by the government without waiting for the citizens to resort to RTI to know about this. The CIC directed the PIO to bring this to the notice of the Foreign Secretary so that the Ministry can take a view on this at the earliest and come out with a disclosure policy. The CIC directed the PIO to make a photocopy of the relevant registers for all the years after masking the details regarding the donor of the gifts and provide it to the appellant. The CIC also advised the Ministry to follow the provisions of section 4 of the RTI Act which demands progressive disclosure of a whole range of information by the public authorities and decide which of those need to be disclosed without anybody having to ask for it. +235,Information regarding cancellation of flat allotted under Ambedkar Awas Yojana,Delhi Development Authority (DDA),allotment of DDA flat,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to facilitate an inspection of the relevant file to the appellant.,"Information regarding cancellation of flat allotted under Ambedkar Awas Yojana + +Background: +The appellant claimed that he had been allotted a flat under Ambedkar Awas Yojana, 1989. This allotment was done on 23.3.2006 and his name figured on the display board as having been allotted a flat. The allotment was not followed by any demand letter because of which he has been deprived of the legitimate allotment, as subsequently the allotment was cancelled. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) seeking information about allotment of DDA flat. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the appellant that the concerned Public Information Officer (PIO) has been advised to provide him the requisite information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he has been deprived of a legitimate allotment and that he doubts what is being narrated by the respondent. His emphasis was to get the information related to the date on which the letter of allotment was sent by the DDA to the appellant; whether the above letter was received and if yes, then the date on which it was received. The respondent stated that the records are old and to expect evidence about the proof of delivery at this stage would be a difficult matter. The appellant further stated that he is troubled by the casual manner in which the DDA has treated his RTI application and the casual approach of the DDA which resulted in the loss of EWS flat. + +The respondent stated that the questions now being raised were not raised in the original RTI application. The respondent assured that all available information will be provided to the appellant.",The Commission directed the respondent to facilitate an inspection of the relevant file to the appellant. +236,Seeking inspection of file related to one’s own suspension under RTI,,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"However, the CIC denied the inspection by the appellant observing that the disciplinary proceeding were under progress so the entire file could not be shown until the proceedings were complete.","Seeking inspection of file related to one’s own suspension under RTI + +Background: +The appellant was suspended from the service, but later his suspension was revoked. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MI&B) seeking to inspect the file related to his suspension and the copy of file notings from the said file. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the inspection as well as the copy of file notings stating that the disciplinary proceeding against the appellant was going on. He cited the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act in support of his decision. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he should be told the ground on which he had been suspended. The respondent submitted that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were still in progress.","The Commission held that the employee has the right to know the basis for suspending him from service. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copy of the relevant file noting based on which the suspension detail had been pleaded. However, the CIC denied the inspection by the appellant observing that the disciplinary proceeding were under progress so the entire file could not be shown until the proceedings were complete." +237,Action taken by the bank against the bank staff for the cheque becoming time barred,State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide the information related to action taken by the bank against the bank staff to the appellant.,"Action taken by the bank against the bank staff for the cheque becoming time barred + +Background: +The appellant claimed that he is in the business of selling and buying of shares where a certain level of banking efficiency is expected. He stated that he had received a cheque accompanied with a refund order, which he deposited in the bank, but his statement had no entry recognizing the deposit of cheque. Consequently, he informed the bank about this and the bank assured him that the needful would be done. The cheque became time barred and the bank, on its own, got this cheque revalidated without his authority. Later he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ) seeking copies of a number of documents like refund order, copy of reply, RBI ruling etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he has yet to receive reply to two queries i.e. the circumstances under which his cheque became time barred and the action taken by the bank against the bank staff whose carelessness resulted in the cheque becoming time barred. The respondent stated that the cheque in question was subject to certain prescribed process because of collection formalities and at the same time there were connectivity problems and the staff was also new but the bank took the initiative of getting the time barred cheque revalidated and followed it up with payment of interest at the prescribed rate for the period of delay.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide the information related to action taken by the bank against the bank staff to the appellant. +238,Who can file an RTI application in India?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The CIC also held that the said company did not qualify to be a public authority under section2(h)“public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted +(a) by or under the Constitution; +(b) by any other law made by Parliament; +(c) by any other law made by State Legislature; +(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- +(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; +(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;of the RTI Act.","Who can file an RTI application in India? + +Background: +The Central Information Commission (CIC) received a petition from Universal Human Rights Association, Bihar against M/s Ajay Travel Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi for deemed refusal to his RTI request.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the complainant is a ‘Firm’ and not a citizen hence it was not qualified under section 3 of the RTI Act to initiate RTI proceedings. The CIC also held that the said company did not qualify to be a public authority under section2(h)“public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted +(a) by or under the Constitution; +(b) by any other law made by Parliament; +(c) by any other law made by State Legislature; +(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- +(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; +(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;of the RTI Act." +239,Using RTI for addressing the issue of non-delivery of consignment,Northern Railway,to whom the remaining consignments were released in Amroha,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also observed that the appellant’s grievance falls outside the ambit of the RTI Act.,"Using RTI for addressing the issue of non-delivery of consignment + +Background: +The appellant claimed that he had sent three consignments from Delhi to Amroha through railways. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Northern Railway seeking to know whether the consignments were released at Amroha or not and to whom they were released. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO had acknowledged the receipt of only one consignment. He wanted to know to whom the remaining consignments were released in Amroha. The respondent stated that the consignment was not received by them at Amroha. The appellant produced the bill tickets in respect of the two consignments sent by him as a proof of the fact that these consignments were indeed sent by him by the said trains. He was not willing to accept the respondents’ submission and also leveled allegations of corruption on the Railway officials. The respondent informed that if appellant filed his claim with CCM after filling up the prescribed form, then efforts would be made to settle the claim after the papers are found to be in order. The PIO also stated that the appellant can write to the Supervisor for a copy of the claim form.",The Commission noted that the proof of dispatch of consignments by train is available with the appellant and directed the PIO to furnish an affidavit clearly affirming the fact that the consignments sent have not been received by them at Amroha. The CIC also observed that the appellant’s grievance falls outside the ambit of the RTI Act. +240,Can information regarding the FIR registered against the appellant be disclosed?,"Police Department, Puducherry",the FIR registered against him on the direction of the concerned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on a complaint filed by his wife,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission held that matter is under investigation therefore provision under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;applies to the other information sought by the appellant.","Can information regarding the FIR registered against the appellant be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Police Department, Puducherry seeking information regarding the FIR registered against him on the direction of the concerned court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on a complaint filed by his wife. The public Information officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the case has been investigated into. The charge sheet has been filed against the appellant and the matter is under trial in the CJM court. The respondent submitted that the appellant has requested for guidelines for investigation of dowry related cases especially section 498A r/w section 34 IPC and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act which has been provided to the appellant. The respondent further submitted that the appellant also sought information related to the investigation conducted by the police into the matter and since the matter is under trial, information has been denied under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that the information asked by the appellant in some point appeared to be hypothetical in nature and did not come under the purview of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide copy of DD entry in respect of the case to the appellant. The PIO was also directed to provide a copy of the complaint filed by complainant’s father against the appellant observing that the appellant in the interest of natural justice should not be denied a copy of the complaint made against him and which has been acted upon by the police. The Commission held that matter is under investigation therefore provision under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;applies to the other information sought by the appellant." +241,What happens if the RTI applicant expires before the hearing is conducted by the CIC?,New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC),,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission observed that since the RTI applicant has expired the case stands abated.,"What happens if the RTI applicant expires before the hearing is conducted by the CIC? + +Background: +The appellant had filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) seeking information in respect of some property pertaining to the ‘third party’. The First Appellate authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant. The ‘third party’ approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) with an appeal against the order of the FAA claiming that the FAA did bother to hear him (third party) and ordered for disclosure of information. The Commission stayed the impugned order of the FAA until a decision on the matter is taken by the Commission. The Commission later received a complaint from the appellant stating that the Commission ought to have heard him and taken note of his objections before pronouncing the stay order. He requested the Commission to set aside its previous order and restore the order of the FAA. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the Central Information Commission (CIC), the ‘third party’ informed the Commission that the appellant has since expired. The ‘third party’ submitted that the appellant had filed a complaint with the Police according to which the ‘third party’ had committed a criminal offence by forging appellant’s signature on the affidavit / no objection for filing the same before the NDMC for effecting the mutation of the property in his name and wanted the police to enquire into the matter. The ‘third party’ further pointed out that the Police after enquiring into the matter closed the case stating that the appellant’s allegations could not be substantiated. The ‘third party’ also submitted that the appellant had made a relinquishment deed in favour of the father of the ‘third party’ and had received Rs.5 lakhs from the father of the third party.",The Commission observed that since the RTI applicant has expired the case stands abated. +242,Can copy of educational certificates of employees be disclosed under RTI?,Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (BCCL),,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,CIC/SS/A/2011/001467) and rejected the appeal.,"Can copy of educational certificates of employees be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (BCCL) seeking details of educational and professional qualification of Senior Manager and Deputy Manager. He also sought certified copies of their educational certificates. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided details of educational and professional qualification of both the aforementioned officers but denied the copies of educational certificates under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to an earlier decision (case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001467) and rejected the appeal. +243,Who can be appointed on compassionate grounds after the death of an employee?,Department of Posts (DoP),"whether in a case of compassionate appointment, the elder or the younger son is eligible",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC held that under the RTI Act, PIO is required to furnish the information/documents as available on record.","Who can be appointed on compassionate grounds after the death of an employee? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Posts (DoP) seeking to know who can get compassionate appointment after the death of father during his service, his elder son or younger son. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the appellant wanted to know whether in a case of compassionate appointment, the elder or the younger son is eligible. He submitted that no such guideline /clarification is available on record. The PIO further stated that the Department of Personal and training (DoPT) guidelines on compassionate appointments were available and the same would be forwarded to the appellant. The appellant stated that he wanted the correct interpretation of the DoPT guidelines as requested in his RTI query.","The Commission directed the PIO to furnish a copy of the DoPT guidelines on compassionate appointment to the appellant. The CIC held that under the RTI Act, PIO is required to furnish the information/documents as available on record. Opinions, interpretations, examination of issue, redressal of grievance are outside the purview of the Act." +244,Can administrative order overturn a judicial order?,Allahabad High Court,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also directed the PIO to send the requested photocopy of the relevant file noting to the appellant.,"Can administrative order overturn a judicial order? + +Background: +The appellant claimed that the Deputy Registrar of the Allahabad High Court had passed an order by which he had overturned an earlier order of the Allahabad High Court. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Allahabad High Court seeking to know if there was any particular provision based on which a judicial order was overturned by an administrative order. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that it was not his duty to offer any interpretation or opinion of the kind sought by the appellant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO should provide the photocopy of the relevant file noting in which the approval of the competent authority had been obtained for issuing the order. The CIC also advised the appellant to deposit the application fee by sending a demand draft for Rs. 250/- drawn in favour of the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court. The CIC also directed the PIO to send the requested photocopy of the relevant file noting to the appellant. +245,How much time is taken by the SC for taking up admitted cases for hearing?,Supreme Court of India,the number of cases admitted and disposed of during the preceding 12 months and the time taken for taking up admitted cases for hearing,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the material record available has been provided and there is no further information to be disclosed.,"How much time is taken by the SC for taking up admitted cases for hearing? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Supreme Court of India seeking information relating to the number of cases admitted and disposed of during the preceding 12 months and the time taken for taking up admitted cases for hearing. He also referred to a case of the Reliance Industries Ltd v/s Reliance Natural Resources Ltd and wanted to know if this case had been given any precedence over other cases. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the statistical details about the number of cases admitted and disposed off for the said period. For the remaining queries, the PIO referred the appellant to the Supreme Court of India Practice and Procedure: a Handbook of Information, available in the Supreme Court website. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent explained that queries such as the average time taken for cases to come up for hearing or whether the cases admitted were being heard on a daily basis could not be answered by the PIO because there was no material record containing such information. Regarding the Reliance Industries Ltd v/s Reliance Natural Resources Ltd case, the respondent submitted that it was pending at the time of the RTI application but had since been disposed of by the court and the order would be available in the Supreme Court website.",The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the material record available has been provided and there is no further information to be disclosed. +246,Officers overburdened with regular work should not be appointed as PIO,,,['8(1)(j)'],PENALTY_IMPOSED,7500.0,,The CIC suggested the MEA to reconsider appointing such officers in the passport offices as PIO who have comparatively less workload.,"Officers overburdened with regular work should not be appointed as PIO + +Background: +In an earlier hearing of the same case, the Central Information Commission (CIC) had issued a show cause notice to the Public Information officer (PIO), Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) as he had furnished the information after a delay of nearly 2 months. + +Proceeding + +During the show cause notice hearing before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that the very same appellant had sought similar information in the past which was denied under the section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. While hearing the second appeal, the CIC had directed the PIO to follow the procedure as laid down in section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the Right to Information (RTI) Act before deciding on the disclosure of the information and that the MEA had challenged some orders of the CIC for disclosure of similar information in the High Court which had granted a stay. The Commission noted that the PIO had initiated section 11 procedures just two days before the expiry of the stipulated period. The Commission observed that if there was a stay from the High Court on disclosure of personal information as being contended in some other cases, it shouldn’t have deterred the PIO from disclosing the desired information nor stopped him from initiating section 11 procedures. The CIC held that the PIO had every intention of disclosing the information still he chose to initiate the section 11 procedures very late and waited for long to disclose the information.  The PIO submitted that he didn’t have time to attend to the RTI applications due to heavy work load which was the main reason for delay in response.","The Commission held that the PIO is guilty of delay in the case by not taking appropriate action to deal with the RTI request in time and imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,500/- at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day as per section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act. The Commission also ruled that if the workload on the PIO is very heavy, the Ministry or the authorities concerned should evaluate the workload and make alternate arrangements. It is not necessary to appoint an officer, already overburdened with regular work, as the PIO. The CIC suggested the MEA to reconsider appointing such officers in the passport offices as PIO who have comparatively less workload." +247,Can mediation proceedings of the court be disclosed under RTI?,Delhi High Court,,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(j)']",UNKNOWN,,,The Commission accepted the contentions of respondent and held that the mediation proceedings were held among parties in confidence and such information has no relation to any public activity or interest.,"Can mediation proceedings of the court be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi High Court seeking details of the mediation proceedings in a particular bail application. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information citing Rule 20 of the Mediation and Conciliation Rules according to which such information was to be kept confidential and not divulged to anyone including any court or authority. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the Delhi High Court had framed the Mediation and Conciliation Rules in exercise of the rulemaking power under Part X of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in order to encourage settlement of disputes through mediation and conciliation. The respondent also submitted that the essence of any mediation or conciliation process is its confidentiality and if it would be disclosed then the interests of the parties to the mediation or conciliation could be severely compromised and no one would be interested in resorting to this process. The respondent also cited exemption provisions section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act on the ground that the information is in the nature of commercial confidence and personal.",The Commission accepted the contentions of respondent and held that the mediation proceedings were held among parties in confidence and such information has no relation to any public activity or interest. +248,Are taxis plying at the IGI airport required to register with Delhi Airport Taxi Union?,Delhi Police,plying of his taxi at IGI Airport,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal holding that the respondents have provided requisite information to the appellant as per record and permissible under the RTI Act.,"Are taxis plying at the IGI airport required to register with Delhi Airport Taxi Union? + +Background: +The appellant had grievances regarding plying of his taxi at Terminal-I of Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport. The Taxi of the appellant was stopped by the office bearer of the Delhi Airport Taxi Union since he is not included in the list of taxis registered with the Taxi Union and no other taxi except the taxis registered with the Union are allowed to take pre-paid passengers from Terminal-I. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information regarding plying of his taxi at IGI Airport. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the Commission referred to its earlier decision while disposing the appeal of the same appellant, on the same subject and observed that the appellant had approached Public Grievance Commission (PGC) of Government of NCT of Delhi. The PGC explained to the complainant that since the matter is already sub-judice, it could not interfere in the pending suit. In view of the pendency of Civil Suit, no further action is warranted and the PGC decided to close the case. As and when any crime takes place, the police shall take necessary legal action as per rule.",The Commission observed that the appellant has grievances regarding plying of his taxi at Terminal-I of IGI Airport for which the appellant has approached the appropriate forums. The Commission rejected the appeal holding that the respondents have provided requisite information to the appellant as per record and permissible under the RTI Act. +249,Should the PIO translate the information for the RTI applicant?,Irrigation and Flood control Department,the construction work undertaken by the Flood Control Department including the names of the Contractors who were given the work,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the appellant to deposit Rs.,"Should the PIO translate the information for the RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Irrigation and Flood control Department seeking information on the construction work undertaken by the Flood Control Department including the names of the Contractors who were given the work. He also wanted to know whether these contractors are registered with Delhi Government or not. The appellant also wanted the copies of the registration documents and the copies of tenders and the test reports etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) asked the applicant to deposit the requisite fee of Rs. 1500/- for 750 pages of information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the applicant that the information is available in English and translating it into Hindi will cost money. The FAA also informed the appellant to deposit Rs. 1500/- for 750 pages of information which is in English. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he would like to get the Hindi translation of 750 pages. The respondent informed the appellant that he would have to pay for this translation from English to Hindi.","The Commission observed that under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act, the information can only be provided as available in the records and that there is no provision of translating the information and providing the translated version to the applicant. The CIC directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 1500/- for copy of 750 pages of information. + +Comments + +This site has repeatedly said that information should be provided in the form in which it is available and the same is not required to be created. A PIO should follow the Language policy of the government in terms of the forwarding letter." +250,Can PIO of Allahabad HC deny the information by citing the Court RTI rules?,Allahabad High Court,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC pointed that the PIO cannot simply cite the rules framed by the High Court to deny any information and advised the PIO to pass a speaking order whenever he decides not to disclose any information.,"Can PIO of Allahabad HC deny the information by citing the Court RTI rules? + +Background: +The appellant referred to a particular civil miscellaneous writ petition and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Allahabad High Court seeking to know as to what action the High Court would take against the culprits and where should he go to get justice if the High Court would not take action against those culprits. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information holding that as per the Allahabad High Court Right to Information Rules 2006, the information relating to judicial matters could not be disclosed under RTI. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the High Court had ruled in his favour in the matter and those orders have not been implemented by the concerned even though a long time has elapsed.","The Commission observed that the PIO is required to provide only that information which is available in material form. The CIC also noted that the Allahabad High Court has a separate set of rules under which access is provided to the citizens to its judicial records. These rules must be followed to find out about the cases pending or decided by the Court and the same are not to be disclosed under. Holding that the PIO cannot be held responsible for not providing any information, the Commission commented that the PIO has not bothered to show how the desired information would be covered under any of these rules framed by the High Court. The CIC pointed that the PIO cannot simply cite the rules framed by the High Court to deny any information and advised the PIO to pass a speaking order whenever he decides not to disclose any information. + +Comments + +Information covered under the section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act is exempt from disclosure and it denial of information under other any rules / law is not permissible for denial of information." +251,Can a second appeal be filed to both SIC and CIC for same RTI application?,,the action taken on that complaint,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Further, rather than going into the technicalities of the issue, the CIC could have decided the case on merits instead of deciding the case on other criteria.","Can a second appeal be filed to both SIC and CIC for same RTI application? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab and Haryana High Court in which he referred to a complaint made to the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court against one of the judges and wanted to know about the action taken on that complaint. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant had already exhausted the remedy available to him by filing a second appeal before the Punjab State Information Commission (SIC) and therefore, he could not agitate the same matter before the CIC. The appellant admitted that he had taken this matter in second appeal before the Punjab State Information Commission which they had rejected.","The Commission agreed with the respondent and held that if the appellant has already filed a second appeal before another Commission, then he cannot raise the matter once again in second appeal before the CIC. The Commission noted that the Supreme Court had stayed an order of the CIC directing the disclosure of similar information in the past and the stay still continues. The CIC noted that the Supreme Court has referred the matter to a larger bench to decide whether information relating to the Collegium proceedings and to the complaints against judges should be disclosed in the public domain under RTI. Thus the information cannot be provided to the appellant. + +Comments + +It is apparent that the appellant had wrongly filed an appeal to the State Information Commission (SIC) as a replacement for going to the CIC in the first place. The SIC could have forwarded the appeal to the CIC. Further, rather than going into the technicalities of the issue, the CIC could have decided the case on merits instead of deciding the case on other criteria." +252,Different set of RTI Rules followed by the Allahabad High Court,Allahabad High Court,the functioning of the Allahabad High Court,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant.,"Different set of RTI Rules followed by the Allahabad High Court + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Allahabad High Court seeking information relating to the functioning of the Allahabad High Court. She also wanted to know about the number of holidays in the last financial year; the number of cases listed and taken up in the said Courts and if there was any rule under which some steps could be taken against such advocates who failed to appear in the High Court after filing the case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that the request was not in accordance with the rule 20 of the Allahabad High Court Right to Information Rules, 2006.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that Rule 20 of the Allahabad High Court Right to Information Rules 2006 expects the information seeker to explicitly assert that his motive for seeking the information is both legal and proper. This is completely against the provision contained in section 6(2) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act which clearly states that ""an applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him.” The CIC directed the PIO to bring this to the notice of the competent authority to reconsider the validity of this particular rule in view of the expressly contrary provision in the RTI Act. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant." +253,Reward for not participating in the Railway strike of 1974,East central Railway Divisional,criteria /basis of classification of arduousness of duties in light of D,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission held that since the information being sought by the appellant (copy of option submitted by his late father) was not available, it was not possible for the CIC to authorize its disclosure.","Reward for not participating in the Railway strike of 1974 + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the East central Railway Divisional seeking information regarding criteria /basis of classification of arduousness of duties in light of D.O. letter of Member of the Railway Board along with list of those staff, their working area and their designation who were rewarded with employment of their wards in railways. The Public Information Officer (PIO) directed the applicant to send the IPO in favour of FA & CAO, E.C. Railway and at the post office in said division. The applicant then sent the revised IPO as per the directions of the PIO. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant sought the reward that according to him had been denied to his father who had not participated in the Railway strike of 1974. The respondent explained that the appellant is seeking information/ reward with reference to his late father who was an employee of the Railways and had not participated in the railway employees strike in 1974. The respondent added that as per the service record of the late father that is available with them, the father had opted for advance increment out of the four options given and the same was given to him. The appellant stated that his late father had filed an RTI application, while being alive, seeking a copy of the letter in which he had indicated his option while contending that no such option had been given by the father. The respondent expressed his inability to provide any proof of the fact that the appellant’s late father had opted for advance increment since the matter is more than 38 years old and the records of that time seemed to have been destroyed. The respondent pointed out that all that they have is the service record indicating that the father had been given advance increment as a reward for not participating in the strike in 1974. The respondent also added that a copy of the service record has already been supplied to the appellant’s father in response to his RTI application. The appellant insisted that his father had not submitted any option in this regard and sought a copy of the same.","The Commission held that since the information being sought by the appellant (copy of option submitted by his late father) was not available, it was not possible for the CIC to authorize its disclosure." +254,Disclosure of boarding passes submitted for claiming LTC bills be under RTI,South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC),the rules under which LTC bills were passed in his case and in the case of a similarly situated colleague,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission held that the funds that were released in favour of the government employee after processing the LTC claim are government funds hence the sought information should be disclosed.,"Disclosure of boarding passes submitted for claiming LTC bills be under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) seeking information pertaining to the rules under which LTC bills were passed in his case and in the case of a similarly situated colleague. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant requested for a photocopy of the boarding passes in the sector where air journey was undertaken as submitted by his colleague on the basis of which her LTC claim was passed. The PIO stated that the information could possibly be held by the PIO, Accounts Department.","The Commission directed the PIO, Accounts Department, SDMC to provide copy of the boarding passes (severing the Bar code) submitted by the appellant’s colleague for claiming reimbursement for LTC journey by air. The Commission held that the funds that were released in favour of the government employee after processing the LTC claim are government funds hence the sought information should be disclosed." +255,Can an employee avail meal coupons and allowances while being on special leave?,Life Insurance of Corporation (LIC) of India,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO provide a copy of the rules under which an employee of LIC can participate in sports events / tournaments other than those held by LIC for which special leave is granted while taking the employee to be as on duty and allowances admissible to him.,"Can an employee avail meal coupons and allowances while being on special leave? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance of Corporation (LIC) of India seeking details of the meal coupons and the special sports allowance awarded to employees of LIC during the sports tournaments organized by Organization other than the LIC of India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that they will provide a copy of the relevant circular to the appellant. The appellant stated that the said circular does not cover the special situation under which he is granted special leave while being treated on duty for participating into tournaments other than those held by LIC. The appellant also stated that he has not been given any sports allowance during those periods or any meal coupons even though he was on duty at that time. He also pleaded to have copy of the circular/rules in this regard.",The Commission directed the PIO provide a copy of the rules under which an employee of LIC can participate in sports events / tournaments other than those held by LIC for which special leave is granted while taking the employee to be as on duty and allowances admissible to him. +256,Refund of fee due to delay in providing the information by the PIO,South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to refund the amount of Rs.,"Refund of fee due to delay in providing the information by the PIO + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) seeking details of the number of Work Orders and Completion Certificates issued by the Public Authority of Ward No. 178. The Public Information Officer (PIO) asked the appellant to deposit the photocopying charges for the available information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that full amount of Rs. 3110/– for obtaining 1555 pages of documents was deposited by him but he was provided with only 1000 pages of documents. The PIO stated that he has brought with him the photocopies of the balance 555 pages which could not be provided to the appellant on account of the fact that the dealing assistant had been transferred out. He had locked the concerned file in a cupboard without handing the same over to his successor and had failed to respond to several reminders sent to him in this regard.",The Commission held that complete information has been furnished to the appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to refund the amount of Rs. 1110/- to the appellant holding that there has been a delay of some months in providing complete information. +257,The details of insurance policy is personal information of the policy holder,Life Insurance of Corporation (LIC) of India,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC ruled that the information sought is personal information of the third party and no person can claim as a matter of right the personal information of a third party unless a larger public interest is being established.,"The details of insurance policy is personal information of the policy holder + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance of Corporation (LIC) of India seeking details of two particular policies. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the LIC Policies holder and the nominees had chosen to terminate the policy prematurely and had taken the requisite amount as per relevant calculations. The respondent also submitted that the third party has denied permission for the disclosure of her personal information. The appellant submitted that disclosure of information is required as the rights of the nominee are being affected.",The Commission observed that the third party is entitled to terminate the policy prematurely. The CIC ruled that the information sought is personal information of the third party and no person can claim as a matter of right the personal information of a third party unless a larger public interest is being established. The appeal filed by the appellant was rejected in above terms. +258,Using RTI for getting a copy of the evaluated answer sheets of the SSC examination,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,5000.0,,The Commission held it as a case fit for imposing penalty and a penalty of Rs.,"Using RTI for getting a copy of the evaluated answer sheets of the SSC examination + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking the copy of the evaluated OMR sheet. There was a delay in providing the information for which the CIC had issued a show cause notice dated 28 February 2013 directing the PIO to appear before the bench and to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that the information could not be given in time because it could not be traced out on account of several examinations being under process during the period. He further explained that since the SSC examination related papers including the evaluated answer sheets were being dumped in huge volumes and extracting the desired information from such bundles was a very time consuming task. + +Proceedings + +After considering the explanation given by the PIO, the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that generating a huge volume of papers by way of evaluated answer sheets by the SSC cannot be the sole reason for not providing the information. The CIC held that the CPIO should at least write to the Appellant in time and inform him about the difficulties in providing the information within the stipulated period. The CIC noted that the PIO has never taken the trouble of apprising the information seeker about the status of his RTI request and did not carry out the direction given by the FAA. Only after the PIO had left and someone else came in his place, some information was finally given in the appellant in month of November 2012.",The Commission held it as a case fit for imposing penalty and a penalty of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on PIO for not providing the information. +259,PIO and FAA must keep in mind the spirit of the RTI Act while responding to applications,National Insurance Company Limited,Doctors Indemnity Policy / Doctors Package Policy in respect of her own policy for three years,[],REMANDED,,,"The Commission also advised the Regional Manager of the branch office to investigate the reasons for not having issued policy bond to the appellant for the first two years of the policy when IRDA mandates the issue of policy bond within 15 days, if appellant approaches him with such a complaint.","PIO and FAA must keep in mind the spirit of the RTI Act while responding to applications + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Insurance Company Limited seeking information regarding Doctors Indemnity Policy / Doctors Package Policy in respect of her own policy for three years.The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that vague and misleading information was provided to her by the PIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA).  Regarding the error in processing her case based on the proposal form by the branch manager, she submitted that the reply of the FAA was not clear and specific. The FAA had informed that the change over from Professional Indemnity (Doctors and medical practitioner) Insurance to Doctor Package Policy is an error of omission or commission at the hands of person doing the job.","The Commission noted that the PIO and the FAA have been extremely vague and at times misleading. The CIC held that such practice in handling RTI applications is in conflict with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and they must in future desist from taking such an approach. The Commission noted that the language used by the FAA contravenes the RTI Act and is also contrary to the accepted principles of good client relationship which the insurer must maintain with their clients as part of their insurance business. The Commission remanded the matter to the PIO with directions to provide specific, clear and complete information to the appellant against each of the points in her RTI application along with attested photocopy of the complete file in which the proposal submitted by her has been examined and complete calculation of the premium amount. The Commission also advised the Regional Manager of the branch office to investigate the reasons for not having issued policy bond to the appellant for the first two years of the policy when IRDA mandates the issue of policy bond within 15 days, if appellant approaches him with such a complaint." +260,Can names of students belonging to SC/ ST category be disclosed under RTI?,,,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comments + +It has been held by other benches that such information is liable to be disclosed under RTI Act.","Can names of students belonging to SC/ ST category be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the IIM seeking copies of various documents. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he has not been provided names of students who have studied in the IIM for the past five years. The respondent submitted that they had provided the statistical data relating to Schedule Caste /Schedule Tribe students but the names of the students was denied under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act, as this information is in confidentiality clause of the Institute.","The Commission concurred with the decision of the PIO/FAA and rejected the appeal. + +Comments + +It has been held by other benches that such information is liable to be disclosed under RTI Act." +261,Seeking information about the employees of the Central Bank of India,Central Bank of India,"the employees of the bank such as, names, telephone numbers, office address, mobile numbers, email IDs, fax numbers of all the officers including the grievance and vigilance branch",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide the information sought in the RTI application having a bearing on the official contact points.,"Seeking information about the employees of the Central Bank of India + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bank of India seeking information regarding the employees of the bank such as, names, telephone numbers, office address, mobile numbers, email IDs, fax numbers of all the officers including the grievance and vigilance branch. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the appellant sought information about the official contact particulars of the officers of the bank. The respondent informed that most of the information has been provided and some information had been withheld which were related to the official contact points of senior level officers.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide the information sought in the RTI application having a bearing on the official contact points. +262,Should LIC display a list of diseases which disqualify a proposer from availing insurance coverage?,LIC of India,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC further held that it would also obviate the necessity of proposers having to unnecessarily undertake medical tests when they already stand ineligible for coverage of the above mentioned health insurance scheme due to a preexisting illness/ disease and bear unnecessary expenses there on.,"Should LIC display a list of diseases which disqualify a proposer from availing insurance coverage? + +Background: +The appellant had applied for insurance coverage under Jeewan Aarogya insurance plan of Life Insurance of Corporation (LIC) of India. He claimed that he had clearly disclosed the pre–existing disease of diabetes along with the medication being administered to him in his proposal form at the time of applying for insurance. However, he was asked to undergo other medical tests (which he complied with) and resubmit the proposal form. Subsequently, after the case was scrutinised by the Committee of Medical Referees, his case was turned down. The insurance company had deducted the expenditure on medical tests, processing fee and service charges from the lump sum amount deposited by the appellant. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the LIC of India seeking details of the acceptance/ rejection of a proposal filed by the appellant and his wife for LIC Jeevan Arogya Policy. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pleaded that the LIC of India must disclose to him and also put on their website if not an exhaustive list, at least an illustrative list of diseases on account of which proposal for coverage under the above mentioned health insurance plan will be turned down. The PIO stated that this is privileged information and cannot be disclosed as they form part of the underwriting rules and guidelines of LIC of India which are confidential and can not to be disclosed.",The Commission directed the PIO to facilitate inspection of the complete file in which the case of the appellant has been examined and subsequently turned down. The Commission accepted the arguments put forth by the appellant that the list of pre– existing diseases which disqualify a proposer from availing of insurance coverage under Jeewan Aarogya insurance scheme must be placed on the website of the Corporation which will work as a guide to the clients of the Corporation. The CIC further held that it would also obviate the necessity of proposers having to unnecessarily undertake medical tests when they already stand ineligible for coverage of the above mentioned health insurance scheme due to a preexisting illness/ disease and bear unnecessary expenses there on. +263,Can the details of deal between private firms be disclosed under RTI?,Income Tax Department,whether the said company had claimed depreciation and if so whether it was allowed by the IT authorities,"['8(1)(e)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission accepted the contentions of the PIO and rejected the appeal.,"Can the details of deal between private firms be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax Department seeking certificate regarding sale of wind electric generators by a private firm to another private firm, which resold them to a third private firm. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;stating that the information was held in fiduciary capacity. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) issued notices to the two companies to seek their response and both the companies objected to any such information being provided. The FAA stated that the issue involved was in private domain and was being disputed by both the parties before Civil Appellate Jurisdiction. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant clarified that he wanted to know whether the said company had claimed depreciation and if so whether it was allowed by the IT authorities. The PIO referred to a Supreme Court decision in the case of Girish Ramchandra Desbhpande wherein it was held that the IT Returns is personal information and hence exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.",The Commission accepted the contentions of the PIO and rejected the appeal. +264,Seeking copy of 49 years old notification submitted by MCD under RTI,Supreme Court of India,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal noting that the records have been already destroyed and it was not possible for the PIO to produce the document or even to confirm if the document had ever been furnished to the court.,"Seeking copy of 49 years old notification submitted by MCD under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Supreme Court of India seeking certified copy of the notification of year 1964 submitted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) before the Supreme Court as per the directions of the Court. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the relevant records had been weeded out and were no longer available. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that his case was dismissed by the Supreme Court primarily based on the notification of year 1964 which the MCD had produced before it and it was important for him to get a copy of this notification. The respondent submitted that the original records of the case were no longer available having been weeded out as per the record retention schedule followed by the Supreme Court of India.",The Commission observed that since the record of case do not exists then it would be impossible to know if any such notification had been produced by the MCD and whether it was the original notification or a draft of it. The CIC advised the appellant that he should seek a copy of the notification from the MCD itself. The Commission rejected the appeal noting that the records have been already destroyed and it was not possible for the PIO to produce the document or even to confirm if the document had ever been furnished to the court. +265,Should a PIO comment on the decision taken by the PIO of another pubic authority?,Supreme Court of India,if the Supreme Court of India had given any such direction in this matter,['8(1)(b)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the PIO of the Supreme Court of India cannot comment on the decision of the PIO, Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation.","Should a PIO comment on the decision taken by the PIO of another pubic authority? + +Background: +The appellant had earlier filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the desired information on the ground that the matter was subjudice before the Supreme Court of India. Later the appellant filed an RTI application with the Supreme Court of India seeking to know whether the Supreme Court of India had specifically given any direction not to disclose any information about the matter. The PIO informed him about the status of the two cases pending before the Supreme Court and stated that only a show cause notice had been issued in the case till this period but the reply was still awaited. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that as per the provisions of section8(1)(b)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;of the RTI Act only that information would be exempt from disclosure which a court would expressly forbid to publish. Therefore, he wanted to know if the Supreme Court of India had given any such direction in this matter. The respondent pointed out that the PIO had already informed about the status of the case according to which the Court had only issued show cause notice in both the matters pending before it and had received no reply from the parties concerned until that date.","The Commission noted that the PIO of the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation not referred to any express direction of the Supreme Court not to disclose the information, he only taken the plea that the matter was subjudice. The CIC also added that as the view taken by the PIO is right or wrong is to be decided by the Uttar Pradesh State Information Commission if the appellant choose to file any second appeal before them. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the PIO of the Supreme Court of India cannot comment on the decision of the PIO, Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation." +266,Copy of FIR - Is FIR a confidential document?,,,['8(1)(g)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide the attested copies of the enclosure received along with the communication to the appellant.,"Copy of FIR - Is FIR a confidential document? + +Background: +The Indian Overseas Bank had initiated disciplinary proceeding against some officials including the appellant in 1995 and the proceedings have now concluded. The appellant referred to the communication sent by the Bank to the CVC in this regard and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). He sought for the certified copies of the enclosure sent along with this communication. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act.","The Commission observed that the exemption provision cited by the PIO does not appear to be appropriate in the present case and referred to section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;which bars the disclosure of information which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. The Commission held that it is not established as to how the desired information could be covered under this provision. The respondent submitted that the enclosure with the same communication was the FIR filed by the CBI in the case. The Commission ruled that the first information report of any case is neither a confidential document nor its disclosure would impede the investigation or subsequent prosecution.  The CIC directed the PIO to provide the attested copies of the enclosure received along with the communication to the appellant." +267,Does EC maintain centralized database of all the constituencies in the country?,Election Commission (EC) of India,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal and advised the appellant to approach the State Chief Election Officers to obtain the data if available with them.,"Does EC maintain centralized database of all the constituencies in the country? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Election Commission (EC) of India seeking to know the total number of voters who had been enrolled in more than one constituency. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the EC did not have any material record containing such data. He also informed that the electoral rolls were prepared Assembly Constituency wise and the EC did not maintain any centralized database of all the electoral rolls of all the constituencies in the country. The PIO advised him to approach the State Chief Election Officers instead.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the Election Commission (EC) of India did not have the desired information in a compiled form. The CIC held that with progressive computerisation of all such records, it may be possible in future to detect and identify those voters who have multiple registrations across constituencies. The Commission rejected the appeal and advised the appellant to approach the State Chief Election Officers to obtain the data if available with them." +268,Information relating to the filing of cases under section 125 of the CrPC,,the filing of cases under section 125 of the CrPC,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC advised the appellant to seek such information from the relevant District Court which is an independent public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act or from any other legal expert.,"Information relating to the filing of cases under section 125 of the CrPC + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking information relating to the filing of cases under section 125 of the CrPC. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that most of the queries did not amount to information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act and was in the nature of seeking opinion. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the information sought by him related to the practice and procedure of district courts. He insisted that the High Court should provide the copies of the rules and regulations in this regard. The respondent submitted that the High Court did not frame any rules on court fees and there was no such rule or instruction to be disclosed. The respondent explained that the court fees were governed under the provisions of the Court Fees Act and the High Court had nothing to do with this. The respondent further submitted that the PIO could not be expected to give advice or opinion on how much court fees would be required for filing an application under section 125 of the CrPC or other such queries. He suggested that the appellant could seek such advice from any lawyer or advocate.",The Commission observed that the queries were in the nature of seeking advice or opinion of the PIO on a variety of legal issues and were not related to the High Court. The CIC advised the appellant to seek such information from the relevant District Court which is an independent public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act or from any other legal expert. +269,Seeking details of employees on whom penalty was imposed by CVC,,,['8(1)(h)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the appellant did not specify any name or any particular case but relied on some news report for seeking general information about the 116 employees.,"Seeking details of employees on whom penalty was imposed by CVC + +Background: +There was a news item published in the Indian Express according to which the CVC had imposed fine on 116 government employees. Referring to it, the applicant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) seeking the details of these employees and asked whether it included some employees of the Vijaya Bank, involved in some housing loan scam. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the CVC did not impose any such fine on the Central Government employees. It had only advised initiation of major penalty proceedings against 116 different Central Government. He also stated that the details of the employees against whom such advice had been given were not available in a compiled form centrally. The PIO denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that it would impede the process of investigation / inquiry in all these cases.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the PIO was correct in not disclosing the details as all these disciplinary cases would be in various stages of completion and the disclosure of the details could impede the disciplinary proceedings. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the appellant did not specify any name or any particular case but relied on some news report for seeking general information about the 116 employees. +270,Information regarding Chaitra Paurnami Moon Festival organised by a Temple,"Sri Varasiddhi Vinayagar Temple, Thengaithittu",,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also directed the PIO to once again provide the copy of his reply to the appellant along with all relevant documents.,"Information regarding Chaitra Paurnami Moon Festival organised by a Temple + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Sri Varasiddhi Vinayagar Temple, Thengaithittu seeking information with regard to the 46th Chaitra Paurnami Moon Festival. The appellant did not receive any reply from the Public Information Officer (PIO) and filed the first appeal before the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Institutions. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide requisite information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the PIO has not complied with the direction of the FAA. The PIO submitted that he has replied to the appellant and as per the letter delivery book, the said letter has been received by the appellant’s wife. The appellant argued that the letter has not been received by his wife. The respondent countered that the appellant himself requested the PIO to deliver the letter to his wife.",The Commission directed the PIO to send all his replies through speed post or by registered post only. The CIC also directed the PIO to once again provide the copy of his reply to the appellant along with all relevant documents. +271,Seeking the marking pattern of the tests conducted by Railway Recruitment Board,Railway Recruitment Board (RRB),the way the marking was done in different tests,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,It is also noteworthy that the CIC has preferred to ignore the fact that the FAA did not respond to the appeal.,"Seeking the marking pattern of the tests conducted by Railway Recruitment Board + +Background: +The appellant had appeared for an exam held for recruitment to post ASN and secured 77.10% marks in the written exam. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) seeking information regarding the way the marking was done in different tests. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. The applicant filed his first appeal requesting that his OMR Sheet in the aptitude written test be re assessed and copy of the OMR sheet with answer key be provided to him. The First Appellate Authority did not provide any reply forcing the appellant to file his second appeal before the Commission wherein he asked only for rechecking of his aptitude test answer paper + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that there is no provision for rechecking of answer sheets.","The Commission rejected the appellant observing that there is no provision for rechecking of answer sheets and the relief being sought by the appellant falls outside the ambit of the RTI Act. + +Comments + +Many applicants are not aware of the basic distum that the RTI Act provides the power to seek information and not redressal of grievance. It is also noteworthy that the CIC has preferred to ignore the fact that the FAA did not respond to the appeal." +272,Should the CVC disclose the details of complainant to an applicant?,Central Vigilance Commission (CVC),the complainant,['8(1)(g)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that without knowing the status of the complaints the PIO cannot disclose the details of the complaints or the complainants.,"Should the CVC disclose the details of complainant to an applicant? + +Background: +Enclosing the copy of an anonymous, the RTI applicant alleged that it had been sent by the CVC to the Ministry of MSME. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) seeking information regarding the complainant. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the complaint was not anonymous and denied the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent produced the copies of complaints received in the CVC against the appellant and stated that all these complaints including the one which the appellant had enclosed were received from various complainants. The respondent further submitted that the CVC had forwarded all these complaints to the Ministry concerned for further necessary action and that the status of complaints was not clear i.e. whether the Ministry has enquired into these complaints or not. The respondent stated that the disclosure of the complaints would identify the complainants and might endanger their personal safety.",The Commission noted that if the appellant has been able to get a copy of one complaint from the Ministry he could get the copies of the remaining complaints from there. The Commission held the CVC is bound to protect the identity of the complainant at least until the entire matter is fully investigated into. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that without knowing the status of the complaints the PIO cannot disclose the details of the complaints or the complainants. +273,Are the war related casualties liable to be placed in public domain?,Indian Army,,['8(1)(a)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the disclosure of such information has a bearing on the national security.,"Are the war related casualties liable to be placed in public domain? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Army seeking the number of terrorists and the Indian soldiers killed in the Kargil War and some other related information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that war related casualties cannot be placed in public domain without a reasonable distance of time as they affect the morale of the nation in general and that of the troops in particular. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the disclosure of such information has a bearing on the national security. +274,Chief Secretary of A&N asked to implement section 4 of RTI Act,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The CIC also directed that in future, the public authorities can revise the data once every year and make it up to date.","Chief Secretary of A&N asked to implement section 4 of RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant filed three identical applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act; one with the Andaman and Nicobar Administration (A&NA) and two with the Pradhan Gram Panchayat. He wanted to know about the status of the implementation of the provisions of section4(1)(a)Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;, section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;, section4(1)(c)Every public authority shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;and section4(1)(d)Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) concerned in each of the public authorities provided some information and asked for photocopying charges against some information. In some of these cases, the Appellate Authority had passed some order on the appeal preferred before him. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the representative of the appellant explained that none of the public authorities had complied with the provisions of section 4(1) entirely and had made only lip service wherever any such disclosure was made. The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that of the three public authorities, two are Gram Panchayats which has only one fulltime Secretary each and no other staff. The CIC took a view that the Panchayats do not have access to internet services all over the Island and may not be in a position to disclose any information in any website which is not the case for any office located in Port Blair. The Commission held that the implementation of the provisions of section 4 is the responsibility of each public authority. In a small Union Territory like the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the initiative for this must come from the top and it is for the Chief Secretary to issue directives to all the public authorities functioning under the Administration to comply with this provision. + +The Commission directed that keeping the instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in view, the Andaman and Nicobar Administration can ensure that every public authority comes out with a detailed disclosure of all the information as required under these provisions within a fixed time limit. The Commission held that it would be enough for a Gram Panchayat to publish, even on its notice board, the lists of schemes it has implemented, the names and other details of the beneficiaries of the schemes, the amount of grant/ subsidy/ concession/ scholarship/ stipend/ pension that it disburses every month, the details of the persons below poverty line and so on. + +The public authorities having access to internet must publish all such data in their respective website. All the historic data held by them such as circulars, guidelines, instructions and office memoranda can be scanned and uploaded. The directory of officers and employees and the monthly salary paid to them can be directly uploaded at least once in a year by accessing such data from the Pay and Accounts Office. The list of schemes implemented under every department/public authority can simultaneously be disclosed by scanning the details of the scheme and uploading those in the website. The exercise is not very complicated and can be completed easily only if some senior official in the public authority is made responsible personally. + +The CIC observed that the process of disclosure under Section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;has to be done without fail and the process of section4(1)(a)Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;is a continuing one. The indexing, cataloguing and computerization of the existing and past records needs to be taken up on a continuous basis, and completed within a time frame. Simultaneously, the current data generated on a day to day basis, can be straightaway stored in a scheduled format. This would make the retrieval of information extremely easy and the citizens will also find it very easy to specify the information they really need.","The CIC expressed the hope and expected that the Chief Secretary of the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands would initiate a drive and complete this exercise in a period of two months which would be reviewed on 1 June 2013 to find out the extent of compliance. The CIC also directed that in future, the public authorities can revise the data once every year and make it up to date." +275,Should SEBI locate an untraceable company and make it accountable to its investors?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC held that the SEBI and other such statutory bodies responsible for protecting investor interest would take appropriate steps and locate the company and make it accountable to its investors.,"Should SEBI locate an untraceable company and make it accountable to its investors? + +Background: +The appellant had a complaint against some company in which she had invested by way of shares and the company has not been responding to her as also to other such investors. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) complaining against the said company and demanded that she should be compensated. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that her request did not qualify for any information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The PIO also informed her that the RTI application was being treated as an investor complaint and the matter was being taken up with the intermediary concerned. On the direction of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO informed the appellant that the report which the SEBI received from the intermediary concerned shows that the company in which the appellant invested was no longer traceable.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that there is no information to be disclosed in the case. The CIC noted that it is surprising that a company duly registered with the relevant authorities vanishes with the deposits of the investors. There must be some way to deal with such situations and to bring the culprits to book. The CIC held that the SEBI and other such statutory bodies responsible for protecting investor interest would take appropriate steps and locate the company and make it accountable to its investors. +276,Estranged wife asks for the commission amount received by LIC agent,Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission upheld the decision of PIO and added that the third party is neither a public servant nor a regular employee of the public authority.,"Estranged wife asks for the commission amount received by LIC agent + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking details of the commission amount received by LIC agent (the appellant’s husband). The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information claiming exemption under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the third party (the LIC agent and estranged husband of the appellant) stated that he has serious objection to the disclosure of the requested information regarding the commission amount paid to him by the public authority. He informed that the appellant is his estranged wife and with whom a matter pertaining to domestic violence is pending in the court.",The Commission upheld the decision of PIO and added that the third party is neither a public servant nor a regular employee of the public authority. The third party is an agent of the LIC of India and is not covered under the disclosure provisions of the RTI. +277,Copies of documents not scanned and maintained by LIC in spite of standing orders,Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Holding that the Branch manager of LIC branch was responsible for the safe custody of the requested documents, the CIC directed to provide the requested information/ documents to the appellant.","Copies of documents not scanned and maintained by LIC in spite of standing orders + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking photo copies of all the documents submitted by a third person (his wife) for issue of the Insurance policies taken by the appellant in the name of his two children along with photocopies of the duplicate insurance policies and action if any taken against the perpetrators of the fraud case and the photocopies of the decision/ report of enquiry committee set up to investigate the case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the papers pertaining to the three policies referred to in the RTI application are either lost or not traceable. The PIO asked the appellant to deposit the requisite fee of Rs. 12/- for receiving the duplicate policies and the information regarding the investigation was denied under the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that that he intimated the public authority regarding the fraud and asked for an enquiry in the matter. In response the branch manager sent letter to the agent (who is the wife of the appellant) asking for her explanation in the matter. The agent sent her explanation to the manager (P&AR) following which the proposal to take action against the agent was sent by the Branch Manager to the Senior Divisional Manager. The PIO submitted that they have not received the orders from the Divisional office and it was also borne out that the custody of the documents sought by the appellant was the responsibility of the Branch Manager in charge of branch. Further, the PIO confirmed that all the documents held in particular docket are compulsorily to be scanned and soft copy of the documents is maintained as per the current orders. The respondent informed that even though all the other papers are available, the copy of the form which request was made for issuing duplicate insurance policies was never scanned and is therefore, not available.","The Commission noted that reasonable care to scan the original request on the basis of which such action was not taken in spite of the standing orders for maintaining soft copy of all documents pertaining to every insurance policy. The CIC observed that the alleged fraud pertains to 3 insurance policies taken by the appellant in the name of minor children and directed that the PIO to provide full and complete information including file notings and current status of the case. Holding that the Branch manager of LIC branch was responsible for the safe custody of the requested documents, the CIC directed to provide the requested information/ documents to the appellant." +278,Can copy of rate analysis of tenders be given under RTI?,Andaman and Nicobar Administration,,['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the duly attested photocopies of the rate analysis approved in the case of each of these tenders.,"Can copy of rate analysis of tenders be given under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Andaman and Nicobar Administration seeking copies of the tenders given for thermo plastic paints on roads and speed breakers. He also wanted the related NIT and rate analyses for these tenders. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the copies of the NIT but refused to give the remaining information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the copies of the orders by which work was awarded to various contractors for the thermo plastic paints on roads and speed breakers. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the duly attested photocopies of the rate analysis approved in the case of each of these tenders. +279,The case of enquiry of file found missing in the Lucknow Central Excise Commissionerate,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Holding that the respondent can only supply information if such information is held by them, the Commission directed the PIO to complete the enquiry within two weeks of receipt of this order and to inform the appellant of the outcome of the enquiry.","The case of enquiry of file found missing in the Lucknow Central Excise Commissionerate + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax seeking copy of the letter by the Additional Commissioner Central Excise (Preventive) Lucknow, date of receipt of compliance submitted the Assistant Commission and copy of all correspondences, reports and note sheets from Central Excise Commissionerate, Lucknow file No. IV(CP/9/CP/Prince 100% EOU/98/2003 from 1.1.2004. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the concerned file is not traceable in the Preventive Branch. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO make all efforts to trace out the files and make provide the information to the appellant within one month. During the hearing before the Commission on 2.8.2011, the PIO submitted that the desired documents could not be provided to the appellant since the file was not traceable despite best efforts made by the concerned Department to locate the file. Further, action has also been initiated to fix the responsibility. After hearing, the Commission vide its order dated 9.9.2011 directed the respondent to complete the inquiry expeditiously within two months and to provide a copy of the report to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that the desired documents could not be provided to the appellant since the file was not traceable despite best efforts made by the concerned Department to locate the file. The PIO submitted that the enquiry was being conducted for fixing responsibility and one officer who dealt with the file had failed to recall as to which officer was dealing with this file. Hence, further enquiry has been referred to the Disciplinary Authority/Vigilance Branch for taking action in terms of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. A tracer was also issued in this regard by the concerned branch but the file is still not traceable. The appellant submitted that the requested information and documents are crucial documents for his defence in a disciplinary case before the Appellate Reversionary Authority (ARA) and if the documents are not provided to him, then he may lose the case. The appellant also requested for award of compensation for the detriment suffered by him under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;and section19(8)(c)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;of the RTI Act.","The Commission took a serious view of the act that the respondent have not yet complied with the directions of the Commission dated 9.9.2011. Holding that the respondent can only supply information if such information is held by them, the Commission directed the PIO to complete the enquiry within two weeks of receipt of this order and to inform the appellant of the outcome of the enquiry." +280,Fee paid in favour of the ‘Accounts Officer’ of the public authority,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The FAA was also directed to obtain the explanation of the concerned Officers/ PIO for not providing the information and returning the RTI application to the applicant and send the same to the Commission along with his comments.,"Fee paid in favour of the ‘Accounts Officer’ of the public authority + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Estate Office and the RTI application was returned by the Public Information Officer (PIO) by stating that the Indian Postal Order (IPO) for Rs.10/- furnished by the applicant has been issued in the name of ‘Accounts Officer’. The PIO requested the applicant to furnish fresh IPO in the name of the Estate Officer enabling that office to proceed further in the matter. On scrutiny of the copy of the RTI application and the IPO submitted by the complainant it is observed that the IPO has drawn in favor of Accounts Officer as per rule 6 of the RTI Rules, 2012 which says that fees would be paid in the manner of cash, by demand draft or bankers cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority or by electronic means to the Accounts Officer of the public authority.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to enquire into the allegations made by the complainant and pass an appropriate order with a view to ensuring that the desired information is provided to the complainant. The FAA was also directed to obtain the explanation of the concerned Officers/ PIO for not providing the information and returning the RTI application to the applicant and send the same to the Commission along with his comments. + +Comments + +Ignorance of law is common after years of the coming in force of the RTI Act and many PIO’s still commit the folly of not accepting the fee by the prescribed mode and manner." +281,Seeking the correspondence pages and copy of the note sheet in a closed vigilance case,"Directorate General of Vigilance (DGoV), Customs and Central Excise",,"['8(1)(j)', '8(1)(e)', '8(1)(g)', '8(1)(i)']",UNKNOWN,,,The CIC added that as the relevant file has been inspected by the appellant the matter was disposed of.,"Seeking the correspondence pages and copy of the note sheet in a closed vigilance case + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate General of Vigilance (DGoV), Customs and Central Excise seeking information regarding the detail status of complaint filed against an individual and in case the complaints have been closed then the date of its closure, copy of closure report and copy of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) recommending for closure of case. The appellant sought the correspondence pages, note sheets, details of the action taken by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), all communication received or sent to CVC and Chief Commissioner etc.. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information by claiming exemption under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.and section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the desired details and inspection of the entire correspondence portion of the subject case file to the appellant. As regards the note sheet portion of the file, the FAA held that the same would not be disclosed as they are covered under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act. The FAA also observed that the PIO has to seek CVC and CBI comments before disclosing the information sought under section 11 of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the FAA has erred in upholding the exemption under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act in relation to the note sheet portion of the files in which the cases have already been closed. The appellant further added that the FAA has erred in directing the PIO to seek comments from the CVC and CBI under section 11 of the RTI Act before disclosing the information as sought in some points. The opinion of the CVC was rendered in the file of the DGoV and therefore, it cannot be termed as third party information. Moreover, as per the proviso to section 8(1)(i), once the matter completed the material on the basis of which decision is taken should be disclosed. The appellant argued that the PIO neither provided the information in prescribed time limit nor sent third party notice to CVC and CBI as directed by the FAA. The PIO submitted that the case against the said person was closed not by the DGoV but by the decision taken in the joint meeting of CVC, CBI and officials of DGoV. The PIO also held that the note sheet portion is rightly held to be not shown to the RTI applicant as there is free opinion expressed by each individual officer and if these are shown under RTI Act, it would affect the working of the DGoV. The PIO further held that the CBI is specifically covered in second schedule and falls under section 24 of the RTI Act as such their correspondence, documents etc cannot be shown. Regarding CVC, the copy of OM was disclosed without any enclosure. For this reason the file pertaining to said person based on the above OM was shown to the appellant. The PIO submitted that after seeing the files the appellant desired that these should be paginated. The PIO stated that as the files were already closed then no alteration could be done after completion of investigation by anyone.","The Commission observed that no malafide for obstructing information is established against the PIO and the contention of the appellant has no merit that the PIO has not complied with the directions of the FAA. As the FAA advised the PIO to seek a no objection certificate (NOC) from CVC and CBI, the PIO has sought the same from them. The CIC added that as the relevant file has been inspected by the appellant the matter was disposed of." +282,Seeking inspection of file related to one’s own suspension under RTI,,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"However, the CIC denied the inspection by the appellant observing that the disciplinary proceeding were under progress so the entire file could not be shown until the proceedings were complete.","Seeking inspection of file related to one’s own suspension under RTI + +Background: +The appellant was suspended from the service, but later his suspension was revoked. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MI&B) seeking to inspect the file related to his suspension and the copy of file notings from the said file. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the inspection as well as the copy of file notings stating that the disciplinary proceeding against the appellant was going on. He cited the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act in support of his decision. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he should be told the ground on which he had been suspended. The respondent submitted that the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant were still in progress.","The Commission held that the employee has the right to know the basis for suspending him from service. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copy of the relevant file noting based on which the suspension detail had been pleaded. However, the CIC denied the inspection by the appellant observing that the disciplinary proceeding were under progress so the entire file could not be shown until the proceedings were complete." +283,Denial of promotion - Different action for the same delinquency,Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank,,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to furnish the information to the appellant as sought in his RTI application.,"Denial of promotion - Different action for the same delinquency + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank seeking copy of a certain departmental inquiry report. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information by claiming exemption under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the appellant stated that he was seeking details of the departmental proceedings and the process pertaining to the award of punishment to him because he had been discriminated against. The appellant claimed that for the same delinquency while one of his colleagues was let off with lesser consequences, he had been made to suffer much more. The appellant added that the respondent has not given him the promotion due to him though his colleague had been promoted. The respondent submitted that a wide set of information that had been provided to the appellant but information about the details of punishment and the departmental action taken against the employee who got the promotion had not been provided. The respondent also stated that the appellant had also approached the Scheduled Tribes Commission in the matter and in the course of the proceedings further information was provided to the appellant.","The Commission observed that the appellant wanted to find out the reasons why one person in the establishment had been given promotion while he himself had not been promoted.  It was brought to the notice of the Commission during the course of hearing that the two staff members, one of whom is the appellant, were both implicated in the same matter from which resulted the consequences affecting both, but the appellant was left with a grievance. The Commission directed the respondent to furnish the information to the appellant as sought in his RTI application." +284,Can information regarding the lease of a building of a Bank be disclosed under RTI?,State Bank of Travancore (SBT),the lease of a building,"['8(1)(e)', '8(1)(d)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission agreed with the decision of FAA and rejected the appeal.,"Can information regarding the lease of a building of a Bank be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of Travancore (SBT) seeking information regarding the lease of a building. The applicant was not satisfied by the response provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO) and filed the first appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act, stating it is third party information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the RTI application had been occasioned because the bank was shifting its premises from one building to another building and the appellant had sought information about the new building. A copy of the letter which the concerned bank branch had written to the promoter of the new building was denied on grounds of third party information holding that the appellant was not connected in any way with the promoter of the new building. The names of the concerned parties between whom the correspondence took place were also denied on the same ground.",The Commission agreed with the decision of FAA and rejected the appeal. +285,Seeking details of premium paid for a LIC Policy through RTI,Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India,the premium paid for a particular Policy,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also advised the appellant to approach the suitable forum for redressal of her grievances against the said LIC Agent.,"Seeking details of premium paid for a LIC Policy through RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking information about the premium paid for a particular Policy. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the agent had promised assured return worth Rs. 1,12,000/- but only Rs. 67800/- were paid to him upon settlement of the Policy. The respondent submitted that premium amount charged was as per the rules applicable on the LIC policy and the same has been informed to the appellant.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide the Manual / Rule based on which the calculation of the maturity amount was done along with the copy of the calculation sheet to the appellant. The CIC also advised the appellant to approach the suitable forum for redressal of her grievances against the said LIC Agent. +286,List of patients and treatment they received at Deen dayal Upadhyaay Hospital,Deen dayal Upadhyaay Hospital,,"['8(1)(j)', '8(1)(e)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal holding that information such as names of patients and treatments received by these patients is held by the Hospital in a fiduciary relationship and therefore it could not be furnished to the appellant under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.","List of patients and treatment they received at Deen dayal Upadhyaay Hospital + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Deen dayal Upadhyaay Hospital seeking certified copy of the daily record / list showing the names of patients and their particulars who got treatment / were admitted through Emergency & casualty services or through various Out Patient Departments (OPD) in the hospital for a particular time period. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that the names and particulars of the patients who were admitted to and got treatment in the hospital are personal.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal holding that information such as names of patients and treatments received by these patients is held by the Hospital in a fiduciary relationship and therefore it could not be furnished to the appellant under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act." +287,"In case of transfer of application, should PIO charge application fee on behalf of other offices?",Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC directed the PIO to transfer electronically the RTI Application to PIO’s of the 115 Divisional offices across India along with the direction to provide the information to appellant directly, after the requisite fees has been paid by the appellant.","In case of transfer of application, should PIO charge application fee on behalf of other offices? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking certified copies of list of 4940 candidates selected. He wanted the list certifying them to be temporary employees for more than five years and who were duly offered letters of appointment on temporary basis and other related information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the information sought cannot be provided as the same has to be collected from over 115 Divisional Offices and would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that information has not been provided on the ground that the case is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The respondent submitted that the information submitted before the Apex Court has been obtained from 8 Zonal Offices regarding the number of candidates and the same information has already been provided to the appellant. The respondent also stated that the rest of the information cannot be provided as the same has to be collected and compiled from 115 Divisional Offices. The appellant pressed the respondents to transfer his RTI application to all the 115 Divisional offices. The PIO offered an opportunity to the appellant to send a soft copy of the RTI application to the Central Office, Mumbai which will be electronically transferred to 115 Divisional Office.","The Commission observed that collection and compilation of information from over 115 Divisional Offices would disproportionately divert the resources of the LIC. The Commission directed the appellant to send a soft copy of the RTI application electronically to the Central Office of LIC of India along with the fee of Rs. 1150/- (115 x Rs. 10/- = Rs. 1150/-) as per the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to transfer electronically the RTI Application to PIO’s of the 115 Divisional offices across India along with the direction to provide the information to appellant directly, after the requisite fees has been paid by the appellant." +288,Seeking the copy of the shareholding pattern filed by NSE with annual return,Ministry of Corporate Affairs,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the fees prescribed under the Companies Act will prevail over the fees prescribed by the RTI Rules.,"Seeking the copy of the shareholding pattern filed by NSE with annual return + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs seeking information regarding shareholding pattern as filed by NSE with annual return and the name of the officials who are responsible for scrutiny of the annual returns of NSE since incorporation because at the time of incorporation it was Government Company but records show it is Private Sector Company. He also wanted to know the status of his letter addressed to the Minister of Corporate Affairs regarding the functioning of ROC’s regarding false information being filed by the companies and action taken under section 628 of Companies Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information regarding shareholding pattern and the name of the officials is available in the public domain and thus cannot be treated as held or under the control of the public authority. Regarding his letter, the PIO informed him that his letter was referred to the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs at Mumbai for examination. The RD has furnished a report, whereby ROC has stated that there are no apparent facts/ information available in his office to show that false information has been furnished in Form -20B attracting provisions of section 628 of the Companies Act. The First appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to forward the share holding pattern for the last three years filed by NSE, as available in the electronic record of the Company and forward a copy of letter received from ROC, Mumbai. Regarding the name of officials who were responsible for scrutiny of the annual report, the PIO was directed to inform the appellant that Section 234 of the Companies Act, 1956 authorizes the Registrar of Companies to examine / scrutinize the records as filed and available in the record. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that all data on the electronic portal provides available information 24X7, 365 days a year, from anywhere in the world to the users/information seekers. The provisions of Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956, provides that any person may inspect any documents kept by Registrar and / or may obtain a copy of any document, certified to be true copy after paying the requisite fee. The fees have been prescribed under Rule 21A Companies (Central Government’s) General Rules and Forms, 1956.","The Commission referred to an earlier decision of the High Court of Delhi [W.P. (c) 11271/2009 in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Others Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & another], wherein it was held nothing inconsistent lies between the scheme provided under section 610 of the Companies Act and the provisions of the RTI Act. The RTI Act is a general law which deals with the right of a citizen to access information available with a public authority, subject to the conditions and limitations prescribed in the said Act. On the other hand, Section 610 of the Companies Act is a piece of special legislation, which deals specifically with the right of any person to inspect and obtain records i.e. information from the ROC. Therefore, the later general law cannot be read or understood to have abrogated the earlier special law. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the fees prescribed under the Companies Act will prevail over the fees prescribed by the RTI Rules. + +Comments + +The view of the different benches has differed on this count. Would it be not appropriate to align all fee rules with those prescribed under the RTI Act?" +289,Should the DDA provide the details of allotment at shopping mall to a RTI applicant?,Delhi Development Authority (DDA),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to enable the appellant to inspect the relevant files.,"Should the DDA provide the details of allotment at shopping mall to a RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) seeking information in relation to a particular shopping mall. He wanted certified copies of allotment in the mall, details of other allotments, illegal layout and site plan of mall, etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the said shopping mall was not constructed as per the approved plan by the builder and the basement as well as the roof and terrace of the said building were being sold off and used as shops. The appellant further stated that parking for the public which had to be in the basement were closed and no parking space was provided. The respondent stated that after the land allotment and the prescription of norms, it is the statutory obligation of the builder to comply with the standards and any information available with the respondent would be provided to the appellant.",The Commission directed the respondent to enable the appellant to inspect the relevant files. +290,Can particulars of pensioner’s children be disclosed under RTI?,State Bank of India (SBI),,"['8(1)(j)', '8(1)(e)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the response given by the respondent to the appellant is in conformity with the RTI Act.,"Can particulars of pensioner’s children be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information regarding particulars of the handicapped children proposed by the bank employees as legal heirs for getting family pension; details of candidates for family pension rejected by the bank; and particulars about the pensioners of the Navy and Military Drawing pension from the bank. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied information on the grounds that it is personal information which is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The PIO further stated that the pensioners were also the account holders and that this information was held by the bank in fiduciary capacity under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the respondent stated that the RTI application centered on the issue of the bank’s approach to the payment of family pension connected with bank employees to be given to the handicapped wards of such pensioners. The respondent also stated that the reply to the appellant cited section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act for denying information to the appellant taking into account that the appellant was not connected in any way with the information. The respondent further stated that the bank’s view was that unnecessary invasion of privacy should be avoided where there were handicapped children and family sensitivities had to be recognized. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.",The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the response given by the respondent to the appellant is in conformity with the RTI Act. +291,Demand for the statute under which the cooperative societies are registered,Supreme Court of India,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the PIO cannot offer any such opinion under the RTI Act.,"Demand for the statute under which the cooperative societies are registered + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Supreme Court of India seeking to know the exact statute under which the cooperative societies were registered and whether such societies were public authorities. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that opinion or advice could not be provided as the appellant’s queries were not covered under information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO of the Supreme Court of India cannot offer any advice on the queries raised by the appellant in his RTI application. The CIC held that the exact laws of various states under which the cooperative societies are registered can be found out from the cooperative departments of the respective States. Whether a cooperative society is a public authority under the RTI Act is to be adjudicated by the State or the Central Information Commission not by the PIO of the Supreme Court of India. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the PIO cannot offer any such opinion under the RTI Act. +292,What is the basis for expression ‘Yatodharma stato Jaya’ appearing in the logo of SC?,Supreme Court of India,the law or guidelines or notification under which the Supreme Court of India had adopted Yatodharma stato Jaya as a part of its logo,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to look for the relevant records and provide to the appellant the copy of it for adoption of this particular expression as a part of the Supreme Court logo.,"What is the basis for expression ‘Yatodharma stato Jaya’ appearing in the logo of SC? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Supreme Court of India seeking to know the basis for the expression Yatodharma stato Jaya appearing underneath the seal of the Supreme Court. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred some of his queries to the Home Ministry relating to the National Emblem and stated that remaining information could be found in the Supreme Court website. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he wanted to know the law or guidelines or notification under which the Supreme Court of India had adopted Yatodharma stato Jaya as a part of its logo.","The Commission observed that since the Supreme Court of India had chosen for its logo a different expression from what the Government of India had adopted (Satyameva Jayate) for the National Emblem, there must be some record about it. The CIC directed the PIO to look for the relevant records and provide to the appellant the copy of it for adoption of this particular expression as a part of the Supreme Court logo." +293,List of persons to whom security is provided by state,Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),provision of security by the State to individuals who apprehend threat of life,['8(1)(g)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The appeal was rejected by the CIC stating that such a list of persons to whom security has been provided all over the country is not held by the Public Authority and they are not required to create information under the RTI Act.,"List of persons to whom security is provided by state + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking information regarding provision of security by the State to individuals who apprehend threat of life. He specifically wanted to know the provisions under which security was provided to such individuals; list of persons to whom security is provided all over the country and the provisions under which security is provided by the Maharashtra State Government to terrorists involved in the Mumbai attack on 26.11.2008. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the provisions but denied the list of persons under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act. Regarding the provisions under which security is provided by the Maharashtra State Government, he forwarded the application to State Government of Maharashtra stating that the matter relates to them. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) concurred with the reply of the PIO and observed that the RTI Act requires the respondent to supply only such information which already exists and is held by the public authority or under the control of the public authority.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that requisite information has been provided to the appellant. Regarding the transfer of part of the RTI application to the Government of Maharashtra, the CIC held that since the query related to the State Government, it has been righty forwarded. The CIC noted that security is provided to individuals by concerned State Governments/ Union Territories and in some cases by the Central government. The appeal was rejected by the CIC stating that such a list of persons to whom security has been provided all over the country is not held by the Public Authority and they are not required to create information under the RTI Act." +294,Seeking information about the conduct rules in context of a hypothetical situation,State Bank of India (SBI),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the decision of PIO/FAA.,"Seeking information about the conduct rules in context of a hypothetical situation + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking detailed information on conduct rules in context of a hypothetical situation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that the questions raised did not come under the category of information under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the sought information is based on presumptions and not on a real situation\. Hence, it was not possible to provide the information.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the decision of PIO/FAA. +295,Can the RTI appellant raise fresh request for information at second appeal stage?,Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA),whether the facts mentioned in sanction order of prosecution were verified by the Department and the details of material which was available before the Ministry,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC noted that the appellant had raised new queries for documents in his appeal filed before the Commission which cannot be dealt with as the appellant is not supposed to raise fresh request for information at appeal stage.,"Can the RTI appellant raise fresh request for information at second appeal stage? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) seeking copy of reply to his notice and the conclusion of examination as mentioned in reply. He also wanted to know whether the facts mentioned in sanction order of prosecution were verified by the Department and the details of material which was available before the Ministry. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a copy of communication in response to his notice which also included the conclusion of examination. Regarding the second query, the PIO held that the information desired does not fall under the definition of information as per section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;and2(j)“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; +(iii) taking certified samples of material; +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) also observed that the appellant’s right extends only to seeking information as defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that requisite documents have been provided to the appellant. Regarding the second query, the Commission upheld the reply of the FAA. The CIC noted that the appellant had raised new queries for documents in his appeal filed before the Commission which cannot be dealt with as the appellant is not supposed to raise fresh request for information at appeal stage." +296,Is PF being paid to 400 people working at M/s. Reliance Next Link Pvt. Ltd?,EPFO Patna,"the action taken by the EPFO against this blatant violation of the provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO, EPFO Patna / PIO EPFO Mumbai-II to provide the information as available on record to the appellant.","Is PF being paid to 400 people working at M/s. Reliance Next Link Pvt. Ltd? + +Background: +The appellant claimed that a complaint was filed at EPF Regional Office, Patna some months ago enclosing a list of more than 400 persons who had been engaged in Bihar by the company named Adecco Flexione Workforce solutions Private Limited. These workers had been engaged in connection with the work of Reliance Next link Private Limited. None of these persons had been granted provident fund or other benefits under the EPF & MP Act, 1952 by either of these companies. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the EPFO Patna, seeking information regarding the action taken by the EPFO against this blatant violation of the provisions of the EPF & MP Act, 1952. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that an enforcement officer had visited M/s. Reliance Next Link Pvt. Ltd local office where it was informed that the PF contribution of their employees was being deposited by their head office. He stated that same has been communicated to the appellant. The PIO further stated that he would depute an enforcement officer to the Patna office of M/s. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Private Ltd and provide an appropriate reply to the appellant based on the information collected from them. He requested that a copy of the order should also be endorsed to the RPFC-I, EPFO, Mumbai-II, for making enquiries at their end about both the companies.","The Commission directed the PIO, EPFO Patna / PIO EPFO Mumbai-II to provide the information as available on record to the appellant." +297,Misuse of RTI places burden on financial and manpower resources of public authority,"North, South and East Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC)",the appointment and work description of three officials of the Department,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC also warned the appellant to use the cherished rights given to him under the Transparency Act with great responsibility in future.,"Misuse of RTI places burden on financial and manpower resources of public authority + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North, South and East Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) seeking information pertaining to the appointment and work description of three officials of the Department. He also wanted to know the date of abolition of the post of Deputy Chief Auditor. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant and asked him to deposit the prescribed additional fee for obtaining the requested information against each of the points. The First Appellate Authority directed the PIO to arrange inspection of documents by the appellant after taking a list of such documents from the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the FAA submitted that the appellant has not deposited the fees for getting the information. The PIO stated that the appellant has filed 130 RTI applications consisting of 1025 questions and that he seems intent on placing unnecessary burden on the financial and manpower resources of the Department through misuse of the right given to him under the RTI Act. The PIO also stated that in most cases the appellant had not deposited the prescribed fee or had deposited only a very small portion thereby demonstrating his true intent in causing harassment to the public authority.","The Commission observed that the appellant has not been able to show any larger public interest in supporting his excessive use of the RTI Act nor has he given any credible explanation for not having deposited the prescribed fee for taking the copies of the documents. The Commission noted that the information sought by the appellant has already been provided to him. The CIC also warned the appellant to use the cherished rights given to him under the Transparency Act with great responsibility in future. + +Comments + +The rights granted under the RTI Act are for the benefit of the citizens and everyone should use these rights with a sense of responsibility." +298,Is Public Charitable Trust a legal person?,Income Tax (IT) department,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal.,"Is Public Charitable Trust a legal person? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) department seeking to know whether the department has initiated any action against two charitable trusts to collect taxes, based on complaints filed by him earlier. He also wanted the copies of the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) filed by the Trust. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that the information related to third party and disclosure of such information has no relationship to any public activity and would cause unwarranted invasion on the privacy. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that the appellant has not furnished any concrete evidence to substantiate his claim of tax evasion. The FAA referred to the CIC’s earlier decision (Milap Choraria case) and upheld the decision of the PIO stating that the appellant had not been able to show any overriding public interest. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.applies to private persons while he was seeking ITRs filed by a Public Charitable Trust.","The Commission referred to a previous decision of the Honourable Delhi High Court in the case of Jamia Millia Islamia Vs Shri Ikramuddin wherein it was held that a ‘person’ as legally defined includes a juristic person. Hence the contention of the appellant has no merit. The CIC also referred to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande which held that ITRs is personal information and exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The CIC rejected the appeal." +299,Seeking asset and liability statement of a bank employee under RTI,State Bank of India (SBI),,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the respondent has not contravened the RTI Act in denying the information in question under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person..","Seeking asset and liability statement of a bank employee under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information related to asset and liability statement of a certain employee of the bank. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that it was personal information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the information about assets and liabilities cannot be deemed to be personal as this has been collected by the bank and is in the nature of public data. He argued that the information has to be provided by the respondent to enable continuance as bank employee. The appellant reiterated that matters as assets and liabilities, medical benefits and income tax returns were all in the nature of personal information.","The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the respondent has not contravened the RTI Act in denying the information in question under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.." +300,Action taken against the BSNL clerk for alleged misbehavior with senior citizen,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records relating to her RTI application and take photocopies free of cost up to 10 pages.,"Action taken against the BSNL clerk for alleged misbehavior with senior citizen + +Background: +A lady (the appellant) had filled in a cheque for the deposition of mobile bill which her father went to deposit. However, the last digit was missing in the cheque and the dealing clerk refused to accept the cheque asking to come with the full number. She stated that she herself had filled the cheque and written everything in her own writing. Later, her father had gone to deposit bill for land line but again the same person misbehaved and her father had to return without depositing the bill. She filed a complaint against the said clerk stating that such behavior is not proper on the part of the person who is dealing with the customers, especially with the senior citizens. Later, she filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) requesting to take stern action against the clerk. She also wanted the action taken report in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the PIO had not provided complete information regarding the action taken against the said employee. The PIO stated that the information as available on record has been provided and he is also prepared to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant records and take whatever further information she needs.",The Commission directed the PIO to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records relating to her RTI application and take photocopies free of cost up to 10 pages. +301,Life and marriage certificate submitted to EPFO by a widow for family pension,,,['8(1)(e)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to furnish a confirmation to the appellant.,"Life and marriage certificate submitted to EPFO by a widow for family pension + +Background: +The appellant stated that a widow is being paid family pension which is admissible to her till she is remarried. He submitted that unless the life and marriage certificate are deposited after certain fixed period, the payment of pension cannot be made. He further stated that it was intimated by the EPFO that a particular widow had been paid family pension from 09-05-94 to 31-05-2005. The payment had been stopped from 01/06/2005 for want of life and marriage certificates. In this regard, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the EPFO. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant insisted for providing the copy(s) of life and non-remarriage declarations submitted by the lady. The PIO stated that the information was related to a third party pensioner and since the appellant has not cited any larger public interest to justify the disclosure exemption has been claimed under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The appellant argued that the EPFO authorities have themselves earlier confirmed that pension has been paid to that lady and he wanted them to confirm that her life and non-remarriage certificates are available on their record. The PIO stated that he will issue a confirmation as requested by the appellant.",The Commission directed the PIO to furnish a confirmation to the appellant. +302,Can Form 16 of public servants be disclosed under RTI?,Madras High Court,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the appellant has not brought out any evidence to show that the disclosure of this information would serve any larger public interest.,"Can Form 16 of public servants be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Madras High Court seeking copies of the Form 16 issued to the Income Tax (IT) Department in respect of the Chief Justice and other Judges of the Madras High Court. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that it is personal information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the contents of the Form 16 issued to the IT Department in respect of public servants are in the nature of personal information. The form includes the details of the salary, other allowances paid by the public authority as well as the details of the various savings made by the public servant and the tax deducted at source. The Commission observed that though the salary paid to a public servant is not personal information and is to be disclosed as part of section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;but there is no such compulsion for disclosure of the other details included in the Form 16. The Commission also referred to a Supreme Court decision wherein it was held that the income tax returns of a citizen cannot be disclosed under RTI as it was in the nature of personal information unless it would serve a larger public interest.  The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the appellant has not brought out any evidence to show that the disclosure of this information would serve any larger public interest." +303,CIC- DMC should set up committee to monitor implementation of the cleaning schedule,South Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission recommended the Deputy Commissioner of South DMC to examine the possibility of setting up citizens committee of 3/4 members to monitor the implementation of the cleaning schedule and report the same to the control room of the South DMC in case some lacunae are observed.,"CIC- DMC should set up committee to monitor implementation of the cleaning schedule + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) seeking information in respect of the attendance schedule of Safai karamcharis of the South DMC. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any information even after the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA).",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the matter raised by the appellant has larger public interest which pertains to maintenance of cleanliness and hygiene in the residential area within the Najafgarh Zone. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the complete Safai schedule along with the name of the Safai Karamchari in respect of the said area for every month / fortnight for the past six months; the copy of attendance register; time logged in by the Safai Karamcharis for the past three months and complete list of Safai Karamcharis as maintained by the public authority. The Commission recommended the Deputy Commissioner of South DMC to examine the possibility of setting up citizens committee of 3/4 members to monitor the implementation of the cleaning schedule and report the same to the control room of the South DMC in case some lacunae are observed. +304,Are water bills to be served even if water does not reach the house?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission advised the appellant to take up the issue of service charges being levied even though service is not being rendered with the concerned authority.,"Are water bills to be served even if water does not reach the house? + +Background: +The appellant claimed that his wife had got a water connection from the DJB but despite several complaints, he has been receiving water bills but no water has been supplied. In this connection he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) while enclosing a copy of a water bill received by him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that since the water is not reaching the appellant’s house due to lack of adequate pressure of water, only the service charges have been levied as per rules. No water charges have been levied which is evident in the attached copy of bill. The respondent produced the relevant portion of DJB circular with regard to implementation of Delhi Water and Sewer (Tariff & Metering) Regulations 2012. The respondent also pointed out that even if water does not reach the house at times, the payment of service charges (lowest slab) is levied as per existing rules.",The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the adequate information has been supplied to the appellant. The Commission advised the appellant to take up the issue of service charges being levied even though service is not being rendered with the concerned authority. +305,Should the information existing on website be furnished to RTI applicant?,New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) EBR Department,the details of staff that have been posted again and again in EBR Department after being transferred to other Departments for certain periods,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission closed the case stating that the desired information has reached the appellant.,"Should the information existing on website be furnished to RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) EBR Department seeking details of staff working there such as, their names, designations etc. He also wanted to know the details of staff that have been posted again and again in EBR Department after being transferred to other Departments for certain periods. The Public Information Officer (PIO) furnished point wise information.  Regarding the staff working in EBR Department he informed the appellant that the same is available on the website. The appellant then filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stating that he is not computer savvy and reiterated his request for the information. The FAA directed the PIO to furnish the information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the applicant submitted that he has not received downloaded information from the EBR Department. The respondent from EBR Department handed over the downloaded information to the appellant during the hearing and the appellant was satisfied.",The Commission closed the case stating that the desired information has reached the appellant. +306,Action taken report on complaint regarding an error in E-ticket,Commission,,[],REMANDED,,,"Instead of remanding it to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the CIC bench should have taken a clear decision on the issue.","Action taken report on complaint regarding an error in E-ticket + +Background: +The appellant filed two identical applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, one with the Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd (IRCTC) and the second with the NW Railway. In both the applications, he sought the action taken report on the complaint that he had filed with respect to an error in E-ticket which he had purchased through an agent of IRCTC. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of IRCTC provided some information and informed the appellant that the remaining information pertains to Western Railway. The PIO of NW Railway transferred the application to the WC Railway Jabalpur stating that the TTE who was involved belongs to that particular zone. On not receiving any reply from the PIO [WC Railway], the appellant filed a complaint with the Commission seeking the information and demanding refund of the expenses incurred by him on the ticket since no berth was given to him. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent explained that due to some fault of the printer the berth number that was actually 12 was shown to be “1”. Accordingly the appellant had tried to occupy the berth no. “1” but was stopped from doing so by the TTE because that berth belonged to some other passenger. The appellant was not allowed to occupy berth no. 12 as it might have been allotted to the next waiting list passenger since the seat remained unoccupied.","The Commission observed that the appellant has approached the Commission directly without availing the First Appellate Authority (FAA) channel available to him. The CIC directed the PIO, IRCTC to transfer the complete file related to the complaint to the FAA, WC Railway along with the decision of the Commission directing the FAA to treat the applicant’s complaint to the Commission as first appeal and decide the matter and issue a speaking order. + +Comment + +Under the RTI Act, an applicant can seek information, but not redressal of grievance. However, unlike an appeal, a complaint is expected to be decided by the Commission.  Instead of remanding it to the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the CIC bench should have taken a clear decision on the issue." +307,Seeking details of cancellation of bogus purported registered conveyance deed,Department of Revenue (DoR),cancellation of illegal and bogus purported registered conveyance deed,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to inform the appellant about the present status with regard to the conveyance deed along with copies of concerned pages of the Register.,"Seeking details of cancellation of bogus purported registered conveyance deed + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue (DoR) seeking information regarding cancellation of illegal and bogus purported registered conveyance deed. He also wanted to know whether the above conveyance deed stands cancelled in the records after the High Court Order. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the letter of the appellant’s advocate has not been received and hence no action was taken. The PIO also informed that the conveyance deed was executed by DDA is not cancelled and no such order of Honourable Court is available in the office. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the appellant’s advocate had already been intimated that as per the directions of the Court, the order along with the office copy of the conveyance deed was pasted in the concerned Register and that it is the only way to cancel the conveyance deed after its registration. The appellant submitted that his RTI application remains unanswered.",The Commission directed the PIO to inform the appellant about the present status with regard to the conveyance deed along with copies of concerned pages of the Register. +308,Filling of backlog vacancies in reserved category at Government Mint,India Government Mint,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIO to explain the reasons for delay in providing information.,"Filling of backlog vacancies in reserved category at Government Mint + +Background: +The appellant filed three applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the India Government Mint seeking information running into more than 50 queries. The queries related to the filling of backlog vacancies of the SC, ST and OBC categories, their promotion and several other service matters. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and denied some others stating that the desired information was very old and not available. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that only some of the information had been disclosed and that too after the expiry of the stipulated period. He also complained that the PIO had not provided the information even if it was available in the organization. The respondent submitted that the information sought was voluminous and extended over a long period of time. The searching and collection of the information took a lot of time and a number of information could not be traced out.","The Commission observed that information sought by the appellant related to all the employees of the three reserved categories for a period of 15 years and more. There are close to 500 employees belonging to such categories and some of the information would have to be culled out by going through the individual service records of each of these employees. The CIC directed the PIO to give an opportunity of inspection of the relevant records including service books/ records of SC, ST and OBC employees and those relating to filling up of backlog vacancies both by direct recruitment and promotion for his inspection to the appellant so that he can find for himself the information he wants. The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIO to explain the reasons for delay in providing information." +309,Can recommendations of CVC for carrying out investigation be disclosed RTI?,India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd (ITDC),,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copies of the complaints received from the CVC after masking the details of the identity the complainant; the communication received from the CVC recommending investigation into the above complaints; the photocopy of the relevant file noting in which the competent authority in the ITDC had decided to carry out the investigation and the statistical details contained in the two registers maintained by the ITDC.,"Can recommendations of CVC for carrying out investigation be disclosed RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd (ITDC) seeking information regarding the recommendations received from the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) based on which certain investigations had been carried out into allegations of wrongdoing in the renovation of a number of rooms in the Ashok Hotel. He also wanted information regarding the registers maintained by the ITDC to list the complaints received by it against its officers and employees and the subsequent investigations initiated by the authorities. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information recommendations received from the CVC under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.  He denied the rest of the information stating that the queries do not amount to information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the desired information should be disclosed since the investigation was over and therefore, the exemption provisions cited should not apply in this. The respondents submitted that ITDC had received a number of complaints from the CVC alleging corruption in the renovation of a large number of rooms and this related to the Commonwealth Games. The ITDC authorities had investigated the matter and on the advice of the CVC, the ITDC had initiated major penalty proceedings against some officials and minor penalty proceedings against some other officials. The respondent argued that the disclosure of information would impede the process of the disciplinary proceedings.","The Commission observed that the appellant has very clearly specified whatever information he wants and all that he wants are available in the form of material record. Therefore, it cannot be argued that he has not been very specific or whatever he is seeking is not information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;. The CIC also held that the communication received from the CVC relates to those records based on which the chargesheet served on the errant officers would be proved. If these records are disclosed at this stage, it might impede the disciplinary process. The Commission further ruled that the disciplinary proceeding against an employee is a matter between the employer and employee concerned. To that extent, it is in the nature of personal information of the employee. The CIC held that the contents of the registers cannot be disclosed as it would bring into the open not only the names of various employees against whom investigations might have been carried out leading to institution of disciplinary proceedings, it may also reveal the nature of the charge leveled against the employees. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copies of the complaints received from the CVC after masking the details of the identity the complainant; the communication received from the CVC recommending investigation into the above complaints; the photocopy of the relevant file noting in which the competent authority in the ITDC had decided to carry out the investigation and the statistical details contained in the two registers maintained by the ITDC." +310,Details of cybercrime cases reported to the Directorate of Education,Directorate of Education,rules and grant of vigilance permission to any TGT Teacher against whom a criminal case is pending,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Regarding rest of the information, the Commission held that the word “adequately” used in the query by the appellant is very general and vague in nature.","Details of cybercrime cases reported to the Directorate of Education + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Education seeking information regarding rules and grant of vigilance permission to any TGT Teacher against whom a criminal case is pending. He also wanted some information regarding cyber-crime cases reported to the Directorate of Education. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant and also transferred the application to another department for providing remaining information that pertained to them. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant insisted on the details of cases relating to cyber-crimes reported to the Directorate of Education since initiation of computerization. The respondent submitted that their M.I. branch might be holding information in this connection. The appellant also wanted to know whether the Directorate of Education was adequately equipped with cyber expertise to solve a cyber-crime case and whether is it correct that MIS branch acts on the requests/directions of concerned branches of the Directorate for processing on line transfer of TGTs, PGTs and Assistant Teacher.","The Commission directed the PIO to obtain the details of cases relating to cyber-crimes from MI Branch and provide the same to the appellant. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide copies of existing rules/ guideline for online transfer in respect of TGT, PGT and Assistant Teachers to the Appellant.  Regarding rest of the information, the Commission held that the word “adequately” used in the query by the appellant is very general and vague in nature. Therefore no information can be provided." +311,Can a handicapped person be appointed as technician at Prasar Bharati?,Prasar Bharati,a particular technician who was handicapped,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copy of the recruitment rules for appointment of the technician as well as the period and type of leave sanctioned to this particular employee.,"Can a handicapped person be appointed as technician at Prasar Bharati? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prasar Bharati seeking information about a particular technician who was handicapped. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant insisted to know if a handicapped person could be appointed as a technician. He also wanted to know about the leave details of this particular technician during a certain period.",The Commission observed that such information can be disclosed since these are not covered under any of the exemption provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copy of the recruitment rules for appointment of the technician as well as the period and type of leave sanctioned to this particular employee. +312,"In case of transfer of application, should PIO charge application fee on behalf of other offices?",Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC directed the PIO to transfer electronically the RTI Application to PIO’s of the 115 Divisional offices across India along with the direction to provide the information to appellant directly, after the requisite fees has been paid by the appellant.","In case of transfer of application, should PIO charge application fee on behalf of other offices? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) seeking certified copies of list of 4940 candidates selected. He wanted the list certifying them to be temporary employees for more than five years and who were duly offered letters of appointment on temporary basis and other related information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the information sought cannot be provided as the same has to be collected from over 115 Divisional Offices and would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that information has not been provided on the ground that the case is pending before the Honourable Supreme Court of India. The respondent submitted that the information submitted before the Apex Court has been obtained from 8 Zonal Offices regarding the number of candidates and the same information has already been provided to the appellant. The respondent also stated that the rest of the information cannot be provided as the same has to be collected and compiled from 115 Divisional Offices. The appellant pressed the respondents to transfer his RTI application to all the 115 Divisional offices. The PIO offered an opportunity to the appellant to send a soft copy of the RTI application to the Central Office, Mumbai which will be electronically transferred to 115 Divisional Office.","The Commission observed that collection and compilation of information from over 115 Divisional Offices would disproportionately divert the resources of the LIC. The Commission directed the appellant to send a soft copy of the RTI application electronically to the Central Office of LIC of India along with the fee of Rs. 1150/- (115 x Rs. 10/- = Rs. 1150/-) as per the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to transfer electronically the RTI Application to PIO’s of the 115 Divisional offices across India along with the direction to provide the information to appellant directly, after the requisite fees has been paid by the appellant." +313,Action taken for violation of norms by the railway employees,Central Railway,action taken against the staff that do not wear uniform and display their ID cards,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC advised the appellant to furnish names of staff violating the orders issued by the competent authority regarding uniforms and identity badges to the PIO so that an appropriate action may be taken against them.,"Action taken for violation of norms by the railway employees + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Railway seeking information regarding action taken against the staff that do not wear uniform and display their ID cards. He also wanted to know as to what action has been taken against beggars and hawkers in the railway premises. He further sought the copy of correspondence made with the BMC regarding roaming of stray dogs in railway premises. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that action has been taken in the matter based on the appellant’s complaint. The appellant contended that the same is incorrect since he had seen a number of railway staff not wearing their uniforms and not carrying their identity badges on them. The respondent stated that until and unless the appellant informs the names of the staff who have been violating the orders of the competent authority, it would not possible for them to take action on individual staff.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide the supporting documents based on which a reply was sent to the appellant in respect of uniforms, stray dogs and beggars. The CIC advised the appellant to furnish names of staff violating the orders issued by the competent authority regarding uniforms and identity badges to the PIO so that an appropriate action may be taken against them." +314,Information regarding Group ‘A’ IRS officers who are facing court cases in CBI court,Additional Director Income Tax (ADIT) and Director General of Income Tax (DGIT),Group-‘A’ IRS officers who are facing court cases in a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court,"['8(1)(j)', '8(1)(h)']",PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The CIC upheld the order of the PIO and rejected the appeal.,"Information regarding Group ‘A’ IRS officers who are facing court cases in CBI court + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Additional Director Income Tax (ADIT) and Director General of Income Tax (DGIT) seeking information relating to Group-‘A’ IRS officers who are facing court cases in a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.and section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that it is related to third party and the disclosure would impede the process of investigation/prosecution. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the information which he has sought is very innocuous and should have been posted by the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) on their website.","The Commission referred to an earlier decision of Supreme Court wherein it was held that the details of all memos issued to the third respondent, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are personal information as defined in section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act [Link - http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt/SCDecision.pdf]. The performance of an employee/ officer in an organisation is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression ‘personal information’, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. The CIC upheld the order of the PIO and rejected the appeal." +315,Is a database maintained by CVC to monitor the progress in disciplinary cases?,Central Vigilance Commission (CVC),the civilian employees of the Defence Ministry as the first and second stage advice given by the CVC in various disciplinary cases and the compliance of such advice by the Ministry,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC stated that the CVC would review its current arrangements and bring about necessary modifications to make the monitoring more meaningful and technology based.,"Is a database maintained by CVC to monitor the progress in disciplinary cases? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) seeking information regarding the civilian employees of the Defence Ministry as the first and second stage advice given by the CVC in various disciplinary cases and the compliance of such advice by the Ministry. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the CVC did not maintain such information in the format in which the appellant had sought. After the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the list of cases in which advice had been tendered and as available in the electronic database of the CVC was provided to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the CVC was duty bound to monitor all such cases in which its advice was sought by various ministries and departments including the Defence Ministry and it was odd that it should not have such information. He also submitted that the Defence Ministry had selectively acted on the CVC advice, sometimes disagreeing with the advice or sometimes agreeing with the advice. He argued that this is arbitrary and the CVC should scrupulously monitor all such cases so that a uniform approach is followed in every case. The respondent submitted that the practice followed by the CVC was to render appropriate advice in all disciplinary cases referred to it in individual case files. She further pointed out that the CVC does not maintain a detailed database to show the progress in such cases. The CVC maintains only a simple statement containing the case number, the name of the officer concerned and the date of the advice and the same was provided to the appellant after the FAA’s direction. The respondent submitted that the CVC has no further centralised information about the cases of the Defence Ministry than what has already been provided.",The Commission observed that the information being maintained by the CVC is too inadequate for any meaningful monitoring of the cases. Commission held that it should be possible to develop an appropriate MIS by which all such cases can be monitored closely and to capture more data about the pending cases. This would help in better control and also in disseminating the information if sought under the RTI Act. The CIC stated that the CVC would review its current arrangements and bring about necessary modifications to make the monitoring more meaningful and technology based. +316,Should the Commissioner of Income Tax provide the PAN card details to a RTI applicant?,Commissioner of Income Tax (IT),PAN card of her husband as she was involved in litigation with him,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission concurred with the decision of the PIO.,"Should the Commissioner of Income Tax provide the PAN card details to a RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Commissioner of Income Tax (IT) seeking information relating to PAN card of her husband as she was involved in litigation with him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) observed that as the information sought pertained to a third party; a notice was issued to the appellant’s husband who objected to disclosure of any information claiming that no person by that name is known to him. Hence, the sought information was denied. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the details mentioned in the PAN card without providing any other information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO informed that the name of the PAN card holder, father’s name, date of birth and PAN card number were provided to the applicant pursuant to the order of the FAA.",The Commission concurred with the decision of the PIO. +317,Are the call details of a phone provided by the government liable for disclosure under RTI?,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),,['8(1)(j)'],UNKNOWN,,,"The CIC had ruled that norms and guidelines have been provided covering the usage of the phone, especially about when the private use of the ‘phone was to be paid for by the employee.","Are the call details of a phone provided by the government liable for disclosure under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking outgoing calls of three telephone numbers which were provided by the Government. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO’s representative stated that none of the telephone numbers belong to the appellant and no larger public interest has been cited for seeking the information; hence, it is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The appellant argued that as the said numbers are official phones provided to the respective officials whose bills are paid by the Government, he is entitled to get the information.","The Commission referred to its earlier order in appeal F.No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000836 dated 09/03/2010 wherein it was held that the facility of telephone provided by a public authority to its employees was to facilitate their work. The CIC had ruled that norms and guidelines have been provided covering the usage of the phone, especially about when the private use of the ‘phone was to be paid for by the employee. Such call details, where public as well as private calls are intertwined, cannot be provided to avoid invasion of privacy under Section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information Act. + +Comments + +The activists are likely to be angered by this decision which appears contrary to the stand that all public expenses are liable to be made public." +318,Detail of workers/ staff of BSNL who were absconding and absent from their duty,Deputy General Manager (MM) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the information requested by the appellant.,"Detail of workers/ staff of BSNL who were absconding and absent from their duty + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Deputy General Manager (MM) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking list of staff of BSNL who were absconding and absent from their duty. He sought the details such as the names of such officials, section, their designation, name of the disciplinary authority in each case etc. claiming that it is required by him for the court purpose. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part of the information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that as the matter was under investigation, only part information could be provided earlier and as the enquiry is now complete, the remaining information is being forwarded to the appellant. The appellant specifically requested for information regarding the action taken against one employee. The PIO stated that the said officer has been compulsorily retired from service.",The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the information requested by the appellant. +319,Details of transfer of balance from one bank account to the other,Punjab National Bank (PNB),transfer of balance from an account of a deceased person to his wife’s account,"['8(1)(j)', '8(1)(d)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission accepted the contentions of the respondent and rejected the appeal.,"Details of transfer of balance from one bank account to the other + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab National Bank (PNB) seeking information about transfer of balance from an account of a deceased person to his wife’s account. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that they had called for the opinion of their Law Division about the legal aspects of the information sought. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant explained that a certain account holder had expired and transfer had been made from the account of the deceased into a newly opened account of his wife and that he wanted to know the basis on which the said transfer was made. The respondent submitted that they had denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.and section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act on the grounds of third party information. The respondent also stated that the appellant had no link with the account holder or his wife. The appellant stated that he lives in the same village of the deceased and was a member of the family.",The Commission accepted the contentions of the respondent and rejected the appeal. +320,Disclosure of information regarding GPF amount in the account of applicant’s deceased husband,Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to convey the GPF amount to the appellant and to provide a copy of the relevant rules with regard to payment of Gratuity to the appellant.,"Disclosure of information regarding GPF amount in the account of applicant’s deceased husband + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) seeking information in respect of the Gratuity Provident Fund (GPF) amount in the account of her late husband. The appellant filed a complaint before the Central Information Commission (CIC) stating that no response has been received from the Public Information Officer (PIO). The Commission issued a notice directing the PIO to provide the information and to appear for a hearing. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the information could not be furnished because the case was more than 36 years old and the information was not easily traceable. The respondent also stated that with the help of some retired employee it was found that there is definitely some amount pending in the account of the said deceased person. The respondent further added that the late employee had been removed from service. Therefore, there is no question of any other money (Gratuity) lying in his account since he was not entitled to it.",The Commission directed the respondent to convey the GPF amount to the appellant and to provide a copy of the relevant rules with regard to payment of Gratuity to the appellant. +321,Applicants should avoid making sweeping and universal requests under RTI,,varied subjects like law and order in Delhi and the environmental impact of mobile towers,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The CIC advised the appellant to approach the appropriate public authorities with specific request for information afresh and avoid making sweeping and universal requests.,"Applicants should avoid making sweeping and universal requests under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) seeking information on varied subjects like law and order in Delhi and the environmental impact of mobile towers. The Public Information Officer (PIO), PMO transferred the queries to various other public authorities. The different public authorities responded to the appellant directly, providing some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had been trying to get such information from various public authorities in Delhi but without any success. The respondents stated that they had found the RTI queries extremely vague and unspecific. The CIC specifically asked the appellant to list the documents or records, materially available across the government departments and agencies, so that the concerned PIOs may disclose the same. The appellant could not specify any such document or record.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the scope of the RTI queries raised by the appellant is too vast. The Commission held that that the RTI Act gives the right to the citizen to seek information as available in any public record but this right cannot be used for seeking all the knowledge there is on any topic. Maintenance of law and order in any state is a complex issue and it is impossible to know all about it with one RTI query. The PMO cannot be expected to have all the information on such a query. The PIO, PMO transferred the RTI application to the MHA on the simple belief that the law and order administration in the NCT of Delhi was handled in the MHA. But it is not certain if only the MHA is responsible for this or there are other agencies which might have a role in maintenance of law and order. Similarly no public authority in the government is likely to be aware of the research related to the impact of the radiation from mobile towers going on such a subject across the spectrum of the government and the autonomous research organizations including Central universities and technological and medical institutions in the country. In order to provide the desired information to the appellant, someone will have to undertake research first to identify the agencies and then to collect all the research details including the reports. This is a very tall order. + +The CIC ruled that in order to get information from any public authority, the citizen has to specify the information as per section 6(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO cannot be expected to do research to decipher what all material records need to be disclosed in order to meet the particular information need of the information seeker. The Commission held that the nature of the RTI application makes it impossible for any PIO to provide any definite information. Various PIOs have provided information as per their understanding. The CIC advised the appellant to approach the appropriate public authorities with specific request for information afresh and avoid making sweeping and universal requests." +322,Using RTI to get information about the conduct of Members of Parliament,Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs (MPA),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission held that any RTI request should be transferred to other public authority only after first ascertaining from the Allocation of Business Rules if the subject matter closely relates to that particular public authority.,"Using RTI to get information about the conduct of Members of Parliament + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs (MPA) seeking to know various aspects of the conduct of Members of Parliament such as, having more than one wife, nonpayment of dues against air travel, use of electricity and water, government accommodation etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Ministry responded to some queries and transferred some others to different public authorities. The PIOs of different public authorities provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant made extensive submissions on each of his queries demanding the requisite information.","The Commission observed that some of the queries were not very specific and few were based on newspaper reports. The information sought in the application was found to be varied and not held by any single public authority. However, the Commission directed the concerned PIOs to provide: + +The Commission advised the appellant to seek information from the relevant public authorities and not expect any single public authority to know about all other public authorities where such information might be available. The Commission also advised the PIO of the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs to be careful in future while transferring RTI requests. The Commission held that any RTI request should be transferred to other public authority only after first ascertaining from the Allocation of Business Rules if the subject matter closely relates to that particular public authority." +323,Fee prescribed under any other Act prevails over the fees prescribed by RTI Rules,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission advised the appellant to get the requisite information after depositing the statutory fees as prescribed in Schedule-I of the Patent Act and Patent Rules and not under the RTI Act.,"Fee prescribed under any other Act prevails over the fees prescribed by RTI Rules + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Controller of Patents and Designs (CoP&D) seeking copy of license agreement and working statement of a particular Patent number, submitted by patentee/ licensee from 1996 to 2010. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that for obtaining any certified copy relating to any patent document under the Patent Act, the appellant should apply to the Controller of Patent with prescribed fees as per Schedule-I of the Patent Act and Patent Rules. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he submitted a Demand Draft (DD) for obtaining the same as per the statutory fees. The respondent stated that the DD was not received by the Office and hence the certified copy of working statement cannot be issued. The respondent also stated that the certified copy of license agreement was not registered and entered in the Register of Patents till date due to some objections raised by the Office. In this context, the License Agreement is not open to public under section 69(4) of the Patents Act and not disclosed to any persons except under the order of a Court.","The Commission referred to its earlier decision (case No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112) wherein it was held that the fees prescribed under any other Act for disclosure will prevail over the fees prescribed by the RTI Rules, in case the public authority has already decided to disclose the information. The Commission advised the appellant to get the requisite information after depositing the statutory fees as prescribed in Schedule-I of the Patent Act and Patent Rules and not under the RTI Act. + +Comments + +There has been a difference of opinion between different benches on this issue. Would it not be proper to amend the fee rules to maintain harmony and to avoid unnecessary litigation?" +324,Why is the colour of snow changing in Himalayas?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the PIO is not expected to validate all and sundry reports aired by various TV channels or newspapers.,"Why is the colour of snow changing in Himalayas? + +Background: +The appellant filed the application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking the reasons for the change in colour of snow in the Himalayas as per some report in India TV. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that they had no information on the subject and they did not know which other public authority would have any such information.","The Commission observed that just because there is some report in a TV channel, the PIO of any public authority including the PMO is not bound to know about that subject. The Commission held that the appellant should remember that information is defined in the Right to Information (RTI) Act as material record. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the PIO is not expected to validate all and sundry reports aired by various TV channels or newspapers. + +Comments + +While making the gist of the cases, appeals such as these, provides the comic element to our team at RTI Foundation of India." +325,Is the information about accounts and transactions of a bank liable to be disclosed under RTI?,State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ),various accounts and transactions of the bank,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(e)', '8(1)(j)']",INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to enable the appellant to inspect the relevant files and documents.,"Is the information about accounts and transactions of a bank liable to be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (SBBJ) seeking information on various accounts and transactions of the bank. He also wanted to know the particulars of the banking personnel. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section 8(1)(d), section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that it relates to trade secret, fiduciary relationship and personal information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he needed the information to demonstrate the manner in which the bank establishment was following dual policy in administration and discriminating mindlessly between its own staffs. He alleged that he was dismissed for certain reasons whereas there were instances where the problem or the situation was far more serious but the bank did not took similar action. The appellant further stated that the bank tried to protect some and punished others in similar situations and the stand taken by the respondent that the matter is confidential or secret was untenable as he himself was bank officer and was aware of such working. The appellant also stated that the stand taken by the respondent that the matter is confidential or secret is untenable as it is well known that this kind of information is published in due process.",The Commission directed the PIO to enable the appellant to inspect the relevant files and documents. +326,Should DTC put the minutes of meetings of the board on its website?,Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC),"updating of computer data including all the notices, circulars, office orders and minutes of meeting etc",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC further directed that DTC should also put in place a system that ensures that the said information is routinely updated on the website once every three months.,"Should DTC put the minutes of meetings of the board on its website? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) seeking information about updating of computer data including all the notices, circulars, office orders and minutes of meeting etc. of DTC Board. He also sought information about the rules and regulations of the DTC amended and updated from time to time. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that minutes of meeting of the DTC Board were not available on the website but offered the applicant that the details of board resolution / item and meeting date can be supplied to him as per his desire. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant reiterated his request that in relation with the information sought by him in his RTI application, particularly the minutes of the meeting of DTC Board, should be uploaded on the website of the DTC.",The Commission directed the PIO to place the minutes of meetings of DTC board along with other information on the website of the DTC. The CIC further directed that DTC should also put in place a system that ensures that the said information is routinely updated on the website once every three months. +327,"Can the information related to disease, treatment, PAN no, PF etc. be termed as personal?",North Western Railway,"the name of the patients, treatment given to them along with the prescribed medicine names who were admitted to the CMC Railway Hospital",['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"However, the Commission directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the records with respect to the remaining information sought by him after severing the information under section10(1)Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.of the RTI Act.","Can the information related to disease, treatment, PAN no, PF etc. be termed as personal? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Western Railway seeking information regarding the name of the patients, treatment given to them along with the prescribed medicine names who were admitted to the CMC Railway Hospital. He also wanted the details of salaries paid to all the officials working in the Hospital; names and details of treatment and medicines given to relatives of DRM and CMS in the Hospital; copy of duty register etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information claiming that information such as PAN, PF, and savings insurance cannot be provided as the same are personal in nature. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he is seeking this information as his elder brother’s medicines were changed frequently by the by the Doctors under whom he was treated. He stated that as per his belief, the Doctors were not able to diagnose the problem with his brother.","The Commission accepted the contentions of the PIO and denied the information related to patients diseases, their treatment and PF details observing that these details are personal in nature and exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. However, the Commission directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the records with respect to the remaining information sought by him after severing the information under section10(1)Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.of the RTI Act." +328,CIC- Mere oral assertions do not establish a larger public interest,Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA),,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(e)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission also advised the appellant to approach the designated agency for the disposal of corruption cases.,"CIC- Mere oral assertions do not establish a larger public interest + +Background: +The appellant filed the application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) seeking information copies of net worth certificates of a particular couple submitted by M/s Allied Insurance Brokers Limited to IRDA.The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section 8(1)(d), section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant alleged charges of corruption and money laundering against the third party in respect of whom the information was sought. The appellant submitted that he has filed complaint on the same subject matter to the, IRDA, Enforcement Directorate (ED), Vigilance Department, Income Tax department and the outcome of the enquiry by these concerned authorities was awaited. The respondent submitted that sought information pertains to “third party” and cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.",The Commission observed that the information sought by the appellant pertains to personal information of the third party which may not be disclosed unless a larger public interest is established. The CIC rejected the appeal holding that mere oral assertions do not establish substantial proof against the charges of corruption and lead to disclosure of personal information of the third party in the larger public interest. The Commission also advised the appellant to approach the designated agency for the disposal of corruption cases. +329,RTI application seeking the expenses incurred on farewell of outgoing students,Directorate of Education (DoE),"the number of students in classes XI and XII, the amount of money donated by students of classes XI for the farewell of old class XII students etc",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant records so that he can verify for himself the authenticity of information provided to him.,"RTI application seeking the expenses incurred on farewell of outgoing students + +Background: +The appellant filed the application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Education (DoE) seeking information related to Government Sampurnanand Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya. He wanted to know the number of students in classes XI and XII, the amount of money donated by students of classes XI for the farewell of old class XII students etc.  The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that as per PIO’s reply the amount of balance money with the school after the farewell expenses was only Rs 7/-. He argued that collection was done from 1226 students @ Rs. 100/- per student and after deducting the expenses from the total amount the balance amount ought to be much more that Rs.7/-. He wanted to know what has done with the remaining amount by the school. The respondent explained that on the day of the farewell,l 958 students were present and the money was collected only from them and not from 1226 students. Hence, balance amount left with them was only Rs.7/-.",The Commission directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant records so that he can verify for himself the authenticity of information provided to him. +330,Should a PIO transfer the application under section 6(3) to dozens of branch offices?,Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and Department of Revenue,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"In light of the earlier decision, the Commission upheld the decision of PIO/ FAA and advised the appellant to approach the PIOs of concerned public authorities for the information sought by him.","Should a PIO transfer the application under section 6(3) to dozens of branch offices? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and Department of Revenue seeking some information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI application under section 6(3) to the 14 Director Generals of Income Tax of the country. Certain PIOs provided some information to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to its earlier decision [CIC/AT/A/2008/01280 dt 22.9.2009] (Shri Ketan Kantilal Modi Vs Central Board of Exicse and Customs), wherein it was held that section 6(3) castes an obligation on the PIO to transfer an RTI application filed under section 6(1) to another public authority where the former knows the information is held, a fact which a petitioner was not expected to know given the circumstances. Section 6(3) is the exception to the general rule contained in section 6(1) that a request for information should be filed before a public authority, which holds the information. The decision whether to transfer an RTI application within the meaning of section 6(3) is to be the PIO’s given the circumstances of the matter. The CIC directed that in case the PIO, CBEC transfers appellant’s RTI application electronically to the subordinate Commissionerates, the latter shall process these information-requests as independent requests under section 6(1) and collect from the petitioner all requisite fees including the application fee as if the application were made independently by him to that public authority subordinate to the CBEC. + +In light of the earlier decision, the Commission upheld the decision of PIO/ FAA and advised the appellant to approach the PIOs of concerned public authorities for the information sought by him. + +Comments + +It is a common problem faced by the PIO of the headquarters of an organisation where an application is filed before it and information related to the multiple field offices is sought. A PIO is not expected to transfer the application to dozens of field formations and compile it for an applicant." +331,Reasons for not being offered appointment by SSC were sought under RTI,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Under section 20(1), the CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show reasons as to why penalty should not be imposed on him for the delay and the denial of information.","Reasons for not being offered appointment by SSC were sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant had appeared in the combined graduate level examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). He noted his marks in the website of the SSC and found that candidates having less marks than him had been offered appointment while he was not given any such offer. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act seeking to know the reasons for this. He received no reply from the PIO within the stipulated period. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to inform the appellant appropriately. However, the appellant did not receive any communication from the SSC. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had been served a notice to show cause why action should not be taken against him for resorting to malpractices in the examination. However, the notice did not give any details of the alleged malpractices. He further stated that he had sent his explanation to the SSC even though he had not been told the nature of the malpractice allegedly done by him. After he filed his RTI application, the SSC sent him one more show cause notice wherein he was once again asked to show cause as to why his candidature should not be cancelled and action taken for resorting to malpractice in the examination. This time also the SSC did not specify the nature of the malpractice without which nobody can be expected to offer any meaningful explanation.","The Commission observed that the entire sequence shows the utter callousness and casualness on the part of the SSC in dealing with a serious matter. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the material record showing the reasons for not recommending the appellant for any appointment. Under section 20(1), the CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show reasons as to why penalty should not be imposed on him for the delay and the denial of information." +332,Addressing the issue of faulty master transcript used in examination through RTI,,whether he had passed the skill test in the course of that examination,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide a certified / attested copy of the original transcript to the appellant.,"Addressing the issue of faulty master transcript used in examination through RTI + +Background: +The appellant had appeared in the Stenographers Grade C and D examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC). Later he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the SSC seeking copy of his evaluated answer sheet. He also wanted to know whether he had passed the skill test in the course of that examination. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a copy of the OMR answer sheet and informed him that he had not qualified the skill test. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that the master transcript which had been dictated during the skill test contained several passages one of which appeared twice. The appellant also showed the master transcript and pointed out that the paragraph had been dictated only once and not twice and consequently the candidates had typed it only once whereas the answer sheets had been evaluated against the defective master transcript containing the same paragraph twice. He also argued that as per the guidelines issued by the SSC, the transcript should contain nearly 800 words whereas the copy given to him contains more than 900 words and it is impossible for anybody to type at the desired speed as indicated in the guidelines.","The Commission perused the master transcript submitted by the appellant and observed that it is unlikely that the master transcript extracted from the address of the Minister in the Parliament would contain the same paragraph twice unless it had been done deliberately. The CIC held that the original master transcript from which dictation was given during the skill test should be provided, so that the appellant would be clear if it indeed contained two separate paragraphs with the same text. The CIC directed the PIO to provide a certified / attested copy of the original transcript to the appellant." +333,Where was the TIME CAPSULE buried and by whom?,,the Time Capsule which had been buried during the emergency,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO, PMO to make a renewed search for any available records on this subject and take up the matter with the National Archives and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and find out if either of those have any reference or record on this and provide the copies of the entire records to the appellant including the file noting.","Where was the TIME CAPSULE buried and by whom? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking information regarding the Time Capsule which had been buried during the emergency. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that they did not have any information on the subject. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant wondered that the PMO should not have any information about this since it was that office which was involved in the entire project of preparing and burying the Time Capsule. The appellant also pointed out that several other ministries of the government had pleaded complete ignorance about this. The respondent submitted that they did not know which other public authority would have any such information. The appellant submitted that in the newspaper it had been reported that the Time Capsule had been conceptualized by the then PMO and it had been buried in the Red Fort.","The Commission directed the PIO, PMO to make a renewed search for any available records on this subject and take up the matter with the National Archives and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and find out if either of those have any reference or record on this and provide the copies of the entire records to the appellant including the file noting. + +Comments + +One really feels pity at the condition of the PIO’s facing such queries. The officer’s had to attend the hearing which is at the cost of the tax payer’s money." +334,Does Directorate of Education maintain admission records of a Public Unaided school?,Directorate of Education (DoE),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also directed the PIO to provide to the appellant any other document in the possession of the Department of Education dealing with said admissions or those that can be accessed as per rules by the Department through the Management Committee members from the school.,"Does Directorate of Education maintain admission records of a Public Unaided school? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Education (DoE) seeking reasons for rejection of admission of his son in Summer Fields School, New Delhi. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information is not available in the records as the same is not required to be maintained. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that the required information is not available because the admission of child in a Public Unaided school is purely based on the management decision of the school and hence the record is not maintained by DoE.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the Management Committee of the said school comprises two of members of the Directorate of Education. The CIC directed the PIO to obtain the Minutes of the meeting of the Management Committee of the school and if the Minutes refer to the admission exams held for class then provide the same to the appellant. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide to the appellant any other document in the possession of the Department of Education dealing with said admissions or those that can be accessed as per rules by the Department through the Management Committee members from the school. + +Comments + +Information under the RTI Act includes those documents which can be accessed by a public authority under any existing rules." +335,Details of gifts received from relatives and friends by DTC conductor on daughter’s marriage,Delhi Transport Department (DTD),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Regarding the gross salary paid to the said person while he was in service, the CIC directed the PIO to furnish the same to the appellant.","Details of gifts received from relatives and friends by DTC conductor on daughter’s marriage + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Transport Department (DTD) seeking some information with regard to his father in law who worked as a Conductor in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). He wanted to know the return of movable / immovable properties, intimation / declaration in respect of the expenditure incurred by him on his daughter’s marriage and the details of the gifts and articles received from relatives and friends on his daughter’s marriage. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that without proper identification of said Conductor it was not possible to provide the information. The appellant filed the first appeal providing some information in respect of his father in law so that he can be identified. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the information with respect to the said person after tracing him. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that based on the token number provided by the appellant, a notice was sent across to all DTC branches to locate the said person. Finally it was found that he had worked in Naraina Deport and that he had retired from service. The respondent stated that this has been intimated to the appellant. The respondents also stated that no information in respect of movable immovable properties is available with the Public Authority.","The Commission held that there are no rules which stipulate that the employee must provide details of expenditure incurred on daughter’s marriage or the gifts and articles received from relatives and friends during the marriage. Hence the Public Authority is not expected to maintain the information. Regarding the gross salary paid to the said person while he was in service, the CIC directed the PIO to furnish the same to the appellant." +336,Can revelation of CCTV footage adversely affect the security of people?,Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) requesting,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide to the appellant information about the departmental action taken in the matter in context of the complaint and the RTI application.,"Can revelation of CCTV footage adversely affect the security of people? + +Background: +The appellant alleged that he was assaulted at a metro station by a staff member of the DMRC. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) requesting for a Close Circuitry Television (CCTV) footage and information pertaining to the time limit for its storage and other related details. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the retention period for CCTV footage is 4 days as per the norms and standard practice followed in DMRC, after which the CCTV footage contents get automatically deleted. The First Appellate Authority upheld the reply of PIO and stated that CCTV footage could not be given to public due to security reasons. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had not been informed about the norms for retention of the CCTV footage. The respondent stated that the response was self - explanatory and clearly stated the position. The appellant stated that he had been subjected to extremely insulting behavior by the DMRC staff and that he wanted the CCTV footage in this context. He further stated that he had also filed a complaint against the staff member who misbehaved with him but he has not received any information from the DMRC. Claiming that he had to resort to RTI because the attitude of the DMRC towards his complaint has been utterly casual, the appellant demanded that if the CCTV footage cannot be made available, the public authority should at least inform him as to what action has been taken against the official concerned.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide to the appellant information about the departmental action taken in the matter in context of the complaint and the RTI application. +337,Information related to expenditure incurred for issuing the ID cards,"Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Delhi",,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to furnish an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the appellant affirming the fact that the said school has never issued any ID card to any student and that the practice of issuing the ID cards does not exist in the school.,"Information related to expenditure incurred for issuing the ID cards + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Delhi seeking details of provision for issuing identity cards (ID) to students and other related information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that there is no provision for issuing identity cards to students. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant produced some identity cards of students which were signed by the Principal. The respondent submitted that these ID cards are bogus and have not been issued by the school. They further explained that the cards produced by the appellant have been prepared by someone outside the school and that no collection was made from students for issuance of ID cards.",The Commission directed the PIO to furnish an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the appellant affirming the fact that the said school has never issued any ID card to any student and that the practice of issuing the ID cards does not exist in the school. +338,Seeking sales certificate and the outstanding loan amounts of third party under RTI,State Bank of India (SBI),,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(j)']",INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the information sought in the RTI application.,"Seeking sales certificate and the outstanding loan amounts of third party under RTI + +Background: +The appellant's wife had purchased a property that had been mortgaged to a bank for securing a loan. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking the information related to the sales certificate and the outstanding loan amounts with regard to the said property. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent explained that a loan had been taken by an entity on the basis of an equitable mortgage. On repayment default the bank took action under the SARFAESEI Act after due process including public auction of the property. This information had been denied to the appellant on account of third party information and commercial confidence.",The Commission observed that the appellant is seeking the information which is relevant to his interest for legal proceedings. It is in the public interest that transparency is maintained and information be provided to the appellant. The Commission held that it would be fair and just to provide to the appellant the information sought taking into account that the appellant's wife could be an innocent buyer. The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the information sought in the RTI application. +339,Inspection of records related to Bhopal Gas Disaster and boycott of the Olympics was sought,,,['8(1)(a)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"If such documents were contained in a few files, the PIO was directed to invite the appellant to inspect the same.","Inspection of records related to Bhopal Gas Disaster and boycott of the Olympics was sought + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking inspection of all files and records related to Bhopal Gas Disaster and the boycott of the Olympics in London which had been sponsored by Dow Chemical. The Public Information Officer (PIO) observed that the desired information was too vast and voluminous and it would disproportionately divert their resources if they had to provide access to this information in the form in which it had been sought.  Later, he offered her to inspect some files relating to the boycott of Olympics but denied some parts seeking exemption under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the people had a right to know about what had transpired on these issues and it would be in public interest. The respondent submitted that the period for which the information had been sought was too long and collecting unspecified records and documents spread over more than 25 years would be a time consuming task.","The Commission observed that the PMO is not the nodal Ministry for the Bhopal Gas Disaster; it is the Ministry of Chemicals and Petrochemicals that is the nodal Ministry. Therefore, the number of files and records available in the PMO on the subject of Bhopal Gas Disaster may not be very large. The CIC directed the PIO to make an assessment of the total number of files and records relating to it that might be there in the PMO. If such documents were contained in a few files, the PIO was directed to invite the appellant to inspect the same. However, if the files run into several dozen or into thousands of pages then the PIO should ask the appellant to specify the records that she would like to inspect." +340,Can the judicial records be sought from the Supreme Court under RTI?,Supreme Court of India (SCI),,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission agreed with the decision of the PIO and added that the citizens seeking copies of judicial records must get these from the Supreme Court under their own rules and not under the RTI Act.,"Can the judicial records be sought from the Supreme Court under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Supreme Court of India (SCI) seeking a copy of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which he had filed earlier in the Supreme Court. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that his PIL had been dismissed by the Court and that he could obtain the certified copy of the Court’s order and any such judicial document by moving an application to the Registrar under Order XII of the Supreme Court Rules 1966. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that the reply of the PIO and FAA had certain errors. The PIO’s order had cited the year of the disposal of his PIL incorrectly while that of the FAA had incorrectly mentioned his address. He claimed that because of these errors, he had to incur certain expenses which he could have been spared. He also demanded that the copy of the petition should be provided to him. The respondent submitted that the so called errors were inadvertent and typographical in nature and did not materially affect the content of the decision of the PIO. As regards the copy of the petition, they submitted that the appellant could get it from the Supreme Court by following the procedure prescribed in the Supreme Court Rules 1966.","The Commission agreed with the decision of the PIO and added that the citizens seeking copies of judicial records must get these from the Supreme Court under their own rules and not under the RTI Act. + +Comments + +The Apex Court should decide the issue whether a citizen has an option to use any method of his choice for seeking information." +341,Using RTI for solving the issue of wrong form 16 A by PIB,,the number of duties she had performed during a specific period and the tax deducted at source from her wages,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The PIO, PIB was directed to inform the appellant about her about the final settlement of the TDS amount including the proof that it is indeed deposited with the income tax authorities.","Using RTI for solving the issue of wrong form 16 A by PIB + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Press Information Bureau (PIB) wanted to know about the number of duties she had performed during a specific period and the tax deducted at source from her wages. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided information related with the total number of duties performed. After the first appeal, some further information was given about the tax deducted at source. The Appellant inaccuracies in the information provided and on being pointed out, the authorities issued a fresh Form 16A. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the appellant claimed that contrary to the information provided by the PIO, the tax amount was still not deposited with the income tax authorities.","The Commission observed that the PIB had committed errors in issuing an important document like the Form 16A where they had wrongly mentioned the PAN number of the appellant. While reprimanding the PIB authorities, the CIC hoped that the PIB authorities would be careful in future. Regarding the TDS not been deposited with the income tax authorities, the CIC directed the PIB authorities to enquire into expeditiously and rectified the error. The PIO, PIB was directed to inform the appellant about her about the final settlement of the TDS amount including the proof that it is indeed deposited with the income tax authorities." +342,Absence of respondent during hearing may result in disclosure of information,State Bank of India (SBI),,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(h)']",INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide all the information to the appellant.,"Absence of respondent during hearing may result in disclosure of information + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information in respect of certain loan accounts, enquiry reports and related documents pertaining to disciplinary proceedings against him. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the appellant that providing the information sought would violate the commercial confidence of the bank and would impede the process of investigation in various proceedings. Hence, the information sought was exempt from disclosure as per section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. The FAA also stated that some of the information sought was in the nature of seeking clarifications which did not come under the definition of information as per section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;read with section2(j)“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; +(iii) taking certified samples of material; +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the bank has moved departmental proceedings against him and is now denying him crucial information that he needs to defend himself. The appellant also stated that the respondent has without application of mind denied him the information under technical clauses which was unjust. The respondent did not participate in the hearing.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide all the information to the appellant. +343,Information regarding hiring of machinery by Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd was sought,Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd (KRCL),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to share a copy of the schedule for preservation of records with the appellant.,"Information regarding hiring of machinery by Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd was sought + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd (KRCL) seeking information in respect of hiring of tools and machinery by the Private Contractors /Companies. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and denied the rest stating that the matter is in the Court of Law. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that the case pertains to the year 1994 i.e.18 years old because of which no office records were available as on date regarding amount received by one of the companies. The FAA also stated that the matter between the two companies is in the Court of Law. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that a litigation related to the matter is going on in Ratnagiri Court and that only the correspondence files were available with him. The respondent pointed out that the retention period of such correspondence files is only six years as per the schedule for preservation of records. Therefore, the records have already been destroyed.","The Commission directed the PIO to share a copy of the schedule for preservation of records with the appellant. + +Comment + +Whenever the PIO denies the information stating that it is sought for the period which is beyond the record retention period, he should provide a proof of destruction to the appellant like a destruction memo." +344,The PIO should not deny the information by merely citing an exemption provision,Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and Ordnance Factory Board (OFB),,"['8(1)(h)', '8(1)(g)']",INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Holding that no information can be denied by merely citing an exemption provision, the CIC directed the PIO of the OFB either to provide the information as desired in both these cases or pass a speaking order if he felt that the information cannot be disclosed.","The PIO should not deny the information by merely citing an exemption provision + +Background: +The appellant filed two similar applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) seeking information in respect of two different cases were held by the OFB. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the CVC transferred some of the queries to the OFB under section 6(3) of the RTI Act as information sought against these queries closely related to that organization. He denied the rest of the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. The PIO, OFB denied the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;and section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that he had should get the desired information since the investigation in the matter was already over.","The Commission observed that the information sought by the appellant in both these cases is held by the Ordnance Factory Board and thus they should decide whether to disclose the information or not.  The CIC noted that the PIO, OFB has not given any ground for invoking the exemption provisions of the RTI Act. Holding that no information can be denied by merely citing an exemption provision, the CIC directed the PIO of the OFB either to provide the information as desired in both these cases or pass a speaking order if he felt that the information cannot be disclosed. + +Comments + +Every PIO/ FAA must ensure that the order of denial of information must be reasoned and speaking." +345,Copy of one’s own ACR is disclosable under RTI,Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide point wise full and complete information to the appellant.,"Copy of one’s own ACR is disclosable under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking details in respect of Rules/ Regulation applicable for writing the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for employee holding class 3 posts in Assistant Cadre and other related information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the grounds that it was voluminous in nature. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent reiterated that the disclosure of information sought vide 17 points would result in causing harassment/ obstruction in working of the public authority and hence, it was denied to the appellant. The appellant stated that the PIO and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had refused to furnish information quoting the provisions of section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the RTI Act.","The Commission observed that the information sought pertains to photocopies of the appellants own ACRs for two years and the recorded reasons for denying fourth stagnation increment to him. The Commission held that this information is disclosable under the RTI Act and that the PIO /FAA has grievously erred in denying the information on grounds which were not covered under any of the exemption clauses of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to provide point wise full and complete information to the appellant. + +Comment + +Under RTI Act, the information can be denied only as per the provisions of sections 8 and 9. Section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the Act can only be used to change the form of providing the information if it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. It cannot be used for denying information." +346,Seeking disclosure of information regarding tenders under evaluation using RTI,,the name of the participants and engine model offered by each participant in the tender,['8(1)(d)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"For the rest of the information, the CIC directed the PIO to provide it to the appellant.","Seeking disclosure of information regarding tenders under evaluation using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Heavy Plates & Vessels Ltd (BHPVL) seeking information in connection with Tender floated by BHPVL for Manufacturing and Commissioning of Diesel Generator Set with Synchronizing Panel such as, action taken report on his letter; whether BHPVL has considered broad based specification to be tendered and the present status of the tender. He also wanted to know the name of the participants and engine model offered by each participant in the tender. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under the section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant was regarding a Tender process involving third parties and that the matter was under evaluation.","The Commission observed that the information regarding the name of the participants and engine model offered by each participant in the tender attracts the provisions of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act, and if disclosed may harm the competitive position of third parties. The Commission denied this information stating that no larger public interest has been established by the appellant for disclosure of this exempted information. For the rest of the information, the CIC directed the PIO to provide it to the appellant." +347,"Under RTI, can account details of a private company be disclosed to a shareholder?",State Bank of India (SBI),"the accounts of a company, its Directors and other entities","['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(e)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no sufficient reason to interfere with the order of the FAA.,"Under RTI, can account details of a private company be disclosed to a shareholder? + +Background: +The appellant stated that he was a shareholder of the company and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information about the accounts of a company, its Directors and other entities. The appellant claimed in his appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) that no response was received from the Public Information Officer (PIO) while the FAA found that a response was sent. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information under section 8(1)(d), section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that the sought information was related to bank customers/ clients which is personal and of commercial confidence in nature and is held in fiduciary capacity.",The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no sufficient reason to interfere with the order of the FAA. +348,Is PIO supposed to forward a copy of third party notice to the RTI applicant?,,,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"However, the CIC directed the PIO to forward a copy of his letter to the appellant.","Is PIO supposed to forward a copy of third party notice to the RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the APFC EPFO (Employee Provident Fund Organisation) Sub-Regional Office seeking information/ documents/ office record with salary slips of his ex-wife. He also wanted the details of Employee Provident Fund (EPF) in this regard. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that he had written a letter to the appellant’s wife as per section 11 of the RTI Act but she declined to disclose the information contending that she has threat to life and goods. The PIO further stated that this has been communicated to the appellant. The appellant stated that neither a copy of the letter written by the PIO to his wife nor the respondent’s reply has been received by him.","The Commission held that accounts of customers/ subscribers maintained at post office/ banks /EPFO are held under fiduciary relationship and hence information relating to such accounts is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act, unless the seeker of information is able to show larger public interest to justify the disclosure. However, the CIC directed the PIO to forward a copy of his letter to the appellant." +349,Using RTI for addressing the issue of delivery of an opened parcel,Department of Posts requesting,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"However, the Commission stated that the appellant’s claim for compensation may be processed expeditiously as per extant guidelines.","Using RTI for addressing the issue of delivery of an opened parcel + +Background: +The appellant’s son had sent a gift parcel containing 03 readymade pants valued at about US$150. The Pattam Palace Post Office, Trivandrum informed the appellant to come and take the parcel. The appellant was told by the postal department to open the parcel in-front-of them but when he received the parcel, he found it was already opened and contained items other than what his son had sent. Hence, he refused to take the parcel. The appellant filed a written complaint to the Chief Post Master General but no response was received. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Posts requesting for a compensation of US $200 for loss of article and to inquire the matter and take disciplinary action against the guilty person. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he is aggrieved as a parcel sent by his son from USA was received in a completely damaged condition. The respondent stated that the complaint was enquired into but they could not ascertain where the damage has taken place and the appellant has now lodged a claim for compensation which is being processed. The appellant requested that the respondent may be directed to process his claim expeditiously. The respondent assured that he will do the needful.","The Central Information Commission observed that the RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances and there are other appropriate forum(s) for resolving such matters. However, the Commission stated that the appellant’s claim for compensation may be processed expeditiously as per extant guidelines." +350,Can personal details of BSNL subscriber be disclosed under RTI?,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),,['8(1)(j)'],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC directed the FAA to examine the evidence as to whether it shows larger public interest to justify the disclosure and thereafter take an appropriate decision in the matter.,"Can personal details of BSNL subscriber be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking the details regarding a particular mobile connection, such as, the application submitted to obtained the mobile connection, copy of the residential proof attached with the application, the inspection report along with the name of the officer who inspected and verified the address and the copy of the plan under which the said mobile connection was issued. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act holding it as personal information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information relates to a third party subscriber who has declined to give his consent for disclosure and hence exemption has been claimed under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The appellant argued that the information is disclosable under larger public interest as he has some tangible evidence to prove that the subscriber has given three addresses of which two are bogus and added that an FIR has also been lodged against him for fraud. He further stated that had the FAA given him an opportunity of hearing, he would have produced tangible evidence before him in support of his contention.",The Commission sent the case back to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a direction to give a personal hearing to the appellant and the third party. The CIC directed the FAA to examine the evidence as to whether it shows larger public interest to justify the disclosure and thereafter take an appropriate decision in the matter. +351,Should account details of a firm be disclosed to one of the partners?,State Bank of India (SBI),account details of a firm,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.,"Should account details of a firm be disclosed to one of the partners? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information on account details of a firm. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section 3 of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) advised the appellant to comply with the requirement of the PIO. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent explained that the appellant sought details about a partnership firm which would have been made available to her as she appears to be a partner in the firm. The respondent further submitted that the information pertaining to normal banking operations is made available through regular procedures to the account holders in accordance with the banking system on payment of a nominal fee and proper application. The respondent submitted that there was no need for the appellant to have taken the RTI route.","The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA. + +Comments + +The denial of information to an applicant ought to be only under section 8 or section 9 of the RTI Act." +352,Information about officials against whom penalty was recommended,Life Corporation of India (LIC),three employees against whom minor penalty was recommended and list of 10 class III employees along with the charge sheet in respect of whom CVC's advice was sought etc,['8(1)(j)'],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,(Link -http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt/SCDecision.pdf) The decision of PIO was upheld by the CIC.,"Information about officials against whom penalty was recommended + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Corporation of India (LIC) seeking information in respect of 13 officials against whom major penalty was recommended by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He also sought information about three employees against whom minor penalty was recommended and list of 10 class III employees along with the charge sheet in respect of whom CVC's advice was sought etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided partial information and the portions pertaining to information relating to CBI was denied under the provisions of section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) drawing the attention to the other decision of the Supreme Court of India which held that the copies of all memos issued to the third respondent show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc were qualified to be personal information as defined section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. (Link -http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt/SCDecision.pdf) The decision of PIO was upheld by the CIC." +353,Can the officers of GSI stay in a hotel during their field visits?,Geological Survey of India (GSI),the ban on officers to stay in any hotel during field visits/ fieldwork,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +An applicant should be specific in his query and should present himself before the CIC to defend his case.","Can the officers of GSI stay in a hotel during their field visits? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Geological Survey of India (GSI) seeking information relating to the ban on officers to stay in any hotel during field visits/ fieldwork. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant.","The appellant abstained from the hearing in spite of the notice. The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the appellant has specified any timeframe for which the desired information had been sought. The Commission ruled that the copies of the orders issued advising /prohibiting officers to stay in hotels should be provided. + +Comments + +An applicant should be specific in his query and should present himself before the CIC to defend his case." +354,How should the CIC frame its order?,State Bank of India (SBI),the number of persons who paid for the works and the total amount transferred by the government and also about any plans for opening of a new branch or counter at the Collectorate by the bank,[],UNKNOWN,,,It is the responsibility of the CIC to ensure “speaking” orders.,"How should the CIC frame its order? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking detail of money which was remitted by public during the financial year 2010-2011 for works related to the Collectorate Vellore. He wanted to know the number of persons who paid for the works and the total amount transferred by the government and also about any plans for opening of a new branch or counter at the Collectorate by the bank. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that it was not possible to provide information on the various points and that the question of branch opening did not come under the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the appellant stated that sought information was denied to him on the argument that the information in this format was not available. The respondent stated that the format on which the information was asked was not available as the payment for the Collectorate has a number of accounts in various banks across the district. It was added that there are a large number of activity heads that come in the name of the Collector and the information had to be denied as the RTI application was very general and widespread in nature.","The Commission directs the respondent to provide the sought information on point no. 4 of the RTI application to the appellant. + +Comments + +The orders by the CIC have sometimes been cryptic – a reader can never figure out what has been ordered to be provided as in this case, the order makes no mention of what is point no 4. Further, there are no details of point nos. 1 to 3 about which information has been denied. In such a situation, how is a citizen going to rely on a decision? The CIC must keep in mind that its decisions are being reported and cited by others in the field. It is the responsibility of the CIC to ensure “speaking” orders." +355,Reasons for difference in claim amounts sought from the Life Corporation of India,Life Corporation of India (LIC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The PIO also directed to provide information pertaining to action taken on appellant's letter.,"Reasons for difference in claim amounts sought from the Life Corporation of India + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Corporation of India (LIC) seeking the reasons recorded on file for the difference in claim amounts to the insured for eye cataract surgery between A class and B class cities especially when the insured in both the cities were required to pay identical premium for health insurance coverage. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the PIO submitted that the subject matter of the RTI application was taken up with the insurance provider and it had been agreed by the New India Assurance Company that this policy condition of the insurance provider would be changed in the next renewal. The changed policy condition providing parity of insurance claim to residents of various classes of cities would not be with retrospective effect.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide file nothings and complete correspondence and between the LIC of India and the Insurer at the time of accepting the insurance cover for the employees of the Corporation. The PIO also directed to provide information pertaining to action taken on appellant's letter. +356,Does disclosure of the inventory of a closed company involves any public interest?,Bharat Gold Mines Limited (BGML),the details of the inventory check made on the BGML properties with effect from the date on which the Estate Officer/ Chief Security Officer took charge,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(e)']",PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the attested photocopy of the statement showing the inventory of the company at the time or after the joining of the Estate Officer/Chief Security Officer.,"Does disclosure of the inventory of a closed company involves any public interest? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Gold Mines Limited (BGML) seeking information regarding the details of the inventory check made on the BGML properties with effect from the date on which the Estate Officer/ Chief Security Officer took charge. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under sections 8(1)(a), section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. He stated that the company had been closed and the matter regarding its revival was pending consideration before the Supreme Court of India and that its properties were seized by the Company Court and the disclosure of information might affect the revival process. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that BGML is a Government of India undertaking having huge resources both in terms of land and equipment much of which is being illegally siphoned off by the authorities in charge. He stated that this is the reason why he wanted the details of the inventory held by the company to be made public. The respondent argued that the company had gone before the Company Court and therefore, any information about the company should be obtained from the Court and not under RTI. Referring to some provision in the Companies Act, he claimed that once any such matter was referred to the Company Court, it would be for the Court to decide on all matters concerning the company under those provisions.","The Commission held that sections 8(1)(a),8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act are not applicable in this case and that the PIO has not given any grounds to justify his claim. The Commission also observed that it is a public sector company owned by the Government of India and its inventories should be scrupulously preserved and publicly known so that any tampering with these properties is made difficult. The Commission also noted it is difficult to understand how the disclosure of the details of the inventory can have any adverse effect on any proposal to revive the company or to liquidate it or even to go for a global tender for any of these purposes. If the details of the inventory are published the authorities in charge would be duty bound to protect these properties therefore, there is a lot of merit in the disclosure of this information as it would be in public interest. + +The CIC held that unless there is a clear injunction from the Court against disclosure of any such information to the public, there is no reason why the information should not be disclosed if it is held in material records with the company. The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the attested photocopy of the statement showing the inventory of the company at the time or after the joining of the Estate Officer/Chief Security Officer." +357,Seeking the judicial records from the Supreme Court in Hindi,,the PIL filed in the Supreme Court against the Right to Information rules framed by the Allahabad High Court,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"Comments + +In many cases, the CIC has ruled that the applications being received in Hindi are to be replied in Hindi.","Seeking the judicial records from the Supreme Court in Hindi + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications in Hindi, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Supreme Court of India. Vide the first application, he sought information relating to a news item published in the Hindustan Times regarding the Supreme Court decision on the appointment of Information Commissioners. Vide the second application, he sought information regarding the PIL filed in the Supreme Court against the Right to Information rules framed by the Allahabad High Court. The Public Information Officer (PIO) advised him to visit the Supreme Court website to know about any order passed by the court or about the status of any pending matter. The PIO also informed him that the same can be accessed from the Supreme Court registry by following the procedure laid down in the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant objected that the PIO had not responded to him in Hindi but in English. The respondents submitted that as per the provisions of the Constitution of India, the language in which the Supreme Court transacted its business was English and the PIO could not be expected to reply in Hindi. The appellant also argued that he should be provided the information under RTI and should not be required either to visit any website or to approach the Registry under any other rules for the information.","The Commission observed that section 6(1) of the RTI Act allows the information seeker to make a request either in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area. The PIO has to provide the information as it is available in material record. The CIC ruled that the PIO cannot be compelled to write to the information seeker in any particular language. Regarding the information, the CIC held that it relates to judicial records and that the citizens cannot get the certified copies of judicial records including the order passed by the courts under RTI. The same can be obtained by following the rules and the procedure set out by the Supreme Court of India or the High Courts. The Commission observed that section22The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.of the RTI Act gives overriding power to this Act over all other laws inconsistent with its provisions. The rules framed by the Supreme Court of India or the High Courts for disclosing certified copies of the judicial records are in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, disclosure of information being the common objective of both. Therefore, RTI Act will not override the rules framed by the Supreme Court of India or the High Courts for providing certified copies of judicial records to various parties and citizens. + +Comments + +In many cases, the CIC has ruled that the applications being received in Hindi are to be replied in Hindi. This site has consistently taken a stand that while the information may be provided in the form in which it is available, the forwarding letter should be sent as per the language policy which has been made for achieving the goals of the constitution." +358,Communication between the Leader of the Opposition of the Lok Sabha and the Speaker,Lok Sabha Secretariat (LSS),,['8(1)(c)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC further added that the applicant can inspect the correspondence which does not attract section8(1)(c)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;of the Act and directed the PIO to provide the appellant identifies specific set of documents if the appellant identifies specific set of documents in terms of these indicative parameters.","Communication between the Leader of the Opposition of the Lok Sabha and the Speaker + +Background: +Two separate appeals were taken up together by a full bench of the CIC. + +In the first appeal, the appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Lok Sabha Secretariat (LSS) seeking information related to the appointment and the grant of a year’s extension to the incumbent Lok Sabha Secretary General. He wanted the letters written; file notings, documents, etc., the rules for granting extension, the registration of opposition by the Leader of the Opposition, the particulars of the officers in the eligibility zone and the rules applicable for speaking in the zero-hour of the Lok Sabha. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. He denied the information related to correspondence on action taken on the letter from the Leader of Opposition to the Speaker concerning further extension of the tenure of the Lok Sabha Secretary General, stating that the communication and consultation by the Speaker with the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition is in discharge of constitutional duties, the disclosure of which may cause breach of parliamentary privilege and hence was exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(c)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;of the RTI Act, 2005. + +In the second appeal, disclosure of the complete correspondence between the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Prime Minister during the last 3 years was sought.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to its earlier decisions in appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2007/00518 dated 22/3/2007 and appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2008/01330 dated 29/7/2008. It was held in the decision that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction and would not choose to pass a verdict as to whether disclosure will actually amount to either breach of privilege or contempt of the Parliament because it is for the Parliament to decide and determine that. The Commission can only see and examine whether the concerned Public Authority denying the information has a prime facie apprehension as to whether disclosure of information in the given case may amount to commission of contempt or breach of privilege and if a prime facie case is so made out, the Commission has to uphold the same. The Commission ruled that the Speaker will be the authority to determine the question of privileges. The CIC directed that regarding disclosure in respect of the manner of disposal of the letter written by the Leader of the Opposition to the Speaker and the recording of objections, the relevant file should be placed before the Speaker of the Lok Sabha for instructions. Thereafter, if the Secretariat claims privilege it will clearly state the privileges claimed as per Article 105 of the Constitution of India. + +Regarding the disclosure of the complete correspondence between the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Prime Minister during the last 3 years, the Commission held that deciding the applicability or otherwise of the parliamentary privileges on each and every document would require due diligence and would be a time consuming and complex process. This would disproportionately divert the resources of the Secretariat and would accordingly attract the provisions of Section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the contention that drawing a parallel between the correspondence made available by the ‘Election Commission of India’ or the ‘National Advisory Council’ and the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Speaker is not appropriate, since there is a specific provision in the form of section8(1)(c)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;of the RTI Act regarding breach of privilege of the Parliament or State Legislature. The CIC ruled that the appellant should quote either the subject matter of correspondence or date of correspondence for seeking information instead an omnibus phrase like ‘last 3 years’ which would attract Section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the RTI Act. The CIC further added that the applicant can inspect the correspondence which does not attract section8(1)(c)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;of the Act and directed the PIO to provide the appellant identifies specific set of documents if the appellant identifies specific set of documents in terms of these indicative parameters." +359,Are A&N administration and Secretariat implementing section 4 of the RTI Act?,Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Secretariat,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO concerned to place a copy of this order before the respective Head of the Department immediately on receipt and report to the Commission within 30 days about the steps taken by the Department to implement these provisions.,"Are A&N administration and Secretariat implementing section 4 of the RTI Act? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and Secretariat seeking to know the manner of implementation of the provisions of section4(1)(a)Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;and4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the RTI Act by both the departments. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that some of the queries did not amount to information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act and that the information disclosed by the Department under the provisions of section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;could be found in its website. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondents claimed that the public authorities concerned in both these cases have not implemented the provisions scrupulously and completely.","The Commission observed that section4(1)(a)Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;mandates every public authority to maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed and in a computerized format. If such record keeping is done, it would not only help the Department immensely in conducting its business smoothly but also make retrieval of information easier. The CIC also held that if the public authority discloses all the information as required under section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;, the citizens would not be compelled to seek such information under RTI and would access the information directly from the website or wherever it is published. The CIC ruled that the implementation of the provisions of section4(1)(a)Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;and section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the RTI Act was to be completed within 120 days of the Act coming into force, which was seven years back. It is unfortunate that most public authorities have not fully complied with these provisions even after the lapse of such a long time. There is a great need for every public authority to pay some special attention to this aspect and undertake to publish and update all the information required under these provisions. + +The CIC directed the heads of both the departments to revisit this subject and find out whether all the data/ information required to be disclosed has been done against the 16 specific heads listed in section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the RTI Act and to bring the disclosure up to date on a yearly basis. The Commission directed the PIO concerned to place a copy of this order before the respective Head of the Department immediately on receipt and report to the Commission within 30 days about the steps taken by the Department to implement these provisions." +360,Addressing the issue of delay in Income Tax refund using RTI,"Income Tax Office (ITO), Ward 33(1)",his IT refunds for a period of two years,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed that the amount of interest calculated should also be reviewed and a response should provided to the appellant.,"Addressing the issue of delay in Income Tax refund using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax Office (ITO), Ward 33(1) seeking information relating to his IT refunds for a period of two years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI to ITO, Ward 33(1) observing that ITO Ward 45(3) had transferred it to Ward 43(1) without verifying the facts. The PIO, ITO Ward 33(1) informed the appellant that the information sought was not available with them and that ITO Ward 46(1) has been asked to trace out the record. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he has received the refund in December 2012. The PIO submitted that two more additional refunds have been sent to the appellant for Rs. 372/- and Rs. 1638/- in February 2013. The appellant however submitted that the amount refunded to him is not as per existing guidelines. The PIO explained that the refund has been calculated along with interest as per existing departmental guidelines.",The Commission observed that the information has not been provided in prescribed timeline as it was referred from one ITO to another. The CIC directed CIT XI to have the matter enquired into and to fix responsibility for the delay in responding to the RTI request. The Commission also directed that the amount of interest calculated should also be reviewed and a response should provided to the appellant. +361,Collection and disclosure of information is done at the cost of some other equally useful work,Principal Accountant General (Audit),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission also ruled that if some of the information sought is very voluminous or is dispersed in several files, the PIO should invite the appellant to inspect the relevant files.","Collection and disclosure of information is done at the cost of some other equally useful work + +Background: +The appellant filed three applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Principal Accountant General (Audit) seeking large variety of information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and also invited him in some cases to inspect the records to find out the exact information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant is a dismissed employee of the organisation and has filed more than 25 such RTI applications in the recent months.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the RTI Act gives the citizen the right to seek information held by public authorities but this does not mean that a citizen should monopolise the entire public authority with a barrage of requests thereby rendering it almost dysfunctional for any other purpose. The CIC also stated that the time spent in a government office in collecting and disclosing information is done at the cost of some other equally useful work. The Commission, however, directed the PIO to provide all factual information and documents against the remaining queries to the appellant. The Commission also ruled that if some of the information sought is very voluminous or is dispersed in several files, the PIO should invite the appellant to inspect the relevant files." +362,Are PNB and PNB Institute of IT different public authorities?,Punjab National Bank (PNB),a selection process,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide information to the appellant and also issued the show cause notice to the respondent for contravening the timelines prescribed in the RTI Act.,"Are PNB and PNB Institute of IT different public authorities? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab National Bank (PNB) seeking information about a selection process. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not reply to the application. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant alleged that irregularities had been committed in the selection process.  The respondent stated that they have no intention to withhold any information from the appellant and that the information will be provided in the next 15 days. The appellant argued that the respondent had deliberately delayed the information and a penalty should be imposed on him. The respondent stated that the RTI application was sent by the appellant himself to the PNB and not to the respondent institution and it appears that it took a long time for the RTI application to come from the PNB to the respondent institution. The respondent further explained that the respondent institution is a separate institution with its own identity though the CMD of the PNB is the head of this institution but its functioning was autonomous of the bank.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide information to the appellant and also issued the show cause notice to the respondent for contravening the timelines prescribed in the RTI Act. +363,Information about passengers travelling by helicopter run by A&N administration,Andaman and Nicobar Administration,the Deputy Resident Commissioners posted at 3 major cities of India and about their staff and vehicles,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The CIC further ruled that the list of passengers travelling by the helicopter service run by the Administration should not be provided as they are personal information of the passengers concerned.,"Information about passengers travelling by helicopter run by A&N administration + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Andaman and Nicobar Administration seeking information about the Deputy Resident Commissioners posted at 3 major cities of India and about their staff and vehicles. He also wanted the list of passengers using the helicopter service and the revenue collected in the process. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information.","The Commission (CIC) observed that some of the information has not been given on the ground that it is held by other offices of the Department, which is an unacceptable excuse for denying the information. The CIC held that if the information was held by any other office at the relevant time, the PIO should have transferred the RTI application rather than not giving any information. The PIO was directed by the CIC to collect all the information against the remaining queries and send it to the appellant. The CIC further ruled that the list of passengers travelling by the helicopter service run by the Administration should not be provided as they are personal information of the passengers concerned. + +Comments + +Under RTI Act, 2005 the information can be denied only if it falls under section 8 or 9." +364,Can the Government employee’s official details be held as personal information?,Geological Survey of India (GSI),,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC directed to disclose: + +i.","Can the Government employee’s official details be held as personal information? + +Background: +The appellant filed four applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Geological Survey of India (GSI) seeking variety of information relating to personnel matters as the verification of the personal/ account/ pension records with some other details of some employees. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and denied the rest under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act holding that it was personal information.","Agree with some of the decisions of the public authority, the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that not all information sought by the Appellant can be said to be personal information merely because it relates to other individuals. As these individuals happen to be government employees, certain personal details about them cannot be held back from the public and should be disclosed. The CIC directed to disclose: + +i. The total amount of medical reimbursement to R Ramakrishna Rao, a former employee and now deceased; + +ii. the list of contractors appointed by the office of the DDG, GSI, Southern Region to provide outsourced employees as on 30 January 2012 including the total number and class of employees supplied by each such contractor; + +iii. the copies of the relevant records including file noting in respect of the promotion of two employees named PN Ramesh and PS Sastry ; and + +iv. permission to inspect the personal/ account/ pension records of a deceased employee named P Thirupal." +365,Should the investigation report on home loan sanctioned by the bank be provided under RTI?,Central Bank of India,an investigation report on alleged irregularities on home loan sanctions,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +Ordinarily, the information related to the bank accounts holders or borrowers is not liable to be provided as it is personal information which may have commercial significance and is held by the bank in fiduciary capacity.","Should the investigation report on home loan sanctioned by the bank be provided under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bank of India seeking information regarding an investigation report on alleged irregularities on home loan sanctions. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the housing loans have been given not by the Central Bank of India but by a subsidiary of the bank which is the Cent Bank Home Finance Limited. Hence, the RTI application should be sent to the organization which has given the housing loans. The appellant stated that a major fraud has been committed because loans were given to nonexistent borrowers and this came to light when he was approached by the Cent Bank Home Finance Limited officials to vacate the premises where he was residing. The appellant said that had taken the loan for his home from another bank and he was surprised to be approached by Cent Bank Home Finance Limited officials. The appellant alleged that the Cent Bank Home Finance Limited had given a loan for the same house and thus he had filed a complaint in a court of law. He also stated that he needed a copy of the enquiry report to prove the fraud.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copy of the enquiry report to the appellant. + +Comments + +Ordinarily, the information related to the bank accounts holders or borrowers is not liable to be provided as it is personal information which may have commercial significance and is held by the bank in fiduciary capacity." +366,Demand for the state and district-wise list of the Chakma tribal population under RTI,Office of the Registrar General India (ORGI),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +The view of the different benches of the CIC has varied in cases of whether the photocopies of the documents which are in public domain should be provided.","Demand for the state and district-wise list of the Chakma tribal population under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Office of the Registrar General India (ORGI) seeking a state-wise and district-wise list of the Chakma tribal population such as male /female /minor male/ minor female as per the Census reports since 1980 to 2012. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the required information is not available in compiled form. The PIO also informed the appellant that the requested information is ‘published’ information and is available in public domain and he could gather the same from any standard library of his State/ City or from the Library of ORGI.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information requested is not so voluminous that it cannot be provided to the appellant. During the hearing, the respondent admitted that the information requires only photocopying and not compiling. The Commission directed the PIO to provide information pertaining to State-wise / District-wise population of Chakma tribal population in respect of the three Census operations. + +Comments + +The view of the different benches of the CIC has varied in cases of whether the photocopies of the documents which are in public domain should be provided. In the interest of transparency, the PIO should provide the copies unless it is voluminous or requires compilation." +367,Informer alleges corruption for seeking reward related information from DGIT (Inv),Director General of Income Tax (DGIT),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +Ordinarily, the CIC has refrained from ordering for any investigation unless there is some credible evidence to back the allegation of corruption.","Informer alleges corruption for seeking reward related information from DGIT (Inv) + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Director General of Income Tax (DGIT) seeking details of the Notices issued by the Income Tax (IT) Office relating to Tax Deduction Source (TDS) for financial years 2007-2011. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that their office is working under the administrative control of DGIT (Inv) which is an exempt organization as per the section 24 of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that a search was conducted on the basis of his information but he has not been given reward as per guidelines laid down. The appellant claimed that he has been given reward of Rs 50,000/- and the amount works out to be much higher as per the guidelines. He alleged corruption in the department. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) relied on a decision of CIC (Appeal no. CIC/DS/A/2011/002958/RM) relating to the DGIT, wherein it was held that the office of DGIT is exempt under section 24 of the RTI Act.","The Commission observed that as per the section 24 of the RTI Act the office of DGIT is an exempt organization and as such the Commission is inclined to uphold the decision of the PIO. However, the CIC ruled that in view of the allegations of wrong doing on the part of Income Tax authorities made by the appellant, a thorough impartial probe is needed in the larger interests of the public authority.The Director General of Income Tax (Inv), Ahmedabad was directed to ensure a thorough probe vis-a-vis the query raised by the appellant to rule out any wrong doing on part of the public authority. + +Comments + +Ordinarily, the CIC has refrained from ordering for any investigation unless there is some credible evidence to back the allegation of corruption." +368,Should details of advertisements issued by the government be uploaded on the DA&VP site?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also held that such information should be regularly uploaded in the website of the DA&VP soon after the issue of the advertisements for the information of the public so that there would be no need to seek such information through RTI.,"Should details of advertisements issued by the government be uploaded on the DA&VP site? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MI&B) and Directorate of Advertising & Visual Publicity (DA&VP) seeking to know the details of all the advertisements issued by the government in various newspapers on the eve of the National Integration Day. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the total list of advertisements published, he however did not divulge any detail about the newspapers or the cost reimbursed to such news papers. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted a statement containing the list of all the newspapers to which advertisements had been issued on this occasion across the country. A copy of the list was also handed over to the appellant during the hearing. The appellant complained that although the total cost of the advertisement is shown in this statement, it did not show the specific amount paid to each newspaper.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide the data regarding the amount paid to each   newspaper for the advertisements. The CIC further held that if the information is lengthy, it should be provided in the form of a CD. The Commission also held that such information should be regularly uploaded in the website of the DA&VP soon after the issue of the advertisements for the information of the public so that there would be no need to seek such information through RTI." +369,Public authorities must have adequate mechanism to deal with RTI applications,,the mobile services offered by various companies and the frequencies at which they operate,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC ruled that all the RTI applications must be forwarded to the respective divisions holding the information without any loss of time because the stipulated period of 30 days is counted from the date on which the RTI application reaches the PIO of any public authority.,"Public authorities must have adequate mechanism to deal with RTI applications + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MI&B) and Ministry of Communication seeking information relating to the mobile services offered by various companies and the frequencies at which they operate. The RTI application was transferred to the Department of Telecommunications (DoT). The Public Information Officer (PIO) of DoT provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the information was provided but beyond the stipulated period. The respondent submitted that the delay has occurred due to transfer of the RTI application to the PIO of the concerned department. The respondents representing the Department of Telecommunications submitted that the RTI application on transfer had been received in the office of the PIO of the Department who in turn had further distributed the application among the relevant PIOs. In the process some time was lost. They further submitted that they had not taken more time than stipulated and had provided the information soon after they received the RTI application.",The Commission observed that all the available material information has been provided. The CIC also held that several queries in the RTI application do not warrant any information as they are in the nature of seeking general knowledge about the telecom sector in general and the operation of mobile services in particular. Such knowledge can be acquired by studying the relevant scientific / technical literature on the subject. The Commission observed that the submissions made by the respondents regarding the delay reflects poorly on the arrangements made for dealing with RTI applications in the Department. The CIC ruled that all the RTI applications must be forwarded to the respective divisions holding the information without any loss of time because the stipulated period of 30 days is counted from the date on which the RTI application reaches the PIO of any public authority. Large public authorities like the Department of Telecommunications must have adequate mechanism in place to deal with large number of RTI applications they must be receiving on a regular basis. +370,Information regarding reversal of stepping up of the salary of Programme Executives was sought,Prasar Bharati,the stepping up of the salary of Programme Executives and consequent reverse of that decision,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also held that if no such orders have been issued the PIO should inform the appellant suitably.,"Information regarding reversal of stepping up of the salary of Programme Executives was sought + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prasar Bharati seeking information regarding the stepping up of the salary of Programme Executives and consequent reverse of that decision. The Public Information Officer (PIO) offered the copies of the relevant documents against payment of photocopying charges. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted stated that she was yet to get the copies of the order by which the stepping up of the salaries of several other Programme Executives had been reversed. The appellant also requested for the copy of the order by which the competent authority had decided to recover from the salary of one employee the excess amount paid to him due to wrong stepping up of the salary. The respondent submitted that no order had been passed in respect of this particular individual employee. A copy of that order was handed over to the appellant during the hearing.",The Commission observed that the photocopies of the entire file noting from the file dealing with the issue of reversing the stepping up of the salaries of a number of programme executives had been provided to the appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the copies of order passed by the authorities in respect of the remaining Programme Executives from whom recoveries have been made after reversing the stepping up allowed to them. The CIC also held that if no such orders have been issued the PIO should inform the appellant suitably. +371,Re-designate APIOs as PIOs for timely disposal of RTI applications – CIC order,Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to place this order before the competent authorities who must review the present arrangement to ensure that such delays do not take place in future.,"Re-designate APIOs as PIOs for timely disposal of RTI applications – CIC order + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) seeking details about the employees availing the LTC facility since 2009. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the information but after the period stipulated under the RTI Act. The Central Information Commission (CIC) issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him for providing a delayed response and directed the PIO concerned to appear before it for the hearing. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing of the show cause before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the RTI application was received at the unit level but had to be routed through the PIO located in Mumbai as per the practice followed in the company and in the process, there was a loss of time. They further explained that some more time was lost in compiling the information since the appellant had sought extensive details about the employees availing of the LTC facility for a period of nearly 3 years.","The Commission observed that the arrangement at the public authority for disposal of RTI applications seems to be flawed. All the RTI applications received even at the unit level are forwarded first to the PIO at the headquarters who in turn transmits the same to the unit concerned to collect the desired information before providing it to the information seeker. As a result, there is a time lapse. The CIC held that the company should re-designate the present APIOs (Assistant Public Information Officer) as PIOs or it should advise the APIOs to transfer the RTI application to the appropriate unit where the information is held so that the RTI application is finally sent to the PIO at the headquarters along with the desired information. + +The CIC ruled that the PIO concerned cannot be held responsible for the delay because it is the peculiar arrangement put in place by the company which has resulted in delay. The Commission directed the PIO to place this order before the competent authorities who must review the present arrangement to ensure that such delays do not take place in future." +372,Seeking copy of the contract for broadcasting “Satyameva Jayate” on Doordarshan through RTI,Prasar Bharati,,['8(1)(e)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also held that such records should be placed in the public domain in order to promote greater transparency in all commercial transactions undertaken by the government or government agencies.,"Seeking copy of the contract for broadcasting “Satyameva Jayate” on Doordarshan through RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prasar Bharati seeking copies of all the contracts agreements, correspondence, file noting in respect of the broadcasting of a program called “Satyameva Jayate” by the Doordarshan. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act stating that it was held in fiduciary capacity. Later, he provided the copies of the MoU and the file noting relating to this particular programme. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that it was not the MoU but the agreement signed between the parties that he wanted. The respondent clarified that no such agreement had been signed and the entire transaction in the case between the parties was based on the MoU only.","The Commission observed that the entire information as desired has been provided. The Commission also ruled that inallsuch cases where copies of the agreement and other details of any contract between a public authority and another party are sought, the desired document should be disclosed. Such documents can be denied only if they contain any information related to commercial confidence or intellectual property. The CIC also held that such records should be placed in the public domain in order to promote greater transparency in all commercial transactions undertaken by the government or government agencies. + +Comments + +The PIO should issue notice to the third party and take the views of the third party into account before taking any decision." +373,Should DGIT provide information regarding action taken on tax evasion complaints?,Income Tax Office (ITO),"his TEP complaint against SDE, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)",[],REMANDED,,,The CIC also held that the details of investigations should not be disclosed.,"Should DGIT provide information regarding action taken on tax evasion complaints? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax Office (ITO) seeking information relating to his TEP complaint against SDE, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed appellant that their Directorate was exempt from the provisions of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to its earlier decision, wherein it was held that blank ban on disclosure of information regarding the action taken on tax evasion complaints may not always be in the best interest of the state revenues. Further it may dis-enthuse the information givers as information givers are generally keen to know whether the information provided by them has been of some value to the authorities or not. Feed back in this regard would motivate the information givers to provide further information to the authorities and thereby enable them to curb tax evasion and enhance the state revenues. The CIC had held that despite the office of DGIT (Investigation) being an exempted organisation, it may not always be the best policy to deny some kind of feed back to the information givers. + +The Commission directed the PIO to apprise the appellant whether the TEP filed by him was true or false, once the investigation is completed. The CIC also held that the details of investigations should not be disclosed." +374,How was the section 13(1)(c) of the PC Act cited for attachment of property?,,,['8(1)(h)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal observing that that the appeal of the accused was still pending before the Madras High Court and the desired information, if disclosed, can impede the process of prosecution of the accused in the case.","How was the section 13(1)(c) of the PC Act cited for attachment of property? + +Background: +The appellant referred to some order passed by the DoPT with reference to RO No. MA11999A0013 and through an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT), sought the copies of the related documents and records. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that the prosecution in the matter was still pending before the Madras High Court. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent pointed out that the order passed by the DoPT in this case for attachment of property referred to section 13(1)(c) of the PC Act whereas he had never been prosecuted under this particular provision. He wanted to get the desired records to find out how this particular section was cited. The respondent further submitted that the particular section was referred in that order clearly due to some typographical error. The respondent of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) submitted that the appellant had been convicted by the lower court and the appeal was pending before the Madras High Court and the disclosure of the desired information had the clear potential of adversely affecting the prosecution of the offender.","The Commission rejected the appeal observing that that the appeal of the accused was still pending before the Madras High Court and the desired information, if disclosed, can impede the process of prosecution of the accused in the case." +375,Is the CCTV footage of a bank liable to be disclosed under RTI?,Punjab National Bank (PNB),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal upholding the decision of the respondent.,"Is the CCTV footage of a bank liable to be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab National Bank (PNB) seeking information about CCTV viewing and footage for some months including the date of the incident (an incident had taken place in which there was an unpleasant exchange between the appellant and the branch manager) in question. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information and no CCTV footage was provided. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the problem was caused by the appellant and the matter was taken to a consumer court. The respondent stated that the technical system of the CCTV footage is such that after 30 days, there is an automatic rewriting on the tape. This is an inbuilt system which accounts for the non-availability of the CCTV footage about which the appellant has already been informed. The respondent further stated that regarding various queries posed by the appellant, the bank has made an effort to respond adequately. The respondent further stated that the appellant has not even turned up for the hearing and the matter should be treated as closed because the available information has already been provided.",The Commission rejected the appeal upholding the decision of the respondent. +376,What should be the language of reply to an application filed under the RTI Act?,,the regularization of temporary/ daily wage/ Group D employees,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission ruled that the PIO must remember to reply to RTI requests made in Hindi in that language and not in English.,"What should be the language of reply to an application filed under the RTI Act? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) seeking information regarding the regularization of temporary/ daily wage/ Group D employees. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that most of the queries do not amount to information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act as the appellant has mostly sought clarifications or comments and not information in material form. The CIC held that wherever any material record is available, it has been already given to him. The Commission rejected the appeal stating there is no further information to be disclosed. The CIC also observed that the appellant had sent his RTI application in Hindi but the PIO, in some cases had replied in English. The Commission ruled that the PIO must remember to reply to RTI requests made in Hindi in that language and not in English. + +Comments + +The language policy has to be followed by the PIO while replying to the RTI application. In case an applicant files an application in Hindi while seeking copies of documents which are in English, the copies of the same should be provided while the forwarding letter should be in Hindi." +377,Details of CBI trap cases over a period of 10 years sought from Banks,Punjab National bank (PNB),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission accepted the contentions of the respondent and rejected the appeal.,"Details of CBI trap cases over a period of 10 years sought from Banks + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab National bank (PNB) seeking information in relation to the cases where the bank allowed revocation of suspension for bank officials, such as copy of the office note and the letters of revocation of suspension in Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) trap cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act reported during the last 10 years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded that no such information is compiled by the bank and collection of such information from different offices and compiling the same would disproportionately divert the bank resources under section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that neither was the information available in the format in which it was being sought nor would it have been wise to deploy the bank’s scarce resources to collect the information from the various branches. The respondent further stated that the information cited by the appellant is spread over many wings of the bank and the collection would have not served any purpose. Hence the bank had informed the appellant that no such information was compiled by the bank and collection of such information would lead to disproportionate diversion of the bank’s resources.",The Commission accepted the contentions of the respondent and rejected the appeal. +378,Are the OMs issued by the MHA in 1958 and 1970 still valid?,,through his application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act filed with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) if these OMs were still valid,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the MHA circulars of 1958 and 1970 are no longer available or in use and the PIO cannot be expected to validate those.,"Are the OMs issued by the MHA in 1958 and 1970 still valid? + +Background: +The appellant cited two Office Memorandums (OMs) issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) in 1958 and 1970 respectively, and wanted to know through his application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act filed with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) if these OMs were still valid. He also wanted to know that whether the case of a government servant who resigned from one government job and joined another government job would be dealt with under Rule 5(f) of the CCS Temporary Service Rules, 1965. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) circulars were very old and thus not available in the Department. The PIO also forwarded a copy of the CCS Temporary Service Rules, 1965 to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the MHA circulars cited by the appellant were no longer in use and instead the CCS Temporary Service Rules 1965 were valid at present. He also stated that the copy of it had already been provided to the appellant.","The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the MHA circulars of 1958 and 1970 are no longer available or in use and the PIO cannot be expected to validate those. + +Comments + +A system can be evolved to ensure that the OMs issued from time to time are either re-validated or rescinded. This would keep the working healthy and avoid confusion in work." +379,What is the basis for the proposition “anything oral has no meaning in law”?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal observing that that the information sought for by the appellant is in the nature of seeking advice of the respondent, which does not fall within the ambit of ‘information’ as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","What is the basis for the proposition “anything oral has no meaning in law”? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Law & Justice seeking to know the thinking of Ministry of Law on the basic proposition in law that “anything oral has no meaning in law”. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information sought was in the nature of seeking legal advice and hence, the same was not covered within the ambit of the definition of ‘information’ as given under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","The Commission rejected the appeal observing that that the information sought for by the appellant is in the nature of seeking advice of the respondent, which does not fall within the ambit of ‘information’ as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act." +380,Who can refer documents to forensic laboratories for examination?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no information to be disclosed.,"Who can refer documents to forensic laboratories for examination? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances (DAR&PG), Department of Science & Technology (DST) and the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking the date on which some documents had been referred to the forensic laboratory for examination and the report of the laboratory. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that his grievance and his application had been forwarded to the DST. The DST in turn had transferred the application to the MHA. The PIO (MHA) informed that no such information was available with them since the forensic laboratories operated under State Governments.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that there is no information available with any public authority to be provided in this case. The CIC noted that the appellant wants some specific documents to be examined by a forensic laboratory and has been requesting various Government of India ministries or departments to refer those documents for forensic examination. The Commission held that there is no provision under the Right to Information (RTI) Act under which a PIO can refer any documents to the forensic laboratory and ask for their report. The Commission further observed that investigating agencies / courts of law refer documents to state or central forensic laboratories for examination and report. Whether private citizens can directly approach state or central forensic laboratories for getting their documents examined must be found out from the laboratory concerned. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no information to be disclosed. +381,Is Ken River a reserve or a sanctuary for the crocodiles?,,sand mining activities in the border areas of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and specifically about the threat such activities posed to the life of crocodiles in the Ken river,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed to provide copies of the available records or any available government notification or orders in this regard to the appellant.,"Is Ken River a reserve or a sanctuary for the crocodiles? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) seeking information relating to sand mining activities in the border areas of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh and specifically about the threat such activities posed to the life of crocodiles in the Ken river. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information.",The Commission observed that the appellant had wanted to know if this particular river had been reserved as a sanctuary for the crocodiles and its effects on any kind of mining activity but the PIO had merely provided a copy of some guidelines on mining. The CIC directed the PIO to inform if this river has been declared as either a sanctuary or a reserved area for any particular species of crocodiles and if so the various consequences that would follow on various activities in and around this river including mining activities. The Commission also directed to provide copies of the available records or any available government notification or orders in this regard to the appellant. +382,"Commissioner, MCD directed to digitize the records pertaining to properties",South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC),,[],REMANDED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to send a copy of any directions issued in this regard to the Commission.,"Commissioner, MCD directed to digitize the records pertaining to properties + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) seeking details in respect of the sanctioned building plans of his properties. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the information is not available being very old. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that information is not available with the Public Authority. The appellant submitted that information is required in order to convert his leasehold property to free hold property.","The Commission remanded the matter back to the PIO to recheck the records and put in sincere efforts to trace the sanctioned building plan of the appellant’s property. The Commission held that such permanent records cannot be destroyed by the Public Authority. Under section 19(8)(a)(iv) of the RTI Act, the Commission directed the Commissioner, MCD to issue orders to make necessary changes in the practices of the Corporation in relation to the digitization, maintenance, management and destruction of records. The CIC ruled that the digitization of the records pertaining to properties including information relating to sanctioned plans would facilitate supply of correct and complete information within the stipulated time frame as required under the Transparency Act. The Commission further ruled that an efficient records management system is a prerequisite for an accountable and transparent civic authority and Public authorities must not forget that the true intent and scope of the information access legislation that guarantees the public the right to information will be lost on account of the lack of proper documentation/ digitization of the information, manually or electronically by any Public Authority. The Commission directed the PIO to send a copy of any directions issued in this regard to the Commission. + +Comments + +The records in most of the Municipal Corporations in the country remain in dismal position. Citizens may use this case as a trend setter for ensuring proper record maintenance practice in their respective cities." +383,Should the property returns of retired IAS officers be disclosed under RTI?,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide the photocopy of the immovable property returns of the particular officer to the appellant.,"Should the property returns of retired IAS officers be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) seeking information in respect of a retired IAS officer including his property returns. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the property returns by referring to the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) earlier order.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the central government has decided to put the property returns of all the IAS officers in the public domain. Therefore, there is no reason why the property returns of this particular officer should not be disclosed. The Commission also noted that though the CIC had always held that such information is personal in nature and should not be disclosed in ordinary circumstances, but in view of the proactive stand taken by the government in this regard there is no justification for the Department to withhold this information any longer. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the photocopy of the immovable property returns of the particular officer to the appellant. + +Comments + +Is it ethical and legal on the part of the government to disclose the property details of government servants? Is their personal privacy less important than that of a citizen who is not in government service?" +384,Are vigilance enquiries given a blanket exemption from disclosure under section 8(1)(h)?,,as to whether the complaints were filed under PIDPIR and the copy of the investigation file of the department,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide information on the nature of the complaint filed against the appellant without revealing the names and address of the complainant by applying section 10 of the RTI Act.,"Are vigilance enquiries given a blanket exemption from disclosure under section 8(1)(h)? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Director General (Vigilance), Customs & Central Excise, seeking information in relation to a vigilance enquiry regarding his recruitment conducted by the office of the DG Vigilance. He specifically sought the copies of all complaints received against him along with the name and address of the complainants with text of the complaint. He also wanted to know as to whether the complaints were filed under PIDPIR and the copy of the investigation file of the department. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that the matter was under investigation. The First Appellate Authority stated that till investigation is completed, the information relating thereto cannot be shared as it may be impede process of investigation. He further held that in vigilance matters, the ‘investigation’ within the meaning of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act, is deemed to continue till final decision is taken by disciplinary authority.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide information on the nature of the complaint filed against the appellant without revealing the names and address of the complainant by applying section 10 of the RTI Act. +385,Applicant should refrain from seeking endless information under RTI,East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him for not having carried out his functions as mandated under the RTI Act and failing to respond to the RTI application within time frame prescribed under the Act.","Applicant should refrain from seeking endless information under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) seeking details in respect of the different works carried out by the Executive Engineer and other related points. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and provided the opportunity for file inspection to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that despite having approached the Public Authority twice, no opportunity of inspection has been provided to him.","The Commission directed that the appellant along with the concerned official of the Public Authority will identify any 20 projects for physical inspection as per the RTI Application. The CIC also held that Public Authority would provide the inspection of the concerned documents (for two hours) based on the identification of the 20 projects and will then provide 50 pages of the photocopy of the documents as desired by the appellant. Photocopies exceeding 50 pages are to be provided upon payment made by the appellant. The Commission further ruled that based on the inspection of 20 projects, the appellant should be provided with any five material samples of the different works free of cost by the PIO. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him for not having carried out his functions as mandated under the RTI Act and failing to respond to the RTI application within time frame prescribed under the Act." +386,Use of RTI by a retired employee to avail the medical allowance,Directorate of Education,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the respondent to retrieve from the records regarding the medical allowance and provide it to the appellant.,"Use of RTI by a retired employee to avail the medical allowance + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Education seeking information with regard to non- receipt of medical allowance to him and to his family members who were retired. The Public Information Officer (PIO) asked the appellant to provide the necessary documents regarding depositing of Rs. 39,000/ for DGEHS card. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent explained that medical allowance is paid by the bank which pays the family pension and is included in the family pension. The Public Authority from which the employee has retired has no role to play in this matter. The appellant submitted that despite having approached to the Public Authority twice, no opportunity of inspection has been provided to him.",The Commission directed the PIO to check with the concerned authorities as to whether medical allowance is included in the family pension and is paid by the Bank and if the response is positive then transfer the RTI application to the concerned Bank with the direction to the Bank to provide the information to the appellant within the mandatory period. The Commission also directed the respondent to retrieve from the records regarding the medical allowance and provide it to the appellant. +387,Follow the guiding principles of good governance as enshrined in the preamble of the RTI Act,,"release of gratuity and death benefits, arrears of pay, encashment of privilege leave and term allowance and GSIL benefits etc",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC held that the public authority should keep in mind this guiding principle of good governance and not only provide the information expeditiously to the appellant but also make sincere efforts to finalise the tragic matter which has been kept pending since several years thereby causing further anguish to the unfortunate mother who is the appellant in this case.,"Follow the guiding principles of good governance as enshrined in the preamble of the RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant’s son who was an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) had gone missing in 1999 and that subsequently they had filed police complaint and received not traceable letter from the Department. The appellant claimed that she also kept the Corporation informed regarding the matter. Subsequently through a court decree in 2008, a certificate of presumption of death was issued. The appellant later filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the LIC seeking information pertaining to release of gratuity and death benefits, arrears of pay, encashment of privilege leave and term allowance and GSIL benefits etc. in respect of her deceased son. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the matter had been referred to the Central office by the Zonal office and that information would be provided after receiving the same from Zonal office. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO explained that the LIC had settled the terminal benefits of the employee by treating the case as removed from the services of the Corporation. The PIO also stated that there was a matter of misappropriation and allegations of fraud against the missing employee (son of the appellant). The appellant submitted that she had never been informed of such a case against her son. The PIO further clarified that a circular had been issued covering the matter of benefits to missing persons and that there were no instructions in this regard.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the rules that were applied in the case of the appellant’s son, with reference to benefits due to him along with all file notings and calculations. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide copies of all file notings pertaining to the allegation of misappropriation/ fraud against the late son of the appellant up to the point of final decision in the matter. Under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, the Commission drew the attention of the CMD of the LIC of India and the Head of the Personnel Department of the Corporation to the ideals enshrined in the preamble of the RTI Act, 2005 which highlights the true intent of this legislation to be ""to hold governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed"". The CIC held that the public authority should keep in mind this guiding principle of good governance and not only provide the information expeditiously to the appellant but also make sincere efforts to finalise the tragic matter which has been kept pending since several years thereby causing further anguish to the unfortunate mother who is the appellant in this case." +388,Compensation of Rs. 1.44 Lakhs to be paid by Department of Food and Supplies under RTI,Department of Food and Supplies,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,1500.0,1500.0,The Commission also directed the PIO to consult with the FAA and other senior officials and ensure that appropriate software is designed and put in place that will allow suo motu display of complaints/ grievances of general public as also the status of these complaints/ grievances which will help in instilling confidence in the public.,"Compensation of Rs. 1.44 Lakhs to be paid by Department of Food and Supplies under RTI + +Background: +The appellant referred to a list of nine ration card numbers along with the cardholder’s names and stated that in the new computer data entry, the computer is showing them as not valid ration cards. In this context, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Food and Supplies seeking information like the details of the officials responsible for the wrong entries and the reasons for not entering the correct numbers in the computer. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the ration card numbers mentioned in the application are incorrect and requested him to provide the correct ration card numbers so that the required information can be given. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that as per computer data base, each card number consists of at least eight digits. However in the instant case, the appellant has mentioned seven digits card numbers from Serial Number 1 to 8 and though the card no. at S.No.9 is correct, but the status of the said card is inactive as per computer data base. He advised the applicant to furnish correct numbers in respect of ration cards mentioned from Serial Number 1 to 8. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that all the cards belong to AAY category (a category meant for the poorest of the poor) and because of the error in computer data base, the cards have been shown as invalid. The cardholders who are poor and are barely able to make both ends meet had to suffer because of this error. The monthly subsidy allowed under this scheme was denied, since the cards were treated as invalid. The appellant also pointed out that the first digit of each of the card numbers is 0 which makes the number an eight digit number and such seven digit numbers of ration cards without the ‘0’ have been provided by the Public Authority themselves in response to RTI applications. The fact that each of the card holders had a valid card was highlighted during the hearing before the Commission and the cards too were produced before the Commissioner. The appellant further pointed out that no sympathetic action was taken by the PIO even after photocopies of all the AAY cards were sent requesting him to make the cards active. He also clarified that as per the policy of the Government, each AAY card holder is expected to get supplies subsidy of Rs. 1500/- per month which was denied to them from March 2012 when the cards became invalid till the date of hearing. The respondents admitted that wrong entries must have been made due to pressure of work and shortage of manpower and sympathized with the card holders. They also expressed their willingness to provide whatever help is required to set matters right.","The Commission directed the PIO to rectify the error in the computer with respect to the validity of the cards and ensure that the cards are now shown as ‘active’. The CIC held that the PIO has not applied his mind while responding to the RTI application thereby causing unnecessary harassment to the AAY card holders and also financial detriment to each one of them in terms of loss of subsidy of approximately Rs. 1500/- for 12 months. Under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not bothering to verify the information furnished by the programmer and providing the correct information to the appellant. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation to each of the 8 AAY card holders an amount of Rs. 1500/- per month for 12 months. The Commission also directed the PIO to consult with the FAA and other senior officials and ensure that appropriate software is designed and put in place that will allow suo motu display of complaints/ grievances of general public as also the status of these complaints/ grievances which will help in instilling confidence in the public." +389,Can penalty be imposed in all cases where information has not been provided?,Ministry of External Affairs (MEA),the transfers and postings of an employee of the MEA after his return from Australia,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The CIC further held that the appellant cannot be said to have been harassed or any detriment has been caused to him.,"Can penalty be imposed in all cases where information has not been provided? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) seeking information relating to the transfers and postings of an employee of the MEA after his return from Australia. He also wanted to know about the report sent by the said person alleging that the appellant had threatened him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and claimed that some other information did not exist. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant demanded that the Commission should impose penalty on the PIO for not providing him with the complete information. He also demanded that he should be compensated for the harassment and financial loss caused to him in the process.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide copy of any note or communication received in the Ministry in which the said person might have referred to any alleged threat from the appellant, the documents including the file noting and correspondence created in the Ministry in connection with the report of the alleged threat and the all the relevant file noting dealing with the transfer /posting of the person. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide the copies of the complete files relating to the disposal of the appellant’s RTI applications. The Commission also noted that the appellant had been provided with whatever information the PIO thought was relevant within the stipulated period of 30 days, thus, no penalty can be imposed on him. The CIC further held that the appellant cannot be said to have been harassed or any detriment has been caused to him. Therefore, there is no ground for grant of any compensation." +390,It is not enough to describe the information in generic and universal terms in RTI application,Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB),variety of issues relating to the environmental impact of various gases and materials on the people and the wildlife of Delhi,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission also ruled that the CPCB should publish from time to time, the entire list of its publications including the reports in the website for the information of the public.","It is not enough to describe the information in generic and universal terms in RTI application + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) seeking information on variety of issues relating to the environmental impact of various gases and materials on the people and the wildlife of Delhi. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that all the reports commissioned by the CPCB were routinely published in their website and could be downloaded by any citizen and that the same was communicated in the reply of the PIO. The appellant submitted that the correspondence made with various authorities in Delhi including the police regarding the environmental safety aspects of the business in fireworks was not provided to him.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copies of any such correspondence if made. The CIC held that was per section 6(1) of the RTI Act, the applicant is required to specify the information he needs. The term information is defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;as material record, therefore while seeking information a citizen must specifically indicate the kind of record he needs. It is not enough to describe the information in any generic and universal terms and expect the PIO to do research and find out which record would contain any answer to the query. The Commission also ruled that the CPCB should publish from time to time, the entire list of its publications including the reports in the website for the information of the public. If any of those publications is priced and can be obtained from anywhere, those details should also be published so that people do not have to resort to RTI to get copies of those." +391,Should documents furnished for getting the passport be disclosed to ex-wife under RTI?,"Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Passport Office",,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also directed the PIO to clarify if there is any rule that requires anyone to declare the names of their/ his/ her children while applying for a passport or for renewal of an existing passport.,"Should documents furnished for getting the passport be disclosed to ex-wife under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant claimed that she was divorced from her former husband and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), Passport Office, seeking various information including the copies of documents which the former husband had furnished for getting his passport issued after their divorce. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that it was personal information and was exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that if her former husband had declared her wife and used the name of her daughter in any application made to the competent authorities for getting his passport renewed, then she had a right to get access to those records. The respondent clarified that as per the rules it was not required for the authorities to validate the information regarding the spouse of the passport holder when any request for renewal of the passport was received provided the name of the same spouse appeared in the previous passport. The appellant contended that if her former husband had a passport bearing her name as the wife at the time of renewal of the said passport, the authorities would not normally verify this information through any independent means and would go by the claim of the passport holder.","The Commission directed the PIO to verify the passport renewal forms submitted by the appellant’s former husband. If the name of the appellant has been mentioned as his wife, then the PIO was directed to provide this information to the appellant. The CIC also directed the PIO to clarify if there is any rule that requires anyone to declare the names of their/ his/ her children while applying for a passport or for renewal of an existing passport." +392,Can the police investigation report be sought under “Public Interest”?,Canara Bank,,['8(1)(e)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to initiate action under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act and invite the third party to make a submission regarding whether the information sought should be disclosed to the appellant and to update the details to the appellant accordingly.","Can the police investigation report be sought under “Public Interest”? + +Background: +The appellant filed the application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Canara Bank seeking point wise information about some allegations made by one junior officer against his senior officer of respondent bank. Information was sought on 6 points, with some points having sub points. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act but the letter was not received by the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) provided a copy of the reply of the PIO to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the nature of information has nothing to do with the public domain and the matter falls under the category of fiduciary relationship and third party information. The appellant stated that the matter was a subject matter of a public inquiry conducted by the police and CID. It cannot be denied treating it as fiduciary matter and third party information. The appellant further stated that he wanted the certified copies of the complaints, the inquiry report of the circle office and police investigation report. The respondent argued that the police report was not in their domain and the matter was an internal matter of the bank which cannot be divulged.","The Commission directed the PIO to initiate action under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act and invite the third party to make a submission regarding whether the information sought should be disclosed to the appellant and to update the details to the appellant accordingly." +393,Are there any criteria for allocating advertisement space in newspapers?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission also held that if this information is not available in the form of any published policy, the PIO should provide the information in whatever form it is available.","Are there any criteria for allocating advertisement space in newspapers? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (I&B) seeking to know the criteria followed in categorizing newspapers, fixing ceiling for issue of advertisements and allocating advertisement space within large medium and small newspapers. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the copies of the documents laying down the criteria on both these counts. The PIO also provided some information regarding the inter se allocation of advertisement space within each category of newspapers. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the PIO had not provided the information about the policy followed with regard to allocation of advertisement space within each category of newspapers. The PIO had only provided the criteria followed in allocating advertisement space among these three categories.","The Commission observed that the appellant is yet to receive the criteria followed by the government in allocating advertisement space among the newspapers falling within any one of the three categories. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the information if it is available. The Commission also held that if this information is not available in the form of any published policy, the PIO should provide the information in whatever form it is available." +394,Disclosure of information regarding production and lease conditions of mine under RTI,Ministry of Mines and Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM),,['8(1)(e)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the rest of the information to the appellant.,"Disclosure of information regarding production and lease conditions of mine under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Mines and Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) seeking information in respect of a mining leased to a particular company in the village Sancordem. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information citing section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act and his order was upheld by the First Appellate Authority (FAA).","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that most of the information sought is not covered under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The CIC held that the information provided by the lessee regarding the operation of the mine is a part of its statutory obligations. The information relating to the production and the violations of lease conditions cannot be said to be held in a fiduciary capacity by the Indian Bureau of Mines. The disclosure of such information is of great public interest as this would enable the ordinary citizen to exercise an oversight on the extraction of minerals and prevent the mine owner from overexploitation or wrongful exploitation of the natural resources of the state. The CIC ruled that all the desired information should be disclosed except that relating to the year wise production plan approved by the authorities which is information in the nature of commercial confidence. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the rest of the information to the appellant." +395,Disclosure of details of export of minerals in excel format,Office of the Commissioner of Customs,,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC further added that the copies of the exporter-wise shipping bills or export details was exempt under the provisions of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.","Disclosure of details of export of minerals in excel format + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Office of the Commissioner of Customs seeking the copies of the exporter-wise shipping bills or export details covering the export of Garnet, Ilemenite, Zircon and Rutile in break bulk and containers from Thoothududi port to various countries. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the particulars called for in respect of export of these minerals could not be generated separately sub-heading-wise in the ICES 1.5 system. The PIO submitted that the daily trade reports on export were readily available and the said particulars had been copied in one CD. The PIO requested the appellant to send the charges of Rs. 50/- for getting the information in soft copy. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that even before the stipulated 30 days period, the appellant filed a first appeal on 28.5.2011 with the Assistant Commissioner who is actually the PIO (and not the FAA) stating that no reply was received. Then on 7.6.2011, the appellant sent a DD for Rs. 50/- towards the cost of the CD for the information. On 28.10.2011, the appellant sent another letter of appeal that the exporter-wise details of each and every mineral separately was not furnished and appeal dated 28.5.2011 may be modified accordingly. On 30.11.2011, another letter of appeal was received from the appellant reiterating the same points in the letter dated 28.10.2011. + +The PIO informed that available particulars except for the export-wise, shipping bill wise details were furnished in the PDF format on 30.5.2010 and 16.2.2011 while the appellant insisted on sending on Microsoft Excel format. + +The PIO referred to another RTI application of the appellant seeking details of copies of shipping bill details covering export of Garnet and Ilmenite covering the period 2000 to 2004 of Beach Mineral Company Pvt. Ltd., Tirunelveli. It was rejected under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act which was upheld by the CIC in case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000539 dated 2.8.2012.","The Commission observed that the requisite information permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant. The CIC further added that the copies of the exporter-wise shipping bills or export details was exempt under the provisions of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Comments + +There is no obligation under the RTI Act to furnish information including commercial confidence or trade secrets, disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the exporter." +396,"Under RTI Act, deemed PIO shares the responsibility equally with the PIO",High Court of Bombay,the status of two complaints sent to the Bombay High Court against some magistrate,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The Commission also issued a show-cause notice to the officers concerned who were responsible for the delay.,"Under RTI Act, deemed PIO shares the responsibility equally with the PIO + +Background: +The appellant filed three applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the High Court of Bombay seeking information relating to the status of two complaints sent to the Bombay High Court against some magistrate. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded to one of these RTI applications within the stipulated period while for the other two applications he responded with a delay. In all the replies he informed that the complaints were under process. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the delay in two of these cases was caused because the respective sections holding the information had not provided it to the PIO in time though he had demanded for it as soon as he received the RTI applications. The appellant submitted that the High Court had not decided his complaints till now and the PIO had not provided him all the information that he had wanted in this regard.","The Commission directed the PIO to apprise to the appellant about the current status of both his complaints, the date on which the complaints had been received and when the same were sent for investigation. The Commission also issued a show-cause notice to the officers concerned who were responsible for the delay. + +Comments + +The PIO can seek assistance from his colleagues in order to fulfill the duties under the RTI Act. Whenever he seeks assistance, the colleague is called as the deemed PIO and shares the responsibility equally with the PIO. If the deemed PIO is found guilty of delay, penalty can be imposed under the RTI Act." +397,Merely sending a reply is not enough; material records should be provided under RTI,Allahabad High Court,if there was a time limit fixed by the High Court for disposal of such complaints,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission ruled that the competent authority in the High Court must revisit this arrangement and ensure that the timelines fixed in the Right to Information (RTI) Act are strictly adhered to and the Allahabad High Court would follow the provisions of the law both in letter and spirit.,"Merely sending a reply is not enough; material records should be provided under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Allahabad High Court seeking to know the action taken on his complaint against the Additional District Judge Saharanpur. He also wanted to know if there was a time limit fixed by the High Court for disposal of such complaints. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the complaint had been placed before the Administrative Judge who had recorded some comments. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had sought similar information in the past and had received somewhat different information. He also complained that the PIO never provided any information within the stipulated period. The respondent submitted that the PIO had conveyed exactly what action had been taken on the complaint in the respective file without suppressing any facts. They also explained that the PIO had placed the RTI application along with the reply before the Committee of Judges as per the rules of the Allahabad High Court. The information was forwarded only after the approval of the Chief Justice was received and which caused the delay.","The Commission observed that it is not enough for the PIO to send a reply to the RTI application. The PIO should provide the available material records that constitute information. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the entire file noting on the said complaint(s). PIO was also directed to inform the appellant if the Allahabad High Court has fixed any time limit for disposal of citizen complaints of this nature. Regarding the delay, the Commission observed that the PIO of the Allahabad High Court rarely responds to RTI requests within the stipulated period of 30 days mainly because of the elaborate procedure laid down under the Allahabad High Court Right to Information Rules. The CIC held that they cannot punish the PIO for the delay because he is not responsible for the delay but the procedure put in place by the High Court. + +The CIC observed that the Allahabad High Court procedure for disclosure of information involves the vetting and approval of the information by both a Committee of Judges and the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Commission ruled that the competent authority in the High Court must revisit this arrangement and ensure that the timelines fixed in the Right to Information (RTI) Act are strictly adhered to and the Allahabad High Court would follow the provisions of the law both in letter and spirit. + +Comments + +Who can ensure the courts of the land follow the law - both in letter and spirit?" +398,Disclosure of details of purchases done from non- public funds,Indian Air Force (IAF),"the number of trees removed in Base Repair Depot at Tughlakabad, the number of trees presently standing at the said place and copy of the bill regarding purchase of TV set etc",[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the decision of the PIO and rejected the appeal.,"Disclosure of details of purchases done from non- public funds + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Air Force (IAF) seeking information regarding the number of trees removed in Base Repair Depot at Tughlakabad, the number of trees presently standing at the said place and copy of the bill regarding purchase of TV set etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant is a serving Corporal of the IAF. He also stated that the PIO had informed the appellant that the information pertaining to trees is not maintained and hence cannot be provided. Regarding the copy of the bill, the respondent submitted that the same was denied as they had been purchased from non- public funds.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the decision of the PIO and rejected the appeal. +399,Should names of scientists evaluating the research paper be disclosed under RTI?,National Academy of Sciences India (NASI),,['8(1)(g)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the information is barred from disclosure under section 2(g) of the RTI Act.,"Should names of scientists evaluating the research paper be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant had written a research paper on Fit Technology and sent it to the Cabinet Secretary. The Cabinet Secretary referred the paper to DST which had transmitted it to NASI. Later he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Academy of Sciences India (NASI) seeking the copy of his paper received by NASI, the names of the scientists who evaluated and reviewed and commented on it. He also wanted the comments given on his paper. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that the copies of the comments of the examining scientists have already been supplied to the appellant but argued that the names of the examining scientists cannot be disclosed to the appellant as per the policy of NASI.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed that disclosing the names of the scientist would compromise their position as they may come under pressure in their future assignments and may create ill will and acrimony between them and the appellant. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the information is barred from disclosure under section 2(g) of the RTI Act. + +Comments + +It appears that reference to section 2(g) is a typographical error which may be read as section 8(1)(g)." +400,Is bank authorised to transfer amount from FD to other account without account holder’s consent?,State Bank of India (SBI),her account opening form and fixed deposits with the bank,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the respondent to enable the appellant to inspect all the records pertinent to the RTI application and provide photo copies of the documents thereafter.,"Is bank authorised to transfer amount from FD to other account without account holder’s consent? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information regarding her account opening form and fixed deposits with the bank. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that she had deposited an amount of Rs. one crore in the bank by way of fixed deposit and that money was transferred by the bank without her authority. The appellant also stated that she had never given the authority for this transaction and that the bank had already acknowledged that the special term deposit had been appropriated to another loan account. The appellant further stated that the bank has already acknowledged that there is a record in the bank which reveals that amount from the special term deposit was appropriated. In this connection, she wanted to get a copy of the records that the bank has acknowledged exists with the bank. The appellant argued that this is her money and the bank should give her the records that are being referred to by the bank itself. The respondent stated that the entire information available with the bank has been provided. The appellant counter argued that the respondent is giving contradictory statements and that the respondent has acknowledged that there are certain records available with them.",The Commission observed that this is a matter where the information pertaining to the bank records relates to the appellant and the appellant must be able to access the papers in light of this hearing. The CIC directed the respondent to enable the appellant to inspect all the records pertinent to the RTI application and provide photo copies of the documents thereafter. +401,Can a new PIO seek for more time to provide the information under RTI?,Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The CIC also warned the earlier PIO to exercise due care and ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 may be initiated.,"Can a new PIO seek for more time to provide the information under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) seeking details of all incoming calls originating from all exchanges to his landline number along with the complete details of all non-metered numbers for a particular period. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the PIO has not provided the information for complete duration. The PIO submitted that the earlier PIO had provided incomplete information and assured to provide the remaining information. She submitted that the information requested by the appellant is voluminous and hence she would require some more days for compiling it.",The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the correct and complete information to the appellant as sought in the RTI application. The CIC also warned the earlier PIO to exercise due care and ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 may be initiated. +402,Using RTI to get information regarding suicides committed by IIT students,"Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kanpur",suicides committed by IIT students since the inception of IIT,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the number of students who had committed suicide in the IIT to without providing the personal information.,"Using RTI to get information regarding suicides committed by IIT students + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kanpur, seeking information relating to suicides committed by IIT students since the inception of IIT. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that it was of personal nature and that there was no larger public interest involved. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO referred to the earlier decision of the CIC (CIC/SM/A/2010/001086) wherein it was held that the number of individuals who had committed suicide may be disclosed without sharing the personal information.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide the number of students who had committed suicide in the IIT to without providing the personal information. +403,Are HRA benefits and Form 16 of employees liable to be disclosed under RTI?,Canara Bank,the House Rent Allowance (HRA) benefits and Form 16 of a particular employee of the bank,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed respondent to provide to the appellant whatever information is available.,"Are HRA benefits and Form 16 of employees liable to be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Canara Bank seeking information regarding the House Rent Allowance (HRA) benefits and Form 16 of a particular employee of the bank. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the employee for whom the information had been sought lived in his parent's house but had claimed HRA illegally. The appellant also stated that the information that he was seeking would prove his point. The respondent stated that the HRA is part of the emoluments that an official of the rank of a clerk would not have got irrespective of where he is staying. The appellant argued that if the bank has the attendance sheet of the same year for which he is seeking the HRA, it is strange that the HRA details have been destroyed. The respondent informed that it is by chance that the attendance sheet is available but reiterated that the HRA details of that period would not be available. On the submission of the appellant that if the record has been destroyed, the public authority would have information pertaining to the record destruction, the respondent stated that they do not have sufficient information to comment on this aspect.","The Commission directed respondent to provide to the appellant whatever information is available. + +Comments + +As per the prescribed procedure for the destruction of records, a destruction memo or similar document is maintained signifying that the actual destruction has taken place. Every public authority should keep a record of the such a document." +404,Should information available under high court rules be also provided under RTI Act?,Allahabad High Court,a case filed in the section 482 of the Allahabad High Court,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC also directed the PIO to ensure that the desired information is sent to the appellant after he files the fresh application under the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.","Should information available under high court rules be also provided under RTI Act? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Allahabad High Court seeking information relating to a case filed in the section 482 of the Allahabad High Court. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any information on the ground that such information should be sought under the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had sent three applications to the Registrar General of the High Court by following the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 seeking this information but did not get any response and only then he approached the PIO under the RTI. He expressed his helplessness that he had not been able to access this information either under the Allahabad High Court Rules or under the RTI. The respondent explained that such information was covered under the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 and any citizen could easily get such information by approaching the office of the Registrar General.","The Commission advised the appellant to send a fresh application to the Registrar General of the High Court under the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 with a copy endorsed to the PIO of the Allahabad High Court. The CIC also directed the PIO to ensure that the desired information is sent to the appellant after he files the fresh application under the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. + +Comments + +It is a matter of debate whether a citizen should be given an opportunity to seek information by filing an application under the RTI Act or under any other procedure prescribed under any other rules in vogue." +405,Addressing the issue of unfair promotions of bank officers using RTI,,the rural branches of SBI and the officers posted there,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to inform the appellant about the basis of appraisal related to promotion of bank officers.,"Addressing the issue of unfair promotions of bank officers using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information about the rural branches of SBI and the officers posted there. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he sought information on the list of trainee officers who had been posted in the rural branches of the bank from 1992 to 2011 along with the DGMs, AGMs and the assignment appraisal reports for certain years. The respondent submitted that there are thousands of branches all over the country and they do not maintain the information on the basis of classification of rural and urban branches in the manner stated by the appellant. Regarding other information the respondent stated that it is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The appellant further stated that there are many officers in the bank who had never been posted in the rural areas but have been given privileged postings and that he must get the information because the bank has not been treating him fairly on issues of his promotion. He also submitted that for the last promotion his abilities as reflected in his qualifications were kept out of reckoning and that less deserving candidates have got the promotion.",The Commission directed the respondent to inform the appellant about the basis of appraisal related to promotion of bank officers. +406,Information relating to constitution of committees to look into complaints of corruption,Geological Survey of India (GSI),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him for the lapse.","Information relating to constitution of committees to look into complaints of corruption + +Background: +The appellant had filed several complaints with the Geological Survey of India (GSI) regarding widespread corruption in the Western Regional Office of the GSI. Later he filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the GSI seeking information relating to the constitution of certain committees by the authorities to look into his complaints and the action taken on a large number of complaints he had sent The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has some grievance against the authorities in the matter of promotion and has been making relentless complaints followed by serial RTI applications. The CIC also observed that all his RTI applications seem to be falling in deaf ear as the PIO concerned seems not to be responding to him at all or with any credible and complete information which shows the organisation in extremely poor light. The CIC directed the authorities in the GSI to take note of the prevailing situation. The Commission further directed the PIO to provide the desired information in both the cases including the copies of the relevant file noting from the files in which his various complaints had been processed. The Commission also directed to disclose the copy of the entire file in which various committees had been set up to look into his case including the reports furnished by those committees. Under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him for the lapse." +407,Should Income Tax Statement of a person be disclosed to his brother under RTI?,Punjab National Bank (PNB),income tax statement including form16 of the last ten years of his younger brother,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the sought information is related to third party.,"Should Income Tax Statement of a person be disclosed to his brother under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab National Bank (PNB) seeking information relating to income tax statement including form16 of the last ten years of his younger brother. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that this was third party information and the concerned party had not given his consent. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he had sought information from the bank on two counts (i) the income tax returns including form16 of the last 7 to 10 years; and (ii) a copy of the medical reimbursement bills both related to his younger brother.  The respondent stated that the documents pertaining to income tax are not a concern of the bank and that if any documents pertaining to income tax are required by any citizen, they have to approach the Income Tax Department. The respondent further elaborated that the appellant’s brother was an employee of the bank and that the RTI application has been triggered by a family dispute with which the bank would not wish to get involved.",The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the sought information is related to third party. +408,Repeated filing of RTI applications with the public authority,Madras High Court,the action taken on various representations and complaints on various issues sent by the complainant himself and his wife and other details,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC referred to the Preamble of the Right to Information (RTI) Act which seeks to establish a practical regime for providing information to the citizens, and pointed that this case shows how a single individual can overload a public authority and divert its resources rather disproportionately while seeking information.","Repeated filing of RTI applications with the public authority + +Background: +The appellant filed many applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Madras High Court seeking information about the action taken on various representations and complaints on various issues sent by the complainant himself and his wife and other details. He complained to the CIC that he had been allowed inspection of the relevant records but was not provided with the copies of those records when he had demanded for the same. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and while denying the same on other issues. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the complainant submitted that he has a lot of grievance against the Madras High Court in a variety of matters including in the matter of appointment of a certain individual District Judge as the Registrar General of the High Court and the concurrence given by the High Court for appointment of Public Prosecutors. The respondent pointed clarified that some of the complaints and representations referred to the vigilance section of the High Court for inquiry were under investigation and their details could not be disclosed.","The Commission directed the PIO to prepare a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the appellant and showing separately the complaints and representations being dealt with in the administrative and judicial sides and provide the current status of the action taken. + +In the case concerning the appointment of the Registrar General, the CIC directed the PIO to provide the photocopy of the file in which the proposal for appointment of the said particular individual as a Registered General had been processed and finalised. The PIO was also directed to provide with the photocopy of the relevant file notings from the file in which the Complainant's complaint against the appointment of the individual concerned was dealt with. + +In the case dealing with the appointment of Public Prosecutors, the PIO was directed to provide the photocopies of the letters containing the concurrence or otherwise of the High Court about specific individuals proposed by the State Government. + +Cautioning the Complainant, the CIC observed that though he has every right to seek legitimate information, he must not derail the working of the public authority by flooding it with numerous RTI applications. The CIC referred to the Preamble of the Right to Information (RTI) Act which seeks to establish a practical regime for providing information to the citizens, and pointed that this case shows how a single individual can overload a public authority and divert its resources rather disproportionately while seeking information. + +Comments + +A few RTI applications seeking very pertinent and specific information can reveal more than several dozen of applications seeking repetitive data." +409,Can a second appeal under RTI Act be filed with the CIC in regional language?,Union Bank of India,the reasons why the deductions had been made and the names of the persons in whose favour the cheques were issued during a particular period,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide requisite information to the appellant.,"Can a second appeal under RTI Act be filed with the CIC in regional language? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Bank of India seeking copy of the credit and debit balance of her savings bank account. The Public Information Officer (PIO) returned the RTI application stating that it was not accompanied with the requisite fee in appropriate mode; however, he provided the statement of account as the applicant was a customer of the bank. Dissatisfied by the response furnished by the PIO and First Appellate Authority (FAA), the appellant approached the Central Information Commission (CIC) in second appeal. However it was returned back as some of the enclosures were in regional language. The appellant then resent the appeal in English. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that she had actually wanted to know the reasons why the deductions had been made and the names of the persons in whose favour the cheques were issued during a particular period. The respondent stated that said amount had been deducted on account of non­maintenance of the minimum balance and that minimum balance had dipped below the stipulated level on a number of occasions. The respondent also stated that the information would be made available in the course of the next 2 to 3 weeks.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide requisite information to the appellant. +410,Information regarding complaints for dereliction of duties and the action taken on them,Union Bank of India,the purchase of furniture by the official of the banks and other related issues,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to enable the appellant to inspect the relevant files in the context of above queries.,"Information regarding complaints for dereliction of duties and the action taken on them + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Bank of India seeking information on the purchase of furniture by the official of the banks and other related issues. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that she wanted information about the complaints that had been made by the members of the public and the action taken indicating the punishment given and details about those who were let off after enquiry. She also wanted to know about the complaints made by the officers of the bank against the staff for the dereliction of duties and the action taken by way of punishment given along with information about those who were not punished. The respondent stated that the information regarding complaints against the bank personnel either from the members of the public or from the bank officials was not provided on grounds of personal information. The question did not relate to the appellant and no public interest was shown. The respondent stated that the husband of the appellant was an employee of the bank who had been dismissed from bank service but had again been reinstated and the appellant’s husband had a grievance against the bank on account of his earlier dismissal. The appellant stated that her husband had been dismissed on the basis of discriminatory treatment and those who had committed major fraud and had even gone to jail had been let off with much lighter punishment then her husband and that taking into account the biased and subjective approach of the bank, she should get the information.",The Commission directed the respondent to enable the appellant to inspect the relevant files in the context of above queries. +411,Can a deficiency in the order of the Court be settled through RTI?,Delhi High Court (DHC),,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC advised the appellant to seek legal opinion from an expert and decide about the next course of action.,"Can a deficiency in the order of the Court be settled through RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi High Court (DHC) seeking information on some points one relating to the action taken on his complaint against a High Court judge who had passed an order in his case and other regarding the discrepancy between the order passed by the Supreme Court of India (SCI) and the High Court in conferring the benefit of pension to some other employees while denying it to the appellant. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that his complaint had been considered and filed. Further the, PIO informed that the appellant had not sought information but was seeking the opinion which was beyond the duty of the PIO.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the appellant is a retired employee of the DTC who had challenged the decision of the DTC to deny him pension when some other employees had been given the same benefit in the High Court. The CIC observed that the appellant wanted the opinion of the PIO about how two sets of similarly placed individuals were treated differently by the High Court. The Commission held that any alleged deficiency in the High Court order cannot be set right under RTI. The CIC ruled that it is not the duty of the PIO to offer comments on orders passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court and hence there is no more information to be disclosed under RTI Act. The CIC advised the appellant to seek legal opinion from an expert and decide about the next course of action. +412,Can the CAG recover salary from state government officials wrongly promoted?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no information with the CAG on this subject and that the RTI application cannot also be used for redressing such grievances.,"Can the CAG recover salary from state government officials wrongly promoted? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) of India raising some issues relating to alleged wrong promotion of officials under the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. He wanted the CAG to take action for recovery of salary and other dues paid to wrongly promoted officials. The Public Information Officer (PIO) observed that the subject matter of the RTI application was not within the purview of the CAG.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the State Government had conducted a DPC to promote Superintendents of Land Records and Tahasildars to the post of Deputy Collector. The CIC referred to the allegation made by the appellant that in the promotion process some undeserving officers were promoted in spite of adverse reports about their integrity. The appellant had desired the CAG to intervene in the matter and take appropriate steps which is beyond the remit of the CAG. The CIC held that the PIO was not wrong in stating that the entire subject matter concerned the State Government. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no information with the CAG on this subject and that the RTI application cannot also be used for redressing such grievances. If the appellant thinks that the State Government had promoted undeserving officers, the right place to agitate this matter is a court of law." +413,Can a borrower from a bank be the guarantor of the bank loan?,Union Bank of India,the loan accounts of certain persons and other related issues,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide the information to the appellant.,"Can a borrower from a bank be the guarantor of the bank loan? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Bank of India seeking information on the loan accounts of certain persons and other related issues. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and denied the rest under sections 8(1)(d),8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the information regarding the duties of the various functioning levels of the bank such as the financial status of the guarantor, the person who drafted the FIRs, duties of the various levels of the branch management pertaining to the loan disbursement, the annual audit reports etc. have not been furnished He stated that some more information like where the bank had suffered pecuniary loss and the processes followed by the bank in respect of deployment of lawyers also remains to be provided. The respondent submitted that the audit reports are confidential and the drafting of the FIR is a collective departmental job and it is doubtful whether specific persons can be identified as the FIR drafters. The respondent also stated that the matter is still under legal investigation process and section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;applies in the situation to many points. The appellant stated that the RTI application has been motivated out of consideration to expose the working of the bank in respect of its own processes and the employment of lawyers which lead to financial loss. The appellant stated that this is a matter where the guarantor himself is a borrower and a person who is indebted to the bank cannot be made a guarantor. The appellant claimed that he has sought information about the duties of the various functioning levels in the bank, the audit report regarding the loan account in question, and the processes by which advocates have been given the responsibility to conduct business on behalf of the bank.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide the information to the appellant. +414,Information regarding maintenance of records in the bank was sought under RTI,Canara Bank,maintenance of records in the bank,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that no further intervention of the Commission is required.,"Information regarding maintenance of records in the bank was sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Canara Bank seeking information on maintenance of records in the bank. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the information could not be provided to the appellant on account of it being fiduciary and confidential in nature. Further no evidence of any larger public interest was given by the appellant and this was the reason why the response from the bank took cover of the exemption under sections 8(1)(d),8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;&8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.",The Commission rejected the appeal observing that no further intervention of the Commission is required. +415,Can a FAA hear the case which he had disposed in the capacity of PIO?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission ruled that the Ministry must take care not to appoint a PIO later as FAA to deal with the very same cases which she had disposed of as a PIO.,"Can a FAA hear the case which he had disposed in the capacity of PIO? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Environment & Forest seeking a number of information in respect of various hydropower projects in the state of Sikkim. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided copies of various documents including file noting. He denied some items claiming that no information was available. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the entire information provided so far covered only two of his queries. He objected to the fact that one item of information was sent to him one year after he filed his RTI application. He also submitted that it was not possible that the Ministry did not have some of the records such as the report submitted by the committee headed by the Chief Secretary of Sikkim since this committee had been set up by the Ministry itself. The respondent submitted that they had truthfully provided whatever information was available at the relevant time. They also clarified that they had sent no other information other than what the PIO had sent at the very beginning and disowned the information sent to the appellant without a forwarding letter which the appellant claimed to have received one year after the filing of the RTI application. The appellant informed that the PIO herself had disposed of the first appeal in her new capacity as the First Appellate Authority (FAA).","The Commission ruled that the Ministry must take care not to appoint a PIO later as FAA to deal with the very same cases which she had disposed of as a PIO. This would avoid the possibility of any conflict of interest. + +Comments + +The officer in the organisation with the power to designate a PIO / FAA should be requested in such cases to appoint another person to deal with the appeals to avoid a clash of interest." +416,Information which is already in public domain is not said to be ‘held’,Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE),,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to give an explanation as to why departmental action should not be recommended against him for abstaining from the hearing.,"Information which is already in public domain is not said to be ‘held’ + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) seeking information with reference to news clipping from Nav Bharat Times and a note by the person from Hindu College. The Public Information Officer (PIO) asked the appellant to visit the website of CBSE to get the sought information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that a RTI petitioner is not supposed to have necessarily a facility of internet and as such all RTI responses should be provided in hard copy if not specified otherwise.","The Commission observed that as per section4(2)It shall be a constant endeavour of every public authority to take steps in accordance with the requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information.of the RTI Act, every public authority has to take steps in accordance with the requirement of section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;to provide information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information. The bench referred to an earlier decision of CIC wherein it was held that once the information is brought in to the public domain it is excluded from the purview of the RTI Act. The Commission noted that the Honourable High Court of Delhi in the case of Registrar of Companies and others Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg and others has held that Right to Information is specifically conferred to that information which “is held by or under the control of any public authority”. The Commission held that the contention of the appellant relating to the information available on the website be provided in hard copy cannot be met. The Commission noted that the respondent has not provided a response to some points of the RTI application and directed the PIO to provide a proper response to the appellant. The Commission also directed the PIO to give an explanation as to why departmental action should not be recommended against him for abstaining from the hearing. + +Comments + +Some benches have taken a contrary decision holding that if the applicant insists, a hard copy of the information available on the website should be provided." +417,Is the post of Chairperson of UPA a constitutional post?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission also ruled that the PMO or any other public authority in the Central Government can provide information about the status of the chairperson of the UPA only if there is any such record available on this subject.,"Is the post of Chairperson of UPA a constitutional post? + +Background: +The appellant referred to an advertisement published in the newspapers showing the photograph of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Chairperson and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking to know if this post was Constitutional or legal and if it was in the knowledge of the Prime Minister or if she was appointed by the President of India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the quires raised by the appellant were not information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the PIO and observed that the queries of the appellant do not amount to information and that there is nothing on material record available in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) on these queries. The Commission held that the RTI Act entitles a citizen to ask for existing records. It does not provide for quizzing the PIO or for testing his general knowledge. The CIC rejected the appeal noting that the queries do not lead to any material information for nothing of the kind exists. The Commission also ruled that the PMO or any other public authority in the Central Government can provide information about the status of the chairperson of the UPA only if there is any such record available on this subject. +418,Applicant should specify the time frame for which information is sought under RTI,,"a particular Gas Agency such as, number of domestic consumers, number of commercial consumers, cylinders received, cylinders distributed etc",[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission held that if the appellant is reluctant to take inspection, then he must specify the time frame for which he is seeking this information.","Applicant should specify the time frame for which information is sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) seeking information about a particular Gas Agency such as, number of domestic consumers, number of commercial consumers, cylinders received, cylinders distributed etc. He also wanted to know the number of individuals who are having more than one gas connection. The Public Information Officer (PIO) offered inspection of the relevant records to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant had not specified the time frame for which he was seeking the information and the offer for inspection given by the PIO cannot be said to be unreasonable. The Commission held that if the appellant is reluctant to take inspection, then he must specify the time frame for which he is seeking this information." +419,Using RTI to seek information regarding termination from service,National Informatics Center (NIC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to furnish the information to the appellant.,"Using RTI to seek information regarding termination from service + +Background: +The appellant was given a show-cause notice by Vigilance Officer and was directed to reply within 10 days. After five months of submitting his reply, his service was terminated. Later he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Informatics Center (NIC) seeking information in this regard. He sought to know what action was taken by the Vigilance Officer about his explanation and if no action had been taken then the reasons thereof. He also wanted the copies of all the departmental proceedings, all the communication and all the documents related to termination of his services. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the appellant stated that he has not been provided the documents requested in of his RTI application. The PIO stated that the matter was pending before the CAT and hence the information could not be disclosed.",The Commission observed that the PIO denied the information simply stating that the case was pending with CAT. He has neither cited the exemption provision under section 8(1) of the RTI Act nor has he given justification for the same. The CIC directed the PIO to furnish the information to the appellant. +420,When can the subsistence allowance be paid to a suspended employee?,All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the above information to the appellant along with the copy of the calculation sheet relating to the fixation of subsistence allowance.,"When can the subsistence allowance be paid to a suspended employee? + +Background: +The appellant was a Sister Grade II (Male) in AIIMS. He was placed under suspension on and claimed that after suspension he was not paid subsistence allowance for as long as 08 months which resulted in acute financial hardship to him. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) seeking to know the time frame within which subsistence allowance is payable to a suspended employee as per prevailing rules and whether the said rules have been observed in his case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +The appellant and the respondent did not participate in the hearing before the Central Information commission (CIC). The Commission perused the records available and observed that the PIO had informed the appellant that the subsistence allowance was provided to the appellant after completing the procedure, the Government of India rules on the subject. The CIC held that the PIO has not mentioned as to what the rules are and whether the rules provide any time frame within which the subsistence allowance is to be paid to the appellant and whether there has been any violation of these rules in this particular case.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the above information to the appellant along with the copy of the calculation sheet relating to the fixation of subsistence allowance. +421,Information regarding a matter pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal,Central Bank of India,the current account of a particular company,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the respondent to provide the information to the appellant.,"Information regarding a matter pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bank of India seeking information about the current account of a particular company. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information and asked the appellant to submit the requisite fee. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the respondent has been denying him information quoting various reasons. The respondent stated that the matter was before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) on account of initiation of recovery process hence the information had to be denied. The respondent also argued that there are decisions of the Commission stating that if a legal process is on such as in this case, the information can be obtained only through the court. The appellant stated that the court itself had directed the respondent to show him the files in a certain matter, but when he asked for copies they were denied to him. The appellant further stated that the information is held by the bank and if the bank does not give the information he has nowhere to go.",The Commission observed that the sought information pertains to the appellant and there is insufficient reason to deny the same to him. The CIC directed the respondent to provide the information to the appellant. +422,Details regarding recommendations for nominations to various committees were sought,approval of the ACC and they would not have the information,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The Commission also held that since the records of the public authority do not reflect the sector which a particular nonofficial director represents, he can only provide the complete list and it is for the appellant to deduce about the sector which each of the directors represents.","Details regarding recommendations for nominations to various committees were sought + +Background: +The appellant filed three applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking information about the recommendations received from various quarters including the VIPs for nomination of members on the National Committee for Promotion of Social and Economic Welfare (NCPSEW), the National Advisory Council (NAC) and as nonofficial Directors on Boards of Public Sector Banks including the State Bank of India and its local boards. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the letters received from various quarters recommending names had been filed without any action.  The PIO also transferred some part of these RTI applications to the Department of Revenue (DoR) and the Department of Financial Services (DFS). The concerned PIOs responded separately and provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the representative of PMO furnished the guidelines under which such recommendations had been decided to be filed by them and were not supposed to be acted upon. The representative of the Department of Revenue submitted that the names received from various quarters were put up to the Finance Minister and the final composition of the committee was decided on the basis of the direction given by him. He further stated that the Finance Minister had not recorded any reason for selecting someone as member and not selecting the others. The respondent from Department of Financial Services submitted that selection of nonofficial directors was made on the basis of the guidelines framed by the Department and with the approval of the ACC and they would not have the information for all these institutions beginning 2001 as required by the appellant. He, however, agreed to provide this information for the current incumbents.","The Commission directed the PIO, PMO to forward to the appellant the copy of the guidelines along with the relevant file noting by which these had been approved by the competent authority. The CIC held that since no material record exists with the DoR to show why one individual is selected and not the other hence the same cannot be provided. The Commission also suggested that the authorities should streamline such appointments by bringing in greater rigour and objectivity in the selection of individuals. The CIC directed the PIO of the DFS to find out whatever information is available regarding the number of part time nonofficial Directors and Boards of all the Public Sector Banks including the State Bank of India and its local boards and send it to the appellant.  In case this information is not available for the entire period as desired, it should be sent or for whatever period is available. The Commission also held that since the records of the public authority do not reflect the sector which a particular nonofficial director represents, he can only provide the complete list and it is for the appellant to deduce about the sector which each of the directors represents. + +Comments + +As per the conduct rules, the use of influence even for transfer is liable to be punished. Rule 20 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 provides that no Government servant shall bring or attempt to bring any political or other outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his/ her service under the Government." +423,Information regarding the working capital facilities provided by the Canara Bank,Canara Bank,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal upholding the decision of the PIO.,"Information regarding the working capital facilities provided by the Canara Bank + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Canara Bank seeking details of the working capital facilities provided by the bank to their subsidiary company Enercon India Limited (EIL). The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the sought information under sections8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he wanted the basis of the working capital facility provided by the respondent bank to the entity in question; the documentation provided by the entity to the respondent bank to provide working capital; and the due diligence report of the respondent bank before the sanctioning of working capital to the entity in question. The respondent submitted that there is a dispute between the holding company and a subsidiary company but the connection of the bank is with the subsidiary company whose interest the bank has to protect. The respondent also stated that the bank holds the information on behalf of the subsidiary, which is held in a fiduciary capacity and it would not be right under the RTI Act to provide that information. The respondent further stated that they cannot be expected to part with the due diligence report, which is based on internal processes. The respondent referred to proceedings before the Company Law Board and an earlier decision of the CIC wherein the Commission has held that the issues raised and disposed of in one forum should not be raised in another forum. The appellant stated that the issues which came up before the Company Law Board were quite different from the issues which came up before the Information Commission.",The Commission observed that there is no reason for the Commission to interfere with its earlier decision in the matter. The Commission rejected the appeal upholding the decision of the PIO. +424,Who deals with the Export Promotion of Industrial Park (EPIP) scheme?,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The CIC also held that if the information is not available with the Department of Commerce the concerned PIO should be directed to provide information to the appellant.,"Who deals with the Export Promotion of Industrial Park (EPIP) scheme? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Commerce & Industry (MCI), Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) & Department of Commerce (DoC) seeking approved copy of the Project proposal and Master Plan of Export Promotion of Industrial Park (EPIP) along with several other related issues. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to the application. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) of DoC observed that EPIP Scheme of DIPP was subsumed in a new Centrally Sponsored Plan Scheme, viz. Assistance to States for Infrastructure Development of Exports (ASIDE) Scheme. The FAA further stated that if the information sought by the appellant was not available with DoC, the PIO should have forwarded the RTI application to that Department/ Ministry/ Organization where the requisite information could be available. The FAA directed the PIO, to furnish a suitable reply to the appellant and a copy to the MD, Assam Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC). On receiving the RTI application sent by the PIO (DoC), the PIO (DIPP) informed the PIO (DoC) that it was not feasible to confirm whether EPIP Scheme was allocated to this Department. Therefore, he requested a copy of the records showing that the instant subject was earlier allocated to this Department. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO (DIPP) stated that the EPIP Scheme is being dealt with the Department of Commerce. On the other hand PIO of the Ministry of Commerce stated the EPIP Scheme of DIPP which has subsequently been subsumed in the ASIDE Scheme launched by Department of Commerce and that the project of EPIP does not figure in the list of projects funded in Assam under the ASIDE Scheme. The appellant submitted that his RTI application was forwarded to Assam Industrial Development Corporation (ASIDC) for responding and he received copies of several inter Office Memo, but no reply to his queries was received.","The Commission observed that the appellant has not been provided with requisite information by either of the PIOs of DIPP and Department of Commerce. The CIC remitted the matter to the FAA, Department of Commerce with the direction for de-novo consideration of appellant’s appeal and provide requisite information to the appellant. The CIC also held that if the information is not available with the Department of Commerce the concerned PIO should be directed to provide information to the appellant. + +Comments + +The merry go round of the RTI application is a poor commentary on the state of affairs of the planning and execution of schemes in the country." +425,Disclosure of information cannot be considered while deciding a complaint u/s 18,Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),his complaints,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The Commission did not pass any order regarding the disclose of any information in the case in view of the Supreme Court ruling that the CIC cannot direct disclosure of information while considering a complaint case under section 18 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.,"Disclosure of information cannot be considered while deciding a complaint u/s 18 + +Background: +The appellant had filed complaints against the Chief Minister of Delhi and other functionaries alleging corruption on their part. Later, he filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking information regarding his complaints. In the first case, he did not receive any response from the Public Information Officer (PIO) in time and he filed a complaint with the CIC. Belatedly, the PIO responded to him with the plea that the CBI was no longer obliged to disclose any information under RTI having been placed in the second schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. In the second matter, the PIO responded within the stipulated time period and denied the disclosure of any information on a similar ground.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) perused the records and observed that the RTI application was transferred by the Delhi Police to the Anti - Corruption Branch (ACB), CBI. The PIO of this branch sat over the application for quite some time and transferred it to his counterpart in the AC 1 branch very late. The PIO of the AC 1 branch responded to the appellant nearly 3 months beyond the stipulated period and denied the information. The CIC held that the responsibility for the lapses lies with the PIO of the ACB as had he transferred the RTI application within five days of receiving it from the Delhi Police, the PIO of the AC 1 branch could have responded much earlier. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO, ACB to show the reasons as to why the penalty should not be levied on him for the delay. The Commission did not pass any order regarding the disclose of any information in the case in view of the Supreme Court ruling that the CIC cannot direct disclosure of information while considering a complaint case under section 18 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. + +Comments + +Complaint and appeal are separate proceedings under the RTI Act and are required to be dealt with separately under the RTI Act." +426,"Compensation of 20,000/- awarded as Public Authority destroyed the critical record",Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India,,[],UNKNOWN,,20000.0,"Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs.","Compensation of 20,000/- awarded as Public Authority destroyed the critical record + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking information in respect of a particular insurance policy. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the name of his late wife Smt. Varuna Gupta was wrongly written as Smt. Aruna Gupta on the policy bond. He further submitted that the correction of the name was not carried out for about one year. However within one day of the death of the insured, the correction was carried out. He also alleged that the form 155 was not sent by the insurance company to the employer of his late wife and therefore, the premium which was required to be deducted every month from the salary of the insured was not deducted. The PIO stated that form 155 was dispatched by them to the school of the insured. The Commission directed the PIO to submit the date of dispatch and proof of dispatch of form 155 and all records pertaining to change of name of the insured from Aruna to Varuna on the policy bond, before the Commission for inspection. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that proof of dispatch of form 155 has been destroyed as they are required to maintain this category of documents for the period of three years only. The respondents produced a copy of the form 155 duly signed by the insured and stated that no notice was issued to the school authorities when it was discovered by the development officer/ agent that the monthly premium amount was not being remitted by them. The respondent further clarified that the death claim was preferred in June 1999 whereas the intimation of lapse in the policy was done on 13 November 2000. The records submitted by the PIO also showed that the appellant had moved the matter before the insurance ombudsman 8 March, 2001 and the public authority was required to maintain all records until the resolution of the matter.","The Commission inspected all the documents submitted by the PIO and noted that all the documents were available in the docket except for proof of dispatch of form 155 to the employer of the insured. The Commission held that the respondent has failed to maintain a critical record and has in fact destroyed the same thereby denying fair opportunity to the appellant resulting in tremendous mental and physical strain and anguish to him as well as financial detriment. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant ." +427,Should a Public Authority obtain information from a private body to provide to RTI applicant?,Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comment + +The term information has been defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act which states that ""information"" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.","Should a Public Authority obtain information from a private body to provide to RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant’s husband, her father-in law and mother-in-law were treated at Metro Multispecialty Hospital and Metro Hospital and Heart Institute, both of them being on Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) panel. The appellant’s husband is working as a Sub Inspector in Delhi Police. The appellant’s husband had submitted medical bills to the Police Department but some of these bills were not passed, rather, departmental action was initiated against him. In this connection, the appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) seeking copies of the medical slips regarding the treatment undergone by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in law. She specifically requested for OPD records, inpatient records, pharmacy records and the records relating to radiology and pathology tests.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the CGHS authorities are empowered to call for the abovementioned information from these hospitals as per the section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act which provides that ‘information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force’. The Commission directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) to collect the abovementioned information from the hospitals and provide it to the appellant. + +Comment + +The term information has been defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act which states that ""information"" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force. As per this definition, if any public authority can obtain information from private body under any other law, then it may be accessed and provided to the information seeker." +428,Questioning the administrative powers of higher authorities using RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the policy matters cannot be raised under the garb of seeking information under the RTI Act.,"Questioning the administrative powers of higher authorities using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Agriculture wherein he questioned the administrative powers of the Honorary Director. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated this matter did not fall in the RTI regime.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the policy matters cannot be raised under the garb of seeking information under the RTI Act. +429,Should the information given under RTI Act be addressed to the applicant?,Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC),different Policies of ONGC,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating that there is no reason why information supplied to him cannot be treated as authentic one.,"Should the information given under RTI Act be addressed to the applicant? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) seeking information relating to different Policies of ONGC. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. While filing the second appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant did not challenge the quality of information rather he contended that neither the information holder nor the PIO has directly addressed the information to him and therefore the same cannot be used as an authentic one. He stated that the PIO has only forwarded an internal note of their organization. He also submitted that if the information sought is addressed to me either by the information holder or the CPIO, then the provided information will become authentic one and his purpose will be served.","The Commission observed that the PIO has collected the information from the information holder and transmitted it under his covering letter, which is a perfectly valid mode of transmission of information. Therefore, the apprehension expressed by the appellant that he cannot use this information as an authentic one is totally misconceived and misplaced. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that there is no reason why information supplied to him cannot be treated as authentic one." +430,Can only the information not possessed by the applicant be sought under RTI?,Head Quarter Training Command,,['8(1)(a)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the information seeker can seek only that information which he does not possess.,"Can only the information not possessed by the applicant be sought under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant was a Lt. Colonel in the Army. The Command Hospital Air Force, Bangalore had issued a Movement Certificate in favour of a particular Major authorising him to move from Bangalore to his parent Unit i.e. 307, Field Hospital. As per standard procedure, Major was mandated to produce the Movement Order before the Lt. Colonel in the Army i. e. the appellant. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Head Quarter Training Command seeking the said Movement Certificate. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the said person was required to produce original Movement Order before the appellant, as per the standard procedure. The Commission held that the appellant can be presumed to be in possession of the requested information and therefore, the rationale between seeking it becomes opaque. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the information seeker can seek only that information which he does not possess. + +Comments + +Legally, the RTI Act does not narrow down the sphere of seeking information to what is not possessed by an individual. An applicant is not required to give any reason for seeking information under the RTI Act." +431,Is the cost of engaging a clerk for compiling information liable to be charged from applicant?,Department of Posts,the computation of fee of Rs,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission warned the PIO to exercise due care to ensure that only the fee as prescribed in the RTI Rules is demanded and calculations made to arrive at the amount of further fee are intimated to the information seeker as provided under section 7(3) of the RTI Act.,"Is the cost of engaging a clerk for compiling information liable to be charged from applicant? + +Background: +The appellant had filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Posts seeking some information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant to submit Rs. 19,000/- as further fee to get the desired information. Later the appellant filed second application under the RTI Act seeking information relating to the computation of fee of Rs.19000/- demanded from him for supply of information requested in earlier RTI application. The PIO provided some information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO clarified that the cost demanded was for engaging the services of one full time clerk for a month for compiling the huge information requested by the appellant. The appellant was not present for making his submissions during the hearing.","The Commission held that the fee as prescribed under section7(1)Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:and7(5)Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed: +Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.of the RTI Act can only be charged and there is no provision for levy of any further fee under the RTI Act. The CIC ruled that the concerned PIO wrongly demanded the fee of Rs. 19,000/- towards the cost of engaging the services of a clerk for compiling the information requested by the appellant. The Commission warned the PIO to exercise due care to ensure that only the fee as prescribed in the RTI Rules is demanded and calculations made to arrive at the amount of further fee are intimated to the information seeker as provided under section 7(3) of the RTI Act." +432,Can account details of the entity who had defrauded a person be disclosed under RTI?,State Bank of India (SBI),the account of a particular company whose two cheques issued to the appellant were dis-honoured on the ground of insufficient funds,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to furnish the sought information to the appellant.,"Can account details of the entity who had defrauded a person be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information about the account of a particular company whose two cheques issued to the appellant were dis-honoured on the ground of insufficient funds. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that on different occasions, the bank is giving different reasons as to why the cheques have been dishonoured. The appellant also stated that the irresponsive and insensitive attitude of the bank has led to tremendous pecuniary loss for her and she needs the information to file a criminal and civil suit against the entity who had defrauded her. The appellant also claimed that when the bank has acknowledged that the cheques have bounced, then it is the duty of the bank to provide the information. The appellant also said that she would be unable to proceed in the legal processes against the perpetrator of the illegal act if the information was denied.  The respondent reiterated that the bank is under statutory obligation to maintain the confidentiality of the account holder.",The Commission observed that the cheques have been dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. The Commission held that the appellant has made out a case for breach of trust and that it was in larger public interest that such an illegal act was not perpetrated on anybody else. The CIC directed the PIO to furnish the sought information to the appellant. +433,Are application forms submitted for mobile connection liable to be disclosed?,Department of Telecommunication,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant.,"Are application forms submitted for mobile connection liable to be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Telecommunication seeking copies of consumer application form (CAFs) along with the documents attached with it as proof of identity or proof of address for about 100 mobile nos. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information could not be disclosed as the same relates to third parties and the appellant had not cited any larger public interest for seeking the information. The appellant argued that in response to an earlier RTI application, he has been given a list of about 1500 mobile connections which have been disconnected on account of irregularity in documents. Out of these, he had asked for information relating to about 100 connections where apparently forged documents had been submitted. The PIO stated that he will go back and examine the records carefully and disclose the information relating to those mobile numbers where apparently forged documents have been attached.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant. +434,Seeking information regarding recommendation for Padma Shree Award,Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),the persons who recommended Dr,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to provide information regarding recommendations if any made for conferment of Padma Shri Award by appellant’s husband, if available in the records of the MHA.","Seeking information regarding recommendation for Padma Shree Award + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking information on the persons who recommended Dr. Amit Mitra for the Padma Shree Award from the Government of India and who received the Award under Trade and Industry in Delhi, India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that as per record retention schedule, the recommendations for Padma Awards are kept in record for one year only. Thus, the information cannot be provided. Regarding the names of the recommending authority, he denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that she is interested in getting a copy of the recommendation made by her husband who was now deceased. She also request that any information on record of the MHA regarding recommendations made may be provided to her.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide information regarding recommendations if any made for conferment of Padma Shri Award by appellant’s husband, if available in the records of the MHA." +435,Should public authority publish information already existing in different websites?,Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI),,['8(1)(e)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"In the interest of transparency and investors, SEBI has been directed that the required information should be put on the website on a monthly basis.","Should public authority publish information already existing in different websites? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) seeking details in respect of the Portfolio Management Services regulated by the SEBI. The Public Information Officer (PIO) referred him to the website of the SEBI for some of this information and denied some other information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act stating that it was held in a fiduciary capacity. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the information sought by him was necessary for making an informed choice in the matter of investment and the SEBI should help the citizens in this by publishing such information. The respondent submitted that each Portfolio Management Service published such documents in its respective website while also reporting to the SEBI on a monthly basis and the citizens could always visit the respective website and find out about the information required. The respondent explained that it would not be possible for the SEBI to compile this data on annual basis and publish it.","The Commission observed that the desired information is received electronically by the SEBI and its publication through the website would not be a difficult task. The CIC held that by publishing such information the SEBI would help the investing public to access all information at one place and not have to visit 50 different websites. Besides, it would also eliminate the need for seeking such information from time to time under RTI. The Commission directed the respondent to publish the monthly information received from the Portfolio Management Services on the SEBI website. The PIO was also directed to inform the appellant about the action to be taken and the link in the website where such information can be seen. + +Comments + +The CIC has not given credence to the argument given by the SEBI that it cannot compile information on an annual basis which has been received electronically on a monthly basis. In the interest of transparency and investors, SEBI has been directed that the required information should be put on the website on a monthly basis." +436,Can 20 years old record be denied for being personal or commercially confidential?,Bank of Baroda,an investigation report of 11,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide the information sought to the appellant.,"Can 20 years old record be denied for being personal or commercially confidential? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bank of Baroda seeking copy of inspection report of a particular company. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided information to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information under sections8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.and8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act stating that it was personal information and was privileged/ commercially confidential in nature. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he had sought information about an investigation report of 11.9.1993. He argued that the same was denied to him mechanically and without application of as documents of more than 20 years age cannot continue to remain confidential. He added that the enquiry itself was completed in the year 1999. On hearing the discussions, the respondent stated that the matter needs a relook.","The Commission directed the respondent to provide the information sought to the appellant. + +Comments + +In cases of information older than 20 years, only subsection (a), (c) and (i) of section 8(1) of the RTI Act can be invoked for denying information." +437,What should a PIO do if records are sought for beyond their retention period?,Punjab National Bank,the conversion of fixed deposits (FD) to other accounts and the details about the renewal of a particular FD,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the respondent has not contravened the RTI Act and they do not have to do anything further.,"What should a PIO do if records are sought for beyond their retention period? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab National Bank seeking information on the conversion of fixed deposits (FD) to other accounts and the details about the renewal of a particular FD. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied for providing information stating that the account number given by the appellant was incomplete. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the information in respect of the FD was not available as according to the bank's policy, the records only for past 10 years are maintained whereas the information sought was older and hence unavailable. Regarding the renewal of FD, the respondent explained that there was no application made for renewal of this FD. The respondent also stated that the appellant never sought renewal of the FD and that the appellant is seeking the enhanced interest as an afterthought without having applied for the renewal. The appellant submitted that the information is neither certified nor signed. The respondent explained that this is a computer generated record and hence it is without signatures.",The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the respondent has not contravened the RTI Act and they do not have to do anything further. +438,Information regarding bank’s approval for induction of new partners in a firm,Union Bank of India,approval of the bank to the induction of four new partners of a particular Cold Storage firm,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to enable the appellant to inspect the relevant file and papers and to provide the photocopies of the documents thereafter.,"Information regarding bank’s approval for induction of new partners in a firm + +Background: +The appellants filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Bank of India seeking information about approval of the bank to the induction of four new partners of a particular Cold Storage firm. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that the appellants were not the partners of the said firm as per bank record. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the information sought pertains to the documents relating to the new partners that had been proposed for running the cold storage, schedule for the term loan that the bank had itself proposed following the constitution of a new partnership, the basis for transferring money from his personal account to the entity’s loan account, the basis on which the bank had reported possession of the cold storage when it had not actually done so, certified copies of the letter/papers relating to the declaration of NPA and the rules under which potatoes in the storage were disposed of taking into account that the appellant had made the payment to the farmers for their potatoes. The appellant also stated that they are an interested party as they are not only the partner in the cold storage, but they have also invested money.",The Commission directed the respondent to enable the appellant to inspect the relevant file and papers and to provide the photocopies of the documents thereafter. +439,PIO should not club different RTI applications filed by same applicant,,that paper,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the FAA to clarify as to why he did not decide the appeal in the prescribed period of 30 days.,"PIO should not club different RTI applications filed by same applicant + +Background: +The appellant referred to a research paper published jointly by few people and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare seeking information regarding that paper. He wanted to know whether the Government of India was aware of the publication. He also wanted to know the views of the Government on the findings in the paper and if the views were validated as per the conclusions drawn in the paper. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the Supreme Court had given directions to the ASG for instructing the concerned Ministries to approach National Institute of Public Health to undertake a comprehensive analysis and study of the contents of Gutka, Tobacco, Pan Masala, etc. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) also stated that since the appellant was an intervener in the matter and fully aware of the fact, the query raised by the appellant was unnecessary. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO dealt with 20 RTI applications in one go rather than one by one and the FAA disposed of the appeal in 85 days without giving reasons of delay. The appellant further contended that the FAA has not given hard facts/information of each and every research paper mentioned in separate RTI applications and has given his personal opinion in a general manner. The respondent clarified that the report prepared by NIHFW had been submitted before the Supreme Court and the Government had made its position clear before the Court, supporting this report thereby making its position clear on the matter and the appellant was duly apprised accordingly in the response.",The Commission observed that the appellant’s contention that the PIO did not pass separate orders on his appeals is valid and remains unexplained by the PIO. The CIC directed the PIO to dispose of RTI applications in separate orders in future.  The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the FAA to clarify as to why he did not decide the appeal in the prescribed period of 30 days. +440,Does RNI have any scheme for uploading of the newspapers /bulletins on any website?,Registrar of Newspaper,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the information provided seems to be adequate.,"Does RNI have any scheme for uploading of the newspapers /bulletins on any website? + +Background: +The appellant filed the application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Registrar of Newspaper for India (RNI) seeking various queries related with the uploading of newspapers and periodicals in the website. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the details of the registration/ verification of newspapers and bulletins were being uploaded by the RNI in their website. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) ruled that the RNI did not deal with the uploading of newspapers/periodicals on any website nor it had any such plans. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the RNI had no scheme under consideration for uploading of newspapers or periodicals in any website. They further clarified that they only regulated and dealt with newspapers and periodicals in the print version and not in the electronic version under the PRB Act 1867.",The Commission noted that neither there is any scheme for uploading of newspapers and periodicals in any website nor the Registrar of Newspapers of India has any such power under the existing law to mandate such uploading. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the information provided seems to be adequate. +441,Can CIC deny the information on different grounds than those raised by the FAA?,Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA),,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC also directed the PIO to refund the excess amount to the appellant.,"Can CIC deny the information on different grounds than those raised by the FAA? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) seeking to know how many oral exams have been conducted by Director of Flying Training in the year 2010, how many skill tests have been conducted, names and details of the licence/ ratings/ approvals of the flying instructor whose checks were taken by Director of Flying training in 2010, reasons for conducting the oral examination, how many CIFs have been demoted and how many of them were issued show cause notice for the same. He also wanted copies of test reports of each oral and flying test done conducted by Director of Flying Training in 2010. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and requested the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/- for names and details of the licence/ ratings/ approvals of the flying instructor and copies of three test reports. The appellant filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) stating that she has deposited a sum of Rs. 500/- but inspite of reminders, she had not received copies of the requested documents. The FAA denied the copies of the test report stating that it pertains to third party and is exempt under the provisions of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. However, the appellant was advised to withdraw Rs. 500/- after submitting an application for refund.","The Commission agreed that the information sought by the appellant relates to third party and held that that the information is exempt under the provisions of section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.and not under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that respondent has no disclosure obligation under the provisions of section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The CIC also directed the PIO to refund the excess amount to the appellant." +442,Is any fee payable by an applicant for searching the document?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comments + +There has been a difference of opinion between some of the benches of CIC whether charging a higher fee under some other law amounts to an inconsistency with the RTI Act.","Is any fee payable by an applicant for searching the document? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting seeking copy of the censor certificate issued by a committee for one of the Kannada film. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) asked him to deposit Rs. 70/- towards the cost of the certificate and Rs. 35/- towards the search fee as per the Cinematograph Act to obtain the certificate.  During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant objected to the demand for such fees and wanted the information on payment of charges as prescribed under the RTI Rules.","The Commission observed that the rules prescribed by various public authorities for disclosure of information including the fees charged for this purpose would prevail and the Right to Information (RTI) Act would not override such rules. Commission further held that section22The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.of the RTI Act gives overriding effect to it over other laws and enactments only when there is anything inconsistent in those. The Commission ruled that the rules framed under the Cinematograph Act clearly provide for disclosure of information even if against prescribed charges, these are not inconsistent with the RTI Act and therefore the latter could not override the former. The CIC rejected the appeal and advised the appellant to pay the charges demanded by the public authority to get the certificate. + +Comments + +There has been a difference of opinion between some of the benches of CIC whether charging a higher fee under some other law amounts to an inconsistency with the RTI Act. The opinion seems to be divided and perhaps, the Supreme Court would have to clear the confusion." +443,Can entire application be rejected on the grounds that clarification was sought?,Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI),Depository Participant,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +A Citizen may not be aware of how the information is held by the public authority but the PIO should receive the application with an open mind.","Can entire application be rejected on the grounds that clarification was sought? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) seeking information relating to Depository Participant. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and denied the remaining stating that they were in the nature of seeking clarification rather than any information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that although most of the queries were in the nature of seeking clarification, still the application cannot be dismissed only on that ground. The CIC held that an ordinary citizen cannot be expected to know the exact information which the public authority holds; therefore, he often states his problem and expects that the PIO would provide the relevant information available in material form. The Commission noted that the appellant was having some problem with his depository participant which was related to the alleged unilateral change made by the depository participant in his bank account. The Commission directed the PIO to find out the relevant rules/ instructions/ guidelines/ circulars, available with the SEBI on this subject issued by any other authority, and provide the copies of the same to the appellant. + +Comments + +A Citizen may not be aware of how the information is held by the public authority but the PIO should receive the application with an open mind. In the interest of transparency, the PIO should try to provide as much information as possible without getting into the technicalities." +444,Seeking information regarding 2G spectrum allocation using RTI,Department of Economic Affairs,,['8(1)(c)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC advised the appellant to wait till the JPC submits its report to the Parliament and then apply for the same information again.,"Seeking information regarding 2G spectrum allocation using RTI + +Background: +The appellant referred to newspaper reports about some meetings between the then Telecom Minister and Finance Minister in respect of the 2G spectrum allocation and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Economic Affairs seeking details related to the meetings such as, the dates on which such meetings took place, the agenda and the minutes of these meetings. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the desired documents had been presented to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) set up by the Parliament to look into the 2G spectrum allocations and the JPC had advised the Department to treat the documents furnished to it as confidential till it submitted its report to the Parliament.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the desired information has been specifically prohibited by the Joint Parliamentary Committee from disclosure and thus the disclosure would lead to the breach of Parliamentary privilege. This information is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(c)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;of the RTI Act. The CIC advised the appellant to wait till the JPC submits its report to the Parliament and then apply for the same information again." +445,RTI application seeking copy of the reserve list prepared by UPSC,Union Public Service Commission (UPSC),,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copy of the Reserve List severing from that the marks awarded to those candidates who had not been recommended by the UPSC eventually for appointment.,"RTI application seeking copy of the reserve list prepared by UPSC + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) seeking certified copy of the consolidated reserve list prepared in accordance with Civil Services Examination Rule 16(4) and (5), including the category wise rank and aggregate marks of the candidates. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and denied the disclosure of the reserve list under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) stated that the consolidated reserve list of candidates can be disclosed along with the marks of only those candidates who were eventually recommended. The Commission held that disclosure of any information concerning any examination process, the marks and other details of those candidates should not be disclosed who are not recommended for employment or career promotion as it could cause unwarranted invasion of their privacy, on the other hand the same can be disclosed for the recommended candidates. The respondent submitted that the list prepared by the UPSC did not contain the rank of the candidates. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copy of the Reserve List severing from that the marks awarded to those candidates who had not been recommended by the UPSC eventually for appointment." +446,Should the remuneration paid to SEBI lawyers be disclosed under RTI?,Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also held that the PIO cannot be held responsible for postages returned by the postal authorities.,"Should the remuneration paid to SEBI lawyers be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) seeking various details about the advocates engaged by the SEBI, in cases coming up before various law courts/tribunals. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided most of the information and denied for the rest stating that the desired information was not maintained in the format sought and it would disproportionately divert the resources if they had to collect and collate the voluminous information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that the envelope containing the information was returned by the postal authorities as undelivered. The Commission agreed that the personal details about the advocates and lawyers, such as, their address and telephone number should not be disclosed, but the details related with the total remuneration paid to such advocates and lawyers during the said period can be given. The Commission further stated that if it was not possible to split the total remuneration paid on a periodic or case basis, then the total remuneration paid to the advocates and lawyers during the said period, lawyer/advocate wise should be given.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide the desired information to the appellant as available with the public authority. The Commission also held that the PIO cannot be held responsible for postages returned by the postal authorities. +447,"After inspection, copies of documents should be provided under RTI",,,[],UNKNOWN,,800.0,"Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded  compensation of Rs.","After inspection, copies of documents should be provided under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed the application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Medicines Pharma Corporation Ltd. (IMPCL) seeking the inspection of records related with the contract labour and the daily wagers etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) facilitated the inspection. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant accepted that he had already inspected the sought records but requested the CIC for giving direction for supplying him copies of certain documents the number of which does not exceed 400 pages. The appellant also submitted that if copies of documents were supplied to him earlier, he would not have been compelled to file the appeal on his personal cost. He requested for adequate compensation under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act.","The Commission ordered that copies of requested documents may be supplied to the appellant on payment of requisite fee. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded  compensation of Rs. 800/- to the appellant." +448,Is delay in fixation of pay a violation of one’s human rights?,,the implementation / cancellation of action taken on his representations,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to reconsider both the RTI applications and send the desired information to the appellant.,"Is delay in fixation of pay a violation of one’s human rights? + +Background: +The appellant had filed representations to the authorities regarding implementation of some order passed by the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) for fixing his pay. Later, he filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information about the implementation / cancellation of action taken on his representations. For both the applications, the Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that NTRO was included in the second schedule to the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that he had not sought any information relating to any security or intelligence matters but only about his own pay. He also submitted that he had been taking up this matter with the NTRO for more than four years without any satisfactory response. The Commission stated that in every public authority of the central government, there is or should be, a proper grievance redressal mechanism under which both the serving and ex- employees should be able to get their personal problems sorted out. Nobody should be required to resort to RTI for this purpose. The CIC also observed that the appellant had represented on more than one occasion regarding this problem, and by not responding the public authority have forced him to resort to RTI. Further, as the organization is included in the second schedule, the respondents want to deny even his right to get information under this law.","The Commission observed that fixation of pay for the appellant (retired person) was extremely important as several other benefits flow from the revised pay and under payment of compensation due to him can affect his survival prospects. The Commission held that the authorities have deprived him of his rightful claims which was a violation of his human rights and thus that the information sought was covered under the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to reconsider both the RTI applications and send the desired information to the appellant. + +Comments + +Would promotion related matters not be included as a part of human rights?" +449,Prosecuting agency to decide whether information can be disclosed during pendency of a case,Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),,['8(1)(h)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the prosecuting agency is best suited to decide whether the disclosure of any information during the pendency of a case would impede the process of prosecution or not.,"Prosecuting agency to decide whether information can be disclosed during pendency of a case + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking information concerning the cases of corruption against AICTE including its former Chairman /Secretary/ other officials/ other institutes. He also sought information related to the corruption cases against ex DG, OFB and some other officials and information related to the cases of Provident Fund (PF) scam against Hiranandani Construction Group and other such entities. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant about the status of the cases against these entities but refused to disclose further information on the ground that it would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders citing the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +ProceedingsDuring the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the information could not be denied to him merely because the matter was pending in various courts. The respondent argued that the CBI had instituted criminal cases against various entities and the cases were pending trial before various courts of law. The disclosure of the desired information at this stage would clearly impede the process of prosecution. The CBI also argued that it should not be compelled to disclose the information as it was already included in the Second Schedule to the Right to Information Act by a Government notification in June 2011.","The Commission observed that the PIO has informed the appellant about the status of the cases pending against various entities listed in the RTI applications. The CIC also held that the appellant has sought extremely wide and vague information and without specifying any particular case and has left the responsibility of finding out the details to the PIO. The expression ‘et al’ illustrates how vague the information seeker is in the matter of describing his information need. The Commission further held that the cases launched by the CBI in these cases are pending before various courts of law and any disclosure would impede the prosecution of the offenders. The CIC ruled that once the records become part of any case filed in a court of law, they become part of the judicial records and the decision about the disclosure of such records during the pendency of the cases lies with the court itself. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the prosecuting agency is best suited to decide whether the disclosure of any information during the pendency of a case would impede the process of prosecution or not. + +CommentsApplicants should raise specific question in the applications and should restrain from seeking vague information under RTI." +450,Are Annual Property Returns of government employees personal?,Export Inspection Council of India (EIC),,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +There has been difference of opinion whether property returns should be made public even amongst the different benches of the CIC.","Are Annual Property Returns of government employees personal? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Export Inspection Council of India (EIC) seeking Annual Property Returns of Joint Director, EIC for a period of six years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that it is personal in nature and the disclosure of which will cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the concerned person and the same is exempt for disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. While filing the second appeal the appellant submitted that the EIC is deliberately not maintaining records and updating the website as required under section 4 of the RTI Act even after expire of more than six years. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the information sought for by the appellant is not only liable to cause unwarranted invasion of privacy but also poses a threat to safety of the officer concerned. The respondent also stated that the appellant is an ex-employee of the organization and was dismissed from service in 2004 on charges of sexual harassment of fellow lady employee and major penalty case was also pending at the time of his dismissal. The appellant is trying to settle his personal scores with organization by using RTI Act as a tool with the malafide intention to harass the organization.The Commission referred to its previous order [Shri P.P. Rajeev Vs. Cochin Port Trust in case No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00707] which stated that regarding the disclosure of all immovable assets-related information of its employees, the public authorities may frame rules, but till such time as these Rules are framed and, the condition of confidentiality in which such information is handed over to the public authority holds good, the request for their disclosure will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis under the provisions of sections8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.and11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the Act. Similarly it shall be open to any public authority or the Government to voluntarily undertake to disclose this variety of information, fully or in part.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) remitted the case back to the PIO with the direction that he has to consider this matter under the provisions of section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.and section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act and then take a view as enjoined by either or both sections, which shall be communicated to the appellant. + +Comments + +There has been difference of opinion whether property returns should be made public even amongst the different benches of the CIC. Many organisations have already put such details on their websites without realising that such information is personal and remains with them in their fiduciary capacity. There are Supreme Court judgments which point out that the an individual does not lose his privacy just because he joins a government job. The absence of a personal privacy law in the country has compounded the confusion." +451,CBI to revisit website to see if section 4 was implemented before exclusion from RTI Act,Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC held that CBI can no longer be compelled to disclose the desired information under RTI because of its inclusion in the second schedule to that RTI Act.,"CBI to revisit website to see if section 4 was implemented before exclusion from RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) seeking a variety of information from the about the functioning of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the expenses incurred by it. The Public Information Officer (PIO), DoPT transferred the application to the CBI. The CBI informed him that the provisions of the RTI Act no longer applied to it since it had been included in the second schedule of that Act and thus, no information can be disclosed. + +ProceedingDuring the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the information sought by him did not concern such issues that the CBI should not disclose. He argued that such information should be proactively disclosed by the CBI for the benefit of the public, some of this information those relating to the officers and employees of the CBI are supposed to be placed in the public domain in compliance with the provisions of section 4(1)(b)  of the RTI Act.",The Commission directed the PIO to revisit their website to see if such information had been placed there before it was included in the second schedule. The CIC held that CBI can no longer be compelled to disclose the desired information under RTI because of its inclusion in the second schedule to that RTI Act. +452,Communication between Ministry of Communication & IB after Mumbai bomb blast,,,"['8(1)(a)', '8(1)(h)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal upholding the exemptions claimed by the respondent under sections8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;&8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.","Communication between Ministry of Communication & IB after Mumbai bomb blast + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Telecommunications seeking various information such as call details of thirteen mobile numbers along with their location. He also sought documents pertaining to the communication between Department of Communication & Intelligence Bureau (IB) in the year 2006 after the Mumbai July 2006 blast, procedure of Vigilance Telecom Monitoring Cell (VTM) and centralized monitoring system, telephone directory of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) Mumbai & Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) offices all over India etc. + +Proceeding + +The appellant submitted that he was confined in the Arthur Road Jail Mumbai and hence unable to appear before the CIC. He requested that his appeals be decided on their own merit in his absence. He specifically requested for the copies of the communication sent to the Intelligence Bureau (IB) by the Department of Telecommunication (DoT). The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that the information cannot be disclosed since IB is an exempted organization under the RTI Act. He further stated that the information sought related to Mumbai bomb blast of July 2006 and would prejudicially affect the security of the State and therefore, is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;. He also sought exemption under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that the disclosure may impede the prosecution of offenders as the trial of the Mumbai blast case was not yet concluded.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed that the correspondence in connection with Mumbai blast case was essential to counteract any subversive/ unlawful activity and to bring the culprits to justice. The Commission rejected the appeal upholding the exemptions claimed by the respondent under sections8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;&8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act." +453,Applicant should produce up to date BPL certificate to get the information free of cost,Election Commission of India,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission advised the appellant that he is always free to access the Election Commission website and see for himself all the desired information.,"Applicant should produce up to date BPL certificate to get the information free of cost + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Election Commission of India seeking list of all the registered political parties along with copies of the rules and regulations governing their registration. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that this was available in the website of the Election Commission of India. He also offered him some information on payment of photocopying charges. The appellant complained to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) that it was not right on the part of the PIO to demand photocopying charges from him since he was an individual below poverty line (BPL) and that the information should be provided to him free of cost. The FAA rejected the appellant’s plea observing that each of the documents produced by him in support of his BPL status showed his age differently and therefore could not be relied upon. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the documents produced by him were genuine and that he belonged to a BPL family.","The Commission verified the copies of the documents furnished by the appellant and observed that the age status given in each of these varied from the other thereby creating clear doubts about the genuineness of these documents. The CIC held that on the basis of such certificates, the PIO cannot provide the information without the prescribed photocopying charges. The Commission also held that if the appellant is keen on getting the copies of the documents offered by the PIO, he must send the photocopying charges as demanded or furnish an up to date BPL certificate duly issued by the competent authority showing his exact age. The Commission advised the appellant that he is always free to access the Election Commission website and see for himself all the desired information." +454,Can interest subvention disbursed to a particular account holder be disclosed under RTI?,Canara Bank,the scheme of interest subvention for crop production loans and other details,['8(1)(e)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"In many cases, it has been held that the public authority should disclose the details of the beneficiaries of a subsidy programme proactively.","Can interest subvention disbursed to a particular account holder be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Canara Bank seeking information on the scheme of interest subvention for crop production loans and other details. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information while denying information  related to details of the farmers who had not repaid and who were not considered for interest subvention under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he wanted to have the information about a particular customer and the amount received from the government for payment and the amount actually disbursed to him. The respondent stated that the information being specifically sought now by the appellant had not been mentioned in the RTI application and they were not aware of the details at this particular point. They also stated that if the appellant applied to the respondent bank under the RTI Act, they would be able to consider his request under the provisions of law. The appellant stated that he is seeking information whether the benefit of the interest subvention have been passed on to his son-in-law which the bank can easily provide by simply informing him about the facts of the interest subvention disbursed to this particular account holder and the amount received from the government. The appellant stated that it is a matter of public interest to know the correct facts as he believed that this amount was not passed on to the particular account holder.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the information sought by him. + +Comments + +Section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the RTI Act prescribes certain information to be suo-motu made public. In many cases, it has been held that the public authority should disclose the details of the beneficiaries of a subsidy programme proactively." +455,Disclose the criteria for selecting reserved category candidates over general category by UPSC,Union Public Service Commission (UPSC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to furnish the remaining desired information to the appellant.,"Disclose the criteria for selecting reserved category candidates over general category by UPSC + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) seeking information pertaining to 13 candidates who had been declared successful against general category such as, their birth date, age at the time of selection, the number of attempts they had taken, the total marks awarded to them and the minimum qualifying mark of the general category to which they had been converted in both the preliminary and main examinations. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) provided part information and observed that some of the details sought were not maintained in that form and the compilation of the desired information would disproportionately diverted the resources of the UPSC.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that certain candidates belonging to various categories, such as, SC, ST and OBC are declared successful against general category posts based on certain criteria. The disclosure of such criteria in respect of such candidates would improve transparency about the entire examination process and would leave no doubts in anybody's mind about the correctness of the decisions taken by UPSC. The CIC held that the UPSC should compile such information after each civil services examination and place it in the public domain proactively so that nobody would need to seek such information under RTI. The Commission directed the PIO to place this order before the competent authority in the Commission to take an appropriate decision for the future examinations. The Commission also directed the PIO to furnish the remaining desired information to the appellant." +456,Can copy of statements of witnesses be disclosed under RTI?,Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the appellant is free to approach the trial court for getting copies of those records.,"Can copy of statements of witnesses be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking copies of the statements of various individuals recorded by it regarding the disposal of the money defrauded. He also wanted the copy of the report of the Team about the outcome of the case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that the CBI had been included in the second schedule to the RTI Act and that the provisions of the Act no longer applied to it. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the desired information should be disclosed because it pertained to allegations of corruption and cited the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act in support of his argument. He also submitted that the investigation was already over and the matter was pending before the trial court. The respondent submitted that the disclosure of the desired information would impede the process of prosecution and that the appellant should seek such information from the trial court instead.","The Commission observed that the CBI cannot claim any blanket exemption from the provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC held that although the information pertains to allegations of corruption, it cannot be disclosed because its disclosure has the potential to impede the process of prosecution of the offender. The CIC also ruled that statements recorded by the CBI form part of the case records and once the case is filed before a trial court, the records relating to the case become the property of the trial court and any decision to disclose such records would lie with the trial court and not with the PIO. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the appellant is free to approach the trial court for getting copies of those records." +457,CIC- Details of action taken pursuant to the order of High Court should be disclosed,Coal India Ltd (CIL),compassionate appointment in lieu of her deceased father who was an employee of ECL,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to apprise the appellant with complete details of action taken pursuant to the aforementioned order of the Calcutta High Court.,"CIC- Details of action taken pursuant to the order of High Court should be disclosed + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Coal India Ltd (CIL) seeking information pertaining to compassionate appointment in lieu of her deceased father who was an employee of ECL. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that as the matter relates to Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry (JBCCI), it was referred for decision at appropriate level. Thereafter, separate proposal Note Sheet was placed before the Competent Authority and it was decided that considering the fact there is no provision in National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) for providing of any financial assistance by way of lump sum amount and giving relaxation in this regard would not be proper. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that her father was an employee of ECL, a subsidiary of CIL who died on roll and her unmarried brother was given appointment on compassionate ground. But unfortunately, he died before completing his training period. Her mother again applied for her appointment on compassionate grounds. The matter was brought before the High Court of Kolkata and the judgment was in her favour. But the CIL appealed to Division Bench where the single bench judgment was set aside due to absence of specific provision in the Coal Wage Agreement. The Division bench also held that the Coal Ministry should reconsider the issue as to whether the family could be otherwise provided with some aid and as to whether relaxing the appropriate clause of the National Coal Wage Agreement, she could be given compassionate appointment.",The Commission directed the PIO to apprise the appellant with complete details of action taken pursuant to the aforementioned order of the Calcutta High Court. +458,RTI application seeking the basis for the file notings,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to show the appellant all the available original files and records relating to his queries for inspection.,"RTI application seeking the basis for the file notings + +Background: +The appellant filed four applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Environment & Forest in which the appellant raised a number of queries questioning the authenticity and the basis of many of the noting made in various files relating to some cases. He also wanted the copies of several records. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the copies of some of the records and observed that the copies of the file noting and other such records had already been provided to the wife of the appellant who had sought similar information on his behalf. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he wanted the PIO to certify the information provided. The respondent reported that the CBI had instituted a case against the appellant after he was caught red handed receiving a bribe. He had been seeking information by filing applications under the RTI Act himself and also through his wife. The PIO further informed that the copies of all available file notings and other records had already been provided both to his wife and to him and most of his queries arose out of the information already provided to him.","The Commission observed that if the basis for any noting made in a file does not exist in the file, the PIO could not be expected to speculate on his own and provide the grounds on which any such noting is recorded. The CIC further noted that if any authority in the government has taken a decision which is not based on sound reasoning, this can be challenged in an appropriate forum. The responsibility of the PIO is only to truthfully report the information as it exists, not to justify or critique the decision taken or comment made by any authority. The Commission held that under the RTI Act, the appellant can have direct access to the original records concerning his queries. The CIC directed the PIO to show the appellant all the available original files and records relating to his queries for inspection. After inspection, the appellant can ask for the photocopies of some of the records the PIO should provide duly attested with signature and seal. + +Comments + +Earlier, there was a confusion whether file notings are included under the purview of the RTI Act, but various pronouncements of the Act have cleared the doubt. A PIO is bound to provide the copies of the file notings unless they are otherwise excluded under the exemption provisions." +459,Criteria for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Tribes was sought under RTI,Ministry of Tribal Affairs,the criteria for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Tribes,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The CIC also held that if the appellant thinks that the modalities as approved by the Cabinet Committee are not specific enough and need to be improved, he may take up this with the appropriate authorities.","Criteria for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Tribes was sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed seven applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Tribal Affairs seeking information about the criteria for inclusion in the list of Scheduled Tribes. He had been seeking similar information in many other RTI applications in the past. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the modalities followed for inclusion or exclusion of various castes or tribes from the list of Scheduled Castes and Tribes was laid down in the note approved by the Cabinet Committee but that it was never published in the Gazette of India. He provided the appellant with a copy of the said note with all its enclosures. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the Ministry of Tribal Affairs has no other information to offer except the note on modalities as approved by the Cabinet Committee way back in 1999 and then modified in 2002. The respondent also clarified that apart from these modalities the Ministry or the Government of India has prescribed no specific format for collecting information on the subject. The PIO further stated that there is nothing more for the Ministry to provide to him on this subject.","The Commission observed that all the material information which is available on this subject has already been provided to the appellant. The CIC also held that if the appellant thinks that the modalities as approved by the Cabinet Committee are not specific enough and need to be improved, he may take up this with the appropriate authorities. This cannot be achieved through RTI. + +Comments + +Right to Information Act is a means for obtaining information and not for addressing dissatisfaction regarding approval by Cabinet Committee." +460,Public authority has to show the last date of updating the compliance of section 4 of the RTI Act,Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also directed the Secretary of the Ministry to review the present status and bring about all round improvement in the RTI Cell.,"Public authority has to show the last date of updating the compliance of section 4 of the RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) seeking a number of information relating to the implementation of the provisions of section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information against all his queries. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that the disclosure made by the Ministry was far from satisfactory. He alleged that not only all the disclosures as mandated had not been done, but also no attempt had been made to revise and update the entries from time to time.","The Commission visited the Ministry website to see the extent and the quality of disclosure made and noted that all the 16 items of disclosure have been covered in the Ministry website but it is not clear if these reflect the up to date and complete information. The CIC held that it is necessary for the Ministry to clearly state at the beginning of the link that it is updated up to a particular date. All these documents must be routinely published in the Ministry website so that the citizens do not have to approach the PIO under RTI to know about this. The Commission also ruled that if there is any other concession or grant the Ministry have been extending under any of their schemes or in exercise of any statutory powers, those should also be published. Since the Ministry might have a large number of divisions and attached offices attending to all this, it would be necessary for someone in the Ministry to coordinate with everybody and ensure that all the details under section 4 (1)(b) are uploaded in the website of the Ministry and updated at least once every year. The CIC directed the PIO to intimate the status of the compliance of the Commissions directions in this regard. The CIC also directed the Secretary of the Ministry to review the present status and bring about all round improvement in the RTI Cell. + +Comments + +Public authorities are duty bound to disseminate certain information to public and to update the entries at regular intervals." +461,Copy of permission taken by CBI for laying a trap against the appellant,Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the copy of any permission the CBI might have sought from the competent authority for laying a trap against him and for initiating any investigation.,"Copy of permission taken by CBI for laying a trap against the appellant + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking to know whether the CBI had sought the permission of the central government before initiating an investigation against him and laying a trap. If no permission was sought, then the reasons thereof. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on grounds that the disclosure would impede the process of investigation as well as the prosecution of the offender and that the CBI had been placed in the second schedule to the RTI Act by a government notification. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that he was entitled to this information since not only the investigation was already over. The matter was pending before the trial court and the information concerned an allegation of corruption and was thus covered under the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act. The respondent submitted that the matter was pending trial and the disclosure of any information at this stage would adversely affect the prosecution. He also argued that the CBI was not required to give any information now having been included in the second schedule to the RTI Act.",The Commission observed that the provisions of the RTI Act would no longer apply to the CBI since the central government has included it in the second schedule. The CIC further held that the desired information is related to a case of corruption so it is covered under the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act and should be disclosed. The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the copy of any permission the CBI might have sought from the competent authority for laying a trap against him and for initiating any investigation. If no such permission had been sought the PIO has to inform the appellant suitably. +462,Is applicant obliged to give identification proof for getting the information?,Canara Bank,a saving bank account,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,If the appellant is in judicial custody the bank must facilitate the identity verification formalitiesat the placewhere the appellant is held.,"Is applicant obliged to give identification proof for getting the information? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Canara Bank seeking information on a saving bank account. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed that the appellant had to appear personally before the branch along with his photo, photo identity card and residential proof to get the information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the bank was reluctant to provide the information because the facts as stated by the appellant did not match up with the facts available with the bank and the bank could not take the risk of providing information to a person whose identity could not be verified. The respondent also stated that it appears that the appellant is a detenu in judicial custody and he may have opened an account at some point of time but the date which he had shown in his RTI application did not match the records available with the bank. It appeared that the account had not been operated for a long time which had led to the account becoming a dormant account. The respondent further submitted that a dormant account can become an operational account with the fulfillment of some formalities such as provision of photo I.D. and residence proof etc. However where there is the case of a detenu, it would be expected that the detenu would at least provide some evidence that he is the same person who had opened the account. The respondent also stated that they would write a letter to the appellant at the address provided by him and ask him to send some proof of his identity to enable the bank to provide the information sought.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide the appellant the information related to the appellant on verification of identity. If the appellant is in judicial custody the bank must facilitate the identity verification formalitiesat the placewhere the appellant is held. +463,CIC- PIOs should be adequately trained to deal with RTI applications,Ministry of External Affairs (MEA),,['8(1)(j)'],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The CIC also issued a show cause notice to the PIO for delay and for not responding to the RTI application on time.,"CIC- PIOs should be adequately trained to deal with RTI applications + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) seeking several details about a particular passport holder. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the desired details but without enclosing any material record. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he wanted this information in the form of certified record so that he could produce it in a court of law.","The Commission observed that the personal details of the passport holder cannot be disclosed under RTI being exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The CIC noted that when the Commission had ordered in the past that such information be disclosed the MEA chose to challenge this order before the Delhi High Court and obtained a stay. The CIC held that in spite of such stated position the PIO chose to disclose the personal information of a third party passport holder which shows a complete lack of awareness about the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission held that in order to avoid such mistakes in future the Chief Passport Officer should impart adequate training to all the PIOs working under him on how to deal with such RTI requests. The CIC ruled that when the information has already been given it is in the fitness of things that the copies of the relevant material records based on which such information was disclosed are also provided to the appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to send to the appellant the attested photocopies of the relevant documents. The CIC also issued a show cause notice to the PIO for delay and for not responding to the RTI application on time." +464,Copy of guidelines for transfer of bond in case of employees who leave the services,Punjab National Bank,the guidelines adopted in service matters and enforcement/transfer of bond in respect of employees who leave the services of one undertaking to join another,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the matter does not require any intervention from the Commission.,"Copy of guidelines for transfer of bond in case of employees who leave the services + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab National Bank seeking information about the guidelines adopted in service matters and enforcement/transfer of bond in respect of employees who leave the services of one undertaking to join another. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise reply to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant was an employee of the bank who opted for specialized training for treasury work. One of the requirements for this training was to deposit a bond worth Rs. 5 lakhs to be forfeited in the event of the candidate leaving the job for another assignment. The respondent also stated that the appellant left the job to join another organization and in this way, he became liable for forfeiture of Rs.5 lakh bond. The appellant has filed RTI application with only one purpose, and that was to waive the said bond. The respondent further submitted that the RTI application had three points with several small points all totaling 33 and much effort went into addressing the various points even though many of the issues were more in the form of questions and less in the form of information seeking. They also submitted that whatever information was available in the bank has been provided. The appellant did not participate in the hearing.",The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the matter does not require any intervention from the Commission. +465,"Are CGM, BSNL and ITPC, BSNL different public authorities?",,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,1000.0,"Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the CIC awarded a compensation of Rs.1000/- to the appellant for the inconvenience and detriment caused to him as he had to pursuit the information for a long time.","Are CGM, BSNL and ITPC, BSNL different public authorities? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) seeking a copy of letter regarding his transfer. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the information was denied stating that he should approach ITPC whereas the said letter is available in the office of CGM (T) BSNL. He added that even if the said letter was not available at the office of CGMT, the PIO should have sought assistance of his counterpart in the ITPC as per section 5(4) of the RTI Act and furnished the information. The respondent admitted that a copy of transfer letter sought by the appellant is available on record and stated that the PIO who was there at the time of filing the RTI application is now posted at Delhi in the Ministry of Communication.","The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the information to the appellant. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the CIC awarded a compensation of Rs.1000/- to the appellant for the inconvenience and detriment caused to him as he had to pursuit the information for a long time." +466,Reason for returning the undelivered registered AD letter,Department of Postsseeking information,a registered post which was returned undelivered,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the relevant rules for the delivery of postal articles to the appellant and to take on record the omnibus authority letter.,"Reason for returning the undelivered registered AD letter + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Postsseeking information regarding a registered post which was returned undelivered. He wanted to know the reasons for returning the Registered AD letter, why were the reason of returning the letter not mentioned on envelop of the letter, why was the date and stamp of the distributer post office not mentioned on the AD card etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant explained that he has sent a registered post and that said letter was returned undelivered. He has been requesting for the reasons for non-delivery of the post. The PIO stated that the address on that envelop was incomplete and hence the said letter could not be delivered. The appellant argued that in such cases the post man is required to make a noting regarding incomplete address but it is apparent from the envelop that no such noting has been recorded. He further stated that when he went to enquire in the matter, the concerned postal authorities behaved rudely with him. The PIO stated that prima facie the postmen committed an oversight in not recording the correct facts and regretted the same. The appellant stated that a copy of relevant rules regarding delivery of post should be provided and an omnibus authority letter signed by various family members should be taken on record by the concerned post office so that the mail/ postal articles addressed to any family member is not denied delivery in future.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the relevant rules for the delivery of postal articles to the appellant and to take on record the omnibus authority letter. +467,"Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to applicant for financial detriment suffered",North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,10000.0,The Commission also issued show cause notice to the former PIO to show reasons for the delay in providing the information.,"Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded to applicant for financial detriment suffered + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) seeking the reasons for non - release of his pension benefits despite the charges against him been dropped after the conclusion of the Departmental enquiry. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided partial information primarily stating that the information was not available. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that the concerned file had been wrongly destroyed/ misplaced by the then dealing officer in the Law Department for which misdemeanor, he had been removed from service. The appellant submitted that he had not received his full pension benefits even after five years of retirement nor was he provided with information under the RTI Act.","The Commission observed that there has been a sizeable time gap since the appellant filed the RTI application and no disclosure was made by the PIO in spite of the directions of the first appellate authority (FAA) which has caused him great anguish and financial detriment. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the CIC directed the public authority to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/– to the appellant. The Commission also observed that it is the responsibility of every public authority to maintain and preserve their official records and any laxity in this regard cannot be cited as valid reason for denying information to the applicant under the RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the requested information to the appellant as held in the Department’s file. The Commission also issued show cause notice to the former PIO to show reasons for the delay in providing the information." +468,Circular regarding commission paid on sale of SIM card was sought under RTI,,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"If the said circular is also the subject matter of investigation, an appropriate affidavit should be filed before the Commission.","Circular regarding commission paid on sale of SIM card was sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the MTNL seeking a copy of circular letters issued by the MTNL to its to its distributors regarding the commission amount to be paid to them in respect of sale /activation of SIM card. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the matter is being investigated by the CBI and the file containing the circular has been seized. The appellant argued that the circular regarding the commission structure on SIM is not a matter of investigation by the CBI.","The Commission directed the PIO to furnish a copy of the circular, if it does not form the subject matter of investigation by the CBI. If the said circular is also the subject matter of investigation, an appropriate affidavit should be filed before the Commission. + +Comment + +Section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act can be used to deny the information only if the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offender. This section cannot be used merely on the grounds that the matter is under investigation. The PIO, while using section 8 or section 9 of the RTI Act for denial of information, should pass a speaking order, showing how the said exemption section is applicable on the sought information." +469,CIC- appellant must show utmost responsibility while exercising his right under RTI,North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC),,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission noted that by seeking information that covers 18 years the appellant has certainly put great pressure on the resources of the MCD without any commensurate benefit to the larger public interest and warned the appellant to desist from such actions in future.,"CIC- appellant must show utmost responsibility while exercising his right under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) seeking information from January 1994 to December 2011. He sought for the names of deceased people who were the employees of the Department along with their personal details. He also wanted the names of applicants who had applied for employment on compassionate grounds pursuant to the death of the deceased employees along with their personal information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) forwarded the RTI application to various holders of information in the different departments of the MCD. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) ruled that the PIOs had already provided information to the appellant as was available with them. The appellant was requested to inspect the record and specify the records required by him so that the same could be provided to him however, the applicant did not agree to this suggestion. The FAA also noted that the information sought by the appellant is extremely voluminous and scattered over various zones of MCD and is not available in a compiled form. Thus compiling of this information would disproportionately divert resources of the public authority in terms of section 7 (9) of the Act, therefore, it was ruled that it was not possible to provide the requested information to the appellant.","The Commission accepted the contentions of the FAA and observed that the appellant has not established any larger public interest in the disclosure of information which is voluminous and requires to be compiled from large number of files across several departments of MCD. The CIC held that the information regarding the names of the deceased employees along with name of father, date of death and the payment of terminal benefits have already been provided to the appellant. Regarding the information pertaining to Swachchata Karamcharis appointed on compassionate grounds, the CIC held that same can be provided to the appellant if he seeks specific information directly from each of the departments all of which have appointed separate PIOs by preferring independent RTI applications. The Commission noted that by seeking information that covers 18 years the appellant has certainly put great pressure on the resources of the MCD without any commensurate benefit to the larger public interest and warned the appellant to desist from such actions in future." +470,Details of the Cabinet meetings held over a period of six years,Cabinet Secretariat,the Cabinet meetings held for a period of six years,['8(1)(i)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission further held that RTI Act gives the citizens the right to seek information from public authorities.,"Details of the Cabinet meetings held over a period of six years + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Cabinet Secretariat seeking information relating to the Cabinet meetings held for a period of six years. He sought the agenda papers, the list of officers who attended the Cabinet meetings and list of those who were only in attendance during the said meetings. He also wanted the details of all the Cabinet meetings including the agenda papers in which the subject matter relates to the Ministry of textiles. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied some of the information stating that the collection of the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the Cabinet Secretariat. He invited the appellant to inspect the relevant registers and take down notes. He denied the agenda papers presented during the Cabinet meetings on the ground that the Cabinet papers were exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act and stated that it was for the individual Ministry to decide what Cabinet papers could be disclosed in terms of the proviso to this particular subsection. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the decision of the PIO but directed him to transfer the RTI application to the Ministry of Textiles to address several of the remaining requests. The Ministry of Textiles also provided the copies of some documents against payment of photocopying charges and in some cases, invited the appellant to inspect the records stating that it could not be provided as they are extremely voluminous in nature. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the information sought by him would not divert the resources of the public authorities  rather it  should be maintained in the manner prescribed in section 4 of the RTI Act and should be easily retrieved. The respondent representing the Cabinet Secretariat submitted that Cabinet meetings were held almost every week and since the information spanned over a period of nearly 6 years and the total number of such meetings would run into hundreds. He further submitted that they did not maintain information Ministry wise therefore extracting out information regarding those Cabinet meetings in which any subject relating to the Textile Ministry might have come up would be a matter of research.","The Commission noted that the appellant wanted the details of all the Cabinet meetings compiled over a period of five years or more and to provide the entire information the PIO will have to research through the records of several hundred Cabinet meetings held during this period to find out which all relate to the Ministry of Textiles. The CIC held that this has the clear potential to divert disproportionately the resources of the Cabinet Secretariat. The Commission further held that the Cabinet Secretariat does not maintain information in the manner in which the appellant had sought and under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, PIO has no obligation to do research and create information to suit the specific need of the information seeker. + +The Commission directed the PIO, Ministry of Textiles to provide the information offered by them to the appellant free of cost as they had offered the information after the stipulated period of 30 days. The CIC also ruled that some of the agenda papers seem to be too voluminous to be collected and photocopied without disproportionately diverting the resources of the Ministry therefore the PIO should invite the appellant to visit his office to inspect the relevant records and take the photocopies of some identified documents. Regarding as to who attended the Cabinet meetings on behalf of the Ministry or those who were in attendance, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the copy of the available records and, in case no such record is available showing the attendance of individuals representing the Ministry of Textiles, he shall very clearly state so while writing to the appellant. + +The Commission further held that RTI Act gives the citizens the right to seek information from public authorities. But, the preamble to the RTI Act very clearly states that the individual need for information must be balanced against the need for running the administration smoothly. The present case is clearly one case in which the information demanded can engage the public officials in researching and collecting endless information to the detriment of their normal functioning which is surely not in public interest." +471,Addressing the issue of misbehavior through RTI,Department of Posts,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to get the matter reinvestigated by deputing a senior inspector to clearly identify the person(s) residing in mentioned premises and furnish a copy of the report to the appellant.,"Addressing the issue of misbehavior through RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Posts seeking information regarding a particular lady such as whether the department is aware that she is residing in premises with her family (the address was given in the application) since 25 years or not; if the department denies it then a certificate to this effect. He also intimated the department that a complaint has been made against one Postman for misbehaving with that lady and asked about the action taken on the complaint etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the requisite information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that misleading information has been furnished by the PIO. He explained that the postal authorities in their reply have contended that the lady does not stay at the motioned address whereas she along with other family members has been residing at the said address for over two decades and the house is also owned by her husband. In support of his contention the appellant produced the original voter card and Aadhar card issued in the name of that lady. The PIO stated that an inspector was deputed to conduct an enquiry. The inspector testified from a tenant residing at the said address that the lady does not stay in the premises and her residence is generally locked.",The Commission directed the PIO to get the matter reinvestigated by deputing a senior inspector to clearly identify the person(s) residing in mentioned premises and furnish a copy of the report to the appellant. +472,Can copy of leave applications be disclosed under RTI?,Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India,,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC however held that the reasons for availing of leave may not be disclosed as this would have an element of personal information.,"Can copy of leave applications be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking copies of leave applications and sanction of leave records of two employees.The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide information pertaining to the leave record along with designation of the competent authority that sanctioned the leave stating that this information is a public record. The CIC however held that the reasons for availing of leave may not be disclosed as this would have an element of personal information. +473,Application addressed to central public authority should be written in Hindi or English,,the basis on which such diversion had been ordered as well as about the nature of the land which stood diverted,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC also advised the appellant to write the application in Hindi or English if he wishes to address it to any central public authority.,"Application addressed to central public authority should be written in Hindi or English + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat half of which was written in English and the rest in Malayalam. He referred to some news items published in Delhi newspapers regarding the diversion of forest land by the Union Forest Ministry for non- forestry use and wanted to know the basis on which such diversion had been ordered as well as about the nature of the land which stood diverted. The Public Information Officer (PIO) observed that the Rajya Sabha secretariat did not have any information on this subject. He also pointed out that the RTI application was written in a regional language and it was not legible to him.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information sought by the appellant was either with the Union Ministry of Environment and Forest or the Forest Department of the State Government of Kerala. The Commission advised the appellant to approach those public authorities. The CIC also advised the appellant to write the application in Hindi or English if he wishes to address it to any central public authority. +474,Seeking information regarding TA DA given to MPs using RTI,Lok Sabha Secretariat,the reimbursement of the travelling and daily allowance given to all the Members of Parliament (MPs) for a period of three years,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to place this order before the competent authorities for taking appropriate action.,"Seeking information regarding TA DA given to MPs using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Lok Sabha Secretariat seeking information relating to the reimbursement of the travelling and daily allowance given to all the Members of Parliament (MPs) for a period of three years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that providing such information would disproportionately divert the resources of the Lok Sabha secretariat. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that in compliance of earlier orders passed by the CIC, the Lok Sabha secretariat was currently undertaking a project to upload all details regarding the journeys undertaken by the MPs, in their website and that this would be completed in a time bound manner in a short while.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that there are more than 500 MPs in the Lok Sabha and each one of them would have undertaken numerous journeys during this period of three years. The Commission also held that unless the desired details are maintained centrally in a compiled from collecting this information for each one of them under separate heads as prescribed by the appellant would be a highly time consuming task. It clearly has the potential to divert the resources of the Lok Sabha secretariat and the PIO could not provide the information. The Commission urged that this exercise should be completed at the earliest and the entire information is uploaded in the Lok Sabha secretariat website before the end of this financial year and subsequently all new information in this regard can be uploaded alongside the passing of all such bills. The CIC directed the PIO to place this order before the competent authorities for taking appropriate action. +475,Information regarding Gold Dealers License was sought under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to apprise the RTI applicant about the Central Excise Procedure Manual pertaining to Licenses under Gold Control Act.,"Information regarding Gold Dealers License was sought under RTI + +Background: +An application was filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax seeking copies of the Gold Dealers License of a particular license number as on four particular dates. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that his Office does not have Gold Dealers License with that particular license number. However, renewal entries of that License were provided to the applicant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that from the submissions made by the PIO, it is not clear as to whether the records pertaining to the information sought has been legally destroyed or whether any diligent search was done to trace the records pertaining to the information sought. The FAA directed the PIO to provide the information sought by the appellant. The PIO filed the second appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) against the order of the FAA. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO (appellant) submitted that the documents sought by the RTI applicant pertained to an Act which was repealed in 1990 and the documents sought were 48 years old. The PIO also informed the CIC that as per Central Excise Office Procedure Manual, records pertaining to Licenses under Gold Control Act are to be preserved only up to 3 years from expiry of validity of the licenses. In the instant case, the license referred to was last renewed in the year 1980 and would have been destroyed after 1983. However, sincere efforts were made to trace the records sought by the applicant and after a thorough search only a reference to these licenses was found in Kundapur Range Office wherein some renewal entries of it were made. The copies of the same were provided to the RTI applicant. The respondent representing the FAA stated that the PIO has not mentioned about the Central Excise Procedure Manual pertaining to Licenses under Gold Control Act, in the reply submitted before the FAA.",The Commission observed that the information sought by the applicant is about 48 years old and as per procedure of the Central Excise Procedure Manual the records sought for supposed to be weeded out. The Commission directed the PIO to apprise the RTI applicant about the Central Excise Procedure Manual pertaining to Licenses under Gold Control Act. +476,Seeking details of joining date and promotion details of an officer,,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"As regards other information sought details of charge sheet(s)/misconduct, loans, assets, annual property returns (v) copies of educational qualification certificates & (vi) name of legal heir(s), the submission of the PIO that the information is exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act was upheld as the appellant has not cited any larger public interest warranting disclosure.","Seeking details of joining date and promotion details of an officer + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the BSNL seeking information regarding one person who is serving in BSNL in regards his joining date, promotion details and details of any charges of misconduct or allegation leveled upon with all the education qualification certificates which were submitted to the department and several other details. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the information claiming exemption under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the details regarding an employee of BSNL has not been supplied to him. The PIO contended that the information is personal in nature and hence exemption has been claimed under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. In response to a query by the CIC, the PIO could not satisfactory reply to how information regarding date of joining, promotion details and tour programme(s) of an employee are personal information unrelated to any public activity or interest.","The Commission directed the PIO that information as above should be furnished to the appellant. As regards other information sought details of charge sheet(s)/misconduct, loans, assets, annual property returns (v) copies of educational qualification certificates & (vi) name of legal heir(s), the submission of the PIO that the information is exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act was upheld as the appellant has not cited any larger public interest warranting disclosure. The appeal was disposed of accordingly." +477,What can applicant do if threatened for seeking information under RTI?,Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),if there is any particular section of the CPC under which any case could be registered against such person,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The CIC also stated that the appellant can always complain to the competent authority against the official concerned for threatening her against seeking information under the RTI.,"What can applicant do if threatened for seeking information under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) seeking to know if there is any provision for punishment against the government official who stopped an individual from using the RTI. She also wanted to know if there is any particular section of the CPC under which any case could be registered against such person.  The Public Information Officer (PIO) observed that it was beyond the scope of the duty cast on him under the RTI Act to provide any such clarification or opinion.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant had not sought the information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The CIC also noted that there is nothing on record in the DoPT to show if any particular action could be initiated against any government official for preventing a citizen from seeking information under RTI. In the absence of any such material record the PIO could not have provided any information. The CIC advised the appellant to seek legal opinion from any lawyer or legal expert in the matter. The CIC also stated that the appellant can always complain to the competent authority against the official concerned for threatening her against seeking information under the RTI." +478,Using RTI to address the issue of illegal broadcasting by a news channel,Lok Sabha Secretariat and the Rajya Sabha,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to inform to the appellant if the Leader of opposition had raised any question on the issues brought to their notice by the appellant through his letters.,"Using RTI to address the issue of illegal broadcasting by a news channel + +Background: +The appellant had approached the Leaders of Opposition in both the houses of the Parliament drawing their attention to some illegal broadcasting by a particular news channel. Later he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Lok Sabha Secretariat and the Rajya Sabha seeking to know whether the respective Leader of Opposition in the two houses had raised these issues in the Parliament or not. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information but did not clearly state whether this matter had been raised through any question in the respective house of the Parliament. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent pointed out that all the questions raised by any Member of Parliament (MP) were freely available in the website of the respective house of the Parliament as well as in the homepage of each MP.",The Commission directed the PIO to inform to the appellant if the Leader of opposition had raised any question on the issues brought to their notice by the appellant through his letters. If any such question had been raised then a copy of that question along with the answer received should be given to the appellant. +479,Repeated applications asking for the same information again and again,Union Public Service Commission (UPSC),action taken on her representation and the reply given by the UPSC to the Registrar General India (RGI) in response to the clarification sought by RGI in a particular matter,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide the photocopies of the file noting from the relevant file in which her representation had been processed and the copy of the communication which the UPSC had sent to the RGI in response to the clarification sought by them.,"Repeated applications asking for the same information again and again + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) seeking information regarding action taken on her representation and the reply given by the UPSC to the Registrar General India (RGI) in response to the clarification sought by RGI in a particular matter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the details about the action taken on the representation have already been provided to the appellant in the past in response to another RTI application. Regarding the clarification sought by the RGI, the PIO claimed that they have not received any such communication from the RGI. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that the exact information was never provided to her. The respondent stated that the subject matter of the representation was similar to the matter already considered earlier and some information had been provided in response to a previous RTI request.","The Commission held that the appellant had made a representation with the UPSC and she has a right to know the manner in which the representation was disposed of which could be found out only from the file noting in the relevant file. Regarding the clarification sought by the RGI, the CIC observed that the response of the UPSC can be found out from the communication which it might have sent to the RGI. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the photocopies of the file noting from the relevant file in which her representation had been processed and the copy of the communication which the UPSC had sent to the RGI in response to the clarification sought by them." +480,Report submitted by the CBI in the Lok Sabha regarding procurement of sleepers by the Railways,Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC agreed with the contention of the appellant and directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the copy of the report which the CBI had presented to the Lok Sabha in this matter.,"Report submitted by the CBI in the Lok Sabha regarding procurement of sleepers by the Railways + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding some allegations of corruption in the procurement of sleepers by the Railways. He sought for a copy of the report submitted by the CBI in the Lok Sabha. The Public Information Officer (PIO) declined to furnish any information on the ground that the CBI was included in the second schedule to the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the matter regarding the responsibility of the CBI to disclose information under the provisions of the RTI Act was pending before the High Court and therefore it should not be directed to disclose any such information. The appellant pointed out that the CBI was obliged to provide the desired information since it pertained to allegations of corruption.","The Commission observed that the information sought pertains to allegations of corruption and therefore is squarely covered under the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act which mandates the exempted organisations like the CBI to disclose such information. The CIC agreed with the contention of the appellant and directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the copy of the report which the CBI had presented to the Lok Sabha in this matter. If the CBI had presented no such report to the Lok Sabha, the PIO should inform the appellant suitably. + +Comment + +All the organisations covered in the second schedule to the RTI Act are beyond the purview of the Act except for the allegations of corruption or human rights violations." +481,PIO served a show cause for non-compliance of RTI order of FAA,Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (CMPF),payment of Provident Fund (PF) and pension to his mother,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show-cause notice to the PIO stating that he had failed to comply with the directions of the FAA and caused a delay of more than 100 days in providing information to the appellant.","PIO served a show cause for non-compliance of RTI order of FAA + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (CMPF) seeking information regarding payment of Provident Fund (PF) and pension to his mother. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the PF claim of his mother was received but as per compromised petition, she is not entitled for any share. The First appellate authority (FAA) directed the PIO to send query wise reply to the information seeker, however, the PIO failed to comply with the directions of the FAA. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the claim of appellant’s father is to be settled as per compromised decree as per Court’s order. The Court had decreed that the total amount is to be distributed among two sons and a daughter of the deceased and the appellant’s mother is not entitled as per decree of the court. The PIO also stated that the claim has been settled and the share of the appellant (one of the son of the deceased) has been released but the share of the second son and daughter of deceased is withheld due to non-receipt of refund claim from the colliery side.","The Commission observed that the PIO has only replied to the appellant about the CMPF dues but has failed to provide information regarding the pension claim of appellant’s mother, despite the directions of the FAA. The Commission directed the PIO to provide complete information to the appellant particularly on the status of pension claim of appellant’s mother. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show-cause notice to the PIO stating that he had failed to comply with the directions of the FAA and caused a delay of more than 100 days in providing information to the appellant." +482,Details of reassessment of tax of Bajaj Health and Nutrition Private limited,Income Tax (IT),reassessment of tax of Bajaj Health and Nutrition Pvt,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"However the CIC held that since the appellant has sought this information on the ground that it was on the basis of his complaint that the IT authorities had ordered reassessment, the PIO should inform the appellant as to whether the information provided by him was true or false and to disclose the broad outcome of the reassessment, without divulging specific details, once the process is completed.","Details of reassessment of tax of Bajaj Health and Nutrition Private limited + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) seeking information relating to reassessment of tax of Bajaj Health and Nutrition Pvt. Ltd. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that a third party notice was served under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:to the third party, who has objected to disclosure of information. The appellant filed first appeal with the First Appellate authority (FAA) stating that the sought information relates to tax evasion and thus it should be disclosed. The FAA upheld the decision of the PIO.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to a Supreme Court order in the case Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. CIC wherein it was held that the details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax Returns are “personal information” which stand exempted from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act unless a larger public interest is involved. The CIC noted that the appellant has not been able to establish that the information sought for is for larger public interest and rejected the appeal. However the CIC held that since the appellant has sought this information on the ground that it was on the basis of his complaint that the IT authorities had ordered reassessment, the PIO should inform the appellant as to whether the information provided by him was true or false and to disclose the broad outcome of the reassessment, without divulging specific details, once the process is completed." +483,"In case of change of PIO, who is responsible for the delay in providing information?",Department of Posts,"the dates on which these were delivered, reasons for late delivery, officers responsible for late delivery etc",[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,5500.0,,The Commission levied a penalty of Rs.,"In case of change of PIO, who is responsible for the delay in providing information? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to information (RTI) act with the Department of Posts seeking information in relation to some speed posts/letters. He wanted to know the dates on which these were delivered, reasons for late delivery, officers responsible for late delivery etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point-wise information to the appellant and also gave explanation/ justification to some of the queries along with supporting documents. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he has not been provided complete and correct information in respect of some queries like copy of enquiry report in respect of delayed speed posts, copy of rules/procedure for claiming compensation in case of delay/loss of speed post, details regarding 7 complaints received for delayed delivery of speed post, name(s) of staff/official(s) held responsible, action taken against them and compensation paid to claimants for the period 2010-11. He also submitted that reply to his RTI application was received after more than two months and hence penal action should be taken against the respondent. The respondents were not present for the hearing. The Commission directed that complete and correct information as requested should be furnished to him within 15 days of receipt of this order. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the CIC also issued a show cause notice to the PIO for not furnishing the complete, correct and timely information. + +Despite the orders of the CIC, no information was provided to the appellant. Even after being given two opportunities to explain his conduct, the PIO did not appear before the CIC. After directions were issued to the FAA by the CIC to identify the officer responsible for the lapse, the concerned PIO appeared before the Commission. The then PIO accepted that the RTI application was received in his office but the same was forwarded to Postmaster Firozabad for his comments after a gap of one month. The reply from Postmaster Firozabad was received after a gap of another month advising him to prepare a point-wise reply and send the same to the appellant. Subsequently he was transferred and newly appointed PIO then sent a reply to the appellant. The newly appointed PIO also explained that there was a delay of twenty nine days on his part despite the orders of the Commission as the foresaid order was not put up to him.","The Commission observed that the earlier PIO was responsible for the initial delay of22The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.days. The CIC further observed that the second PIO provided the information after a delay of 29 days despite the clear orders of the Commission for which he was also responsible. The CIC held that the reasons cited by him is untenable as the PIO’s primary duty is to give priority to RTI matters so that complete and correct information can be furnished in a time bound manner to applicants as provided in the Act. The CIC also observed that the current PIO appeared for hearing only after repeated reminders from the Commission which shows the sad state of affairs in the respondent’s office for dealing with RTI matters. The Commission levied a penalty of Rs. 5,500/- on the earlier PIO and Rs. 7,500/- on the current PIO for the inordinate delay on their part." +484,Compensation awarded to applicant for the delay in providing information,Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India,action taken on his letter,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,5000.0,"Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs.","Compensation awarded to applicant for the delay in providing information + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking information regarding action taken on his letter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise response to the applicant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant expressed great dissatisfaction stating that he had been provided information after an unduly long delay. The respondent stated that the RTI application was forwarded by head office to Gorakhpur branch and was received after one month following which information was collected and furnished after three months. The appellant further submitted that payment due to him was released with a delay of three years, that too after the order of the first appellate authority which was 15 months after he had put in his RTI request. The respondent stated that the Corporation has already paid an amount of Rs. 4402/– to the appellant as interest due on the delayed payment.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide the appellant with a copy of the rules pertaining to interest on delayed payments. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 5000/– to the appellant stating that there has been an inordinate delay in providing information to the appellant during which period he had to run from pillar to post to obtain the requested information resulting in great mental and physical anguish and financial detriment to him." +485,Reasons for not providing Assured Career Progression and pension benefits,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also issued a show cause to the PIO to give reasons as to why action should not be taken against him for contravening the timelines prescribed in the RTI Act.,"Reasons for not providing Assured Career Progression and pension benefits + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with Central Public Works Department (CPWD) seeking reasons for not providing him the benefits of Assured Career Progression (ACP) and release of complete pension benefits after his retirement from the service. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the appellant had not mentioned the office and designation from which he had retired and that the appellant may immediately clarify the position so that action could be taken accordingly. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he was an employee of the CPWD and that he has been approaching his department for a long time for getting the information but the department is keeping him deprived of the information that could have been easily provided. The respondent submitted that the matter has taken some time because the RTI application was sent by the appellant to the wing which was not handling the matter and the application had to be re-routed. The respondent also stated that disciplinary proceedings are pending against the appellant because of which he could be given only provisional pension. The appellant stated that he has been subjected to gross injustice as it is now 12 years since he retired but he is getting only the provisional pension. He further argued that he is also not being provided the information which exhibits the callous attitude of the department. The respondent agreed to provide the full information on the matter to the appellant within fifteen days.",The Commission observed that the RTI application has not been attended to as was expected under the RTI Act. The CIC directed the respondent to provide complete information to the appellant on all the points. The CIC also issued a show cause to the PIO to give reasons as to why action should not be taken against him for contravening the timelines prescribed in the RTI Act. +486,CIC - examination of issue and reasons for non-compliance of rules is not information,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application and give the copies of documents thereafter.,"CIC - examination of issue and reasons for non-compliance of rules is not information + +Background: +The appellant was a recognized contractor for Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) and was allotted a contract for erection of towers. Due to some problems, the department made some deductions out of the total payment due. He filed an application under the RTI Act with the BSNL seeking various information such as, under which clause of agreement a 10% deduction was made and the same has been forfeited, under what circumstances the DET had taken 7 months for according a financial sanction, under which rule a contractor can be “Show Caused” without having procured the material required for the job, under what motive and constraints the DET instead of providing the materials issued a show cause notice etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he has not been provided correct and complete information in response to his RTI application. The PIO stated that certain queries of the appellant were interrogatory in nature and were not covered under the definition of information as per section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. He also submitted that he is willing to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records and take whatever information he needs. The appellant also agreed to inspect the records.","The Commission observed that under the RTI Act, the PIO is required to furnish the information/documents as available on record. However, opinions, analysis, examination of issue, redressal of grievance, reasons for non- compliance of rules are outside the purview of the Act. The Commission directed the PIO to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application and give the copies of documents thereafter." +487,Should a printout of SMS be provided under RTI?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC advised the General Manager Telecom to ensure that all BSNL offices under his control should display the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers as per section 4(1)(b)(xvi) of the RTI Act.","Should a printout of SMS be provided under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) seeking details of SMS (Short Messaging Service) that have been sent by a Program Officer, MANREGA from his mobile to appellant’s mobile. He wanted certified copy of the printout of those SMSs. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that technically it is not possible to extract the information from the system and the appellant has been informed accordingly. The appellant requested that a print out of the calls/ SMSs sent to his mobile number from the aforesaid number should be provided. He also alleged that BSNL Office is not displaying the name designation and other particulars of the PIO.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant as above and if it is technically not possible to extract the information at this stage an appropriate declaration should be furnished to the appellant. The CIC advised the General Manager Telecom to ensure that all BSNL offices under his control should display the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers as per section 4(1)(b)(xvi) of the RTI Act." +488,Information about a case when the show cause notices are pending for adjudication,Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise,,['8(1)(h)'],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Comments + +During the hearing before the CIC, it was mentioned by the respondents that 95 applications over a period of 1 year involving 402 questions have been filed.","Information about a case when the show cause notices are pending for adjudication + +Background: +The appellant filed separate applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise seeking records documents and information held by the Public Authority in respect of S.D. Enterprises Unit No. III under the Jurisdiction of Commissioner Central Excise including all correspondence exchanged with File notings with several other details. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that various show cause notices have been issued in respect of the unit which were pending adjudication and hence the information regarding all correspondence exchanged, file notings, file orders reports filed, action taken in respect of the unit during the period 2002-04 were protected under the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. Nine appeals were taken up by the CIC. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the respondent held that the case is still to reach its finality in as much as all the relied upon documents in respect of charges alleged in the show cause notice have already been provided and the stage of the case can be treated as at investigation stage. The respondent also submitted that the show cause notices issued to M/s. S.D. Enterprises Vasai were pending for adjudication by adjudicating authority and case has not attained its finality.","The Commission stated that pending adjudication which follows well established procedure under law the disclosure of information at this stage impede the process of investigation. The CIC held that the sought information could not be provided under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act as the show cause notices were still pending for adjudication. The Commission also noted that a number of queries of the appellant were in the nature of questioning the action/decision of the investigating authorities and seeking reasons for the same. Such queries could not be termed as information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The Commission finds no reasons to interfere with the replies of the respondent in all the nine instant appeals filed by the appellant. + +Comments + +During the hearing before the CIC, it was mentioned by the respondents that 95 applications over a period of 1 year involving 402 questions have been filed. Such use of the RTI Act to divert the investigation is not uncommon and hence, the PIO should know the RTI Act thoroughly and remain vigilant to deal with such situations." +489,Can information be sought on a letterhead of the employer organisation?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the sought information to the appellant.,"Can information be sought on a letterhead of the employer organisation? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) seeking various information regarding Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) (E) at Daltonganj section such as Details of his salary, GPF contribution, amount in GPF, details of leaves taken, his tenure, the facilities given to him etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded to the application. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information requested by the appellant could not be furnished to him as he has applied on the letterhead of BSNL and had also put his designation as Junior Telecom Officer in his RTI application. He argued that since the appellant has not applied as a citizen the information cannot be disclosed to him under the RTI Act.","The Commission observed that the fact that appellant is an employee of the respondent public authority clearly identifies him as a citizen of the Country thereby qualifying him to seek information under section 3 of the RTI Act. The Commission noted that as per section 6(2) of the RTI Act, an applicant is required to furnish only the details that may be necessary for contacting him. The CIC further stated that the mere fact that the appellant has filed the RTI application on the letterhead of his employer and mentioned his designation below his name does not disqualify him from seeking information under the RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the sought information to the appellant." +490,Should the copies of applications filed under RTI Act be provided to an applicant?,South Eastern Coalfields Ltd (SECL),,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) concurred with the decision of the PIO and rejected the appeal.,"Should the copies of applications filed under RTI Act be provided to an applicant? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the South Eastern Coalfields Ltd (SECL) seeking to know as to how many applications have been received under RTI Rules from the inception of RTI Act. He also wanted the photocopies of all the applications. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that 11,417 applications have been received from RTI applicants since the inception of the RTI Act but denied the photocopies of the RTI applications under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) concurred with the decision of the PIO and rejected the appeal. +491,Are the documents related to pension personal to an individual?,Accountant General,the pension matters of the teachers of the Government Girls High School in general and about a particular retired teacher as well,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copy of these documents to the appellant.,"Are the documents related to pension personal to an individual? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Accountant General seeking information regarding the pension matters of the teachers of the Government Girls High School in general and about a particular retired teacher as well. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred some of the queries to the State Government authorities stating that the desired information related to them. He denied the information regarding the retired teacher under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that it was personal information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that just like the salary paid to an employee during the service period, the pension is paid after retirement. The CIC ruled that the documents filed by a pensioner for grant of pension are similar to the documents which entitle an employee to receive his salary and both cannot be said to be personal information. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copy of these documents to the appellant." +492,Certified copy - Is a PIO obliged to provide certified copies of documents under RTI?,Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd (TRIFED),,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC advised the appellant that if he needed those documents, he could approach the court to allow him to have a copy.","Certified copy - Is a PIO obliged to provide certified copies of documents under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd (TRIFED) seeking the certified copy of his annual property returns and the letter written by the TRIFED to the CBI in connection with sanction for prosecution. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the copies of the annual property returns but denied the letter written by the TRIFED to the CBI under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the PIO failed to provide the information in time and even the information that was provided, was not certified. The appellant also submitted that since the investigation in the matter was already over there was no ground for withholding the letter for prosecution. The respondent submitted that the desired information had to be collected from both Personnel and Vigilance divisions while the RTI application was addressed only to the latter and thus some delay took place. Regarding the certified copies, they clarified that they do not have arrangement in their organization to certify documents and therefore, the PIO attested the documents as true copies of the original. The respondent further submitted that the appellant was facing prosecution in a special CBI court and the disclosure of this particular letter would impede the process of prosecution.","The Commission observed that although the PIO had provided attested copies the attestation did not bear the seal of the organization making it difficult to identify the designation and the organization of the attesting official. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the copies of these documents duly attested with the seal and signature. The Commission held that the documents relating to sanction the prosecution have a direct bearing on the case being faced by the appellant in the CBI court and their disclosure could have an adverse effect on the process of prosecution. The CIC advised the appellant that if he needed those documents, he could approach the court to allow him to have a copy." +493,Information pertaining to transfer of amount from one bank account to another,State Bank of India (SBI),the transfer of an amount from one of the appellant’s account to appellant’s another account without his knowledge,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide to the appellant a copy of the enquiry report.,"Information pertaining to transfer of amount from one bank account to another + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information pertaining to the transfer of an amount from one of the appellant’s account to appellant’s another account without his knowledge. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the matter was pending in a court. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he had been provided information on some points and denied on others. The respondent explained that this was a matter where some money was deposited in a certain branch and transferred to another branch but the depositor, due to change of mind, asked for a reversion of the transaction. The respondent also stated that the matter was enquired into by the bank. The appellant said that he was an affected party and that he was essentially looking for a copy of the outcome of enquiry that had been conducted by the bank.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide to the appellant a copy of the enquiry report. +494,Using RTI to know the valuation of unsold goods and reduction in price done by the bank,Punjab National Bank,the percentage of discount allowed on the stock/goods of a particular company by the bank and the value of goods/stock,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to facilitate inspection of the relevant files by the appellant and provide photo copies of the pertinent documents after inspection.,"Using RTI to know the valuation of unsold goods and reduction in price done by the bank + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab National Bank seeking information about the percentage of discount allowed on the stock/goods of a particular company by the bank and the value of goods/stock. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the information sought pertains to the facts relating to the compliance of a High Court order. He stated that the High Court Order stipulated that the goods should be sold at half the minimum retail price. The appellant emphasised to know as to what was the percentage reduction made from the selling price of the goods and what was the valuation of the unsold goods.The respondent stated the appellant has time and again been submitting RTI applications repeatedly and has submitted 24 RTI applications. They further submitted that whatever information was available with the bank has been provided to the appellant and that there is nothing more that the bank can do in the matter. The appellant argued that it is very important for the bank to provide information about the valuation of the goods because the High Court had clearly stated that the bank would evaluate the unsold goods before handing them over to the partner of the appellant.",The Commission directed the respondent to facilitate inspection of the relevant files by the appellant and provide photo copies of the pertinent documents after inspection. +495,Police verification report in respect of the security guards,Broadcasting Corporation of India in which he raised a number of queries,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant on the above issues.,"Police verification report in respect of the security guards + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Broadcasting Corporation of India in which he raised a number of queries regarding the deployment of security guards in various installations of the All India Radio (AIR). The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided him some information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the appellant submitted that some of the crucial information had not been disclosed. He wanted the remaining information to be given to him. The respondent pointed out that whatever information could have been disclosed was sent to the appellant and that he was also given an opportunity to inspect the relevant records though he did not choose to do so.","In respect of one query, the CIC observed that the PIO should clearly state if any police verification had been conducted for the security guards deployed by the private agency. The Commission noted that as per the terms and conditions of the contract signed with the private agency, it appears that it is the responsibility of the private security agency to furnish police verification report in respect of the security guards. In case no such verification had been made either by the AIR or the private agency the PIO should clearly say so. The total number of security guards deployed by the private agency who are not ex-servicemen should also be clearly stated. The Commission also held that the PIO should clearly state if any registration was done with the labour authorities for deploying contract labour in respect of the security guards and if not, whether any relaxation had been sought and obtained. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant on the above issues." +496,Information regarding unwanted message on mobile phone using RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information free of cost to the appellant.,"Information regarding unwanted message on mobile phone using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the BSNL seeking information pertaining to unwanted message delivered on his and his wife’s mobile along with a copy of permission letter, rules and regulations regarding messages services and complete description of balance which has been deducted. He also wanted the detailed description of the person who had sent the message. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he has not been provided complete and correct information requested in his RTI application. He further stated that certain cost has been demanded for supply of information though the PIO’s reply was received after the stipulated period and hence the information should now be given free of cost. The PIO stated that he will ensure that complete information is provided to the appellant.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information free of cost to the appellant. +497,RTI application seeking information regarding working of NFDC,National Film Development Corporation Ltd (NFDC),,['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the desired information barring the ones which were of commercial confidence.,"RTI application seeking information regarding working of NFDC + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Film Development Corporation Ltd (NFDC) seeking information regarding various aspects of the working of the NFDC including the pay and perks of the Chairman, release orders issued by it to various TV channels, the criteria followed in allocating work to TV channels and the percentage of work given to various TV channels. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act stating that it was of commercial  confidence in nature.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that all the information sought by the appellant cannot be classified as being of commercial confidence. The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the desired information barring the ones which were of commercial confidence. +498,Addressing the issue of copying in a competition organized by the AIR,Broadcasting Corporation of India,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission further held that if no such action has been taken or was ever contemplated the PIO should inform the appellant accordingly.,"Addressing the issue of copying in a competition organized by the AIR + +Background: +The external publicity division of the All India Radio (AIR) had organized some competition during the Hindi fortnight in 2011. Alleging that there was copying in that competition encouraged by some AIR employees, the appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Broadcasting Corporation of India seeking information in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant had a grievance against the authorities for not taking appropriate action against some employees who had been responsible for copying during that competition. The CIC noted that the PIO has provided whatever factual information was available but no information has been given about the action taken by the authorities against some of the employees responsible for the alleged copying. The CIC directed the PIO to find out about any action that might have been proposed or taken against any employees for the alleged copying and to inform the appellant. The Commission further held that if no such action has been taken or was ever contemplated the PIO should inform the appellant accordingly. +499,Is a BPL citizen entitled to have priced publications free of cost?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal.,"Is a BPL citizen entitled to have priced publications free of cost? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting seeking for the published copy of all books/ publications on all subjects in all languages published by the Publications Division of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting free of cost stating that he was a person below poverty line (BPL). The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the books and journals of the Publications Division were priced publications and could not be supplied free of cost. The PIO provided a copy of the catalogue of all the publications. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that Rule 4(e) of the RTI Rules 2012 states that a priced publication could be made available either against the price fixed for it or at the rate of two rupees per page of photocopy for extracts from the publication. He claimed that accordingly the priced publications of the Publications Division should be made available to him free of charge as he is a person below poverty line. The respondent submitted that the desired information were already available in the public domain freely for the citizens to purchase and therefore could not be provided freely to anyone including the appellant. The respondent also cited some orders passed by the CIC wherein it was held that the priced publications could not be claimed under RTI and would have to be purchased.","The Commission observed that the desired information is available in the public domain against the printed cost of the publications and can be bought by anyone from booksellers and other sales agencies including many departmental emporia. Any citizen can purchase these publications or can even get those from the Publications Division directly by post. The CIC held that as per the Rule 4(e) of the RTI Rules 2012, a citizen will have to pay the price fixed for the publication if he wants the whole of it. If he wants only some extracts from any such publication, he has to pay two rupees per page. The CIC further ruled that this rule differentiates between the publication as a whole and some extracts from it and does not imply that priced publications can be obtained under RTI by paying the photocopying charges or freely in case of BPL citizens. The Commission rejected the appeal." +500,Can the basis of calculation of monthly salary be disclosed under RTI?,Union Bank of India,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to enable inspection of the relevant file by the appellant.,"Can the basis of calculation of monthly salary be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Bank of India seeking photocopies of monthly income separately in respect of certain dependents of the deceased persons whose names appeared in a particular circular. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that similar information was sought earlier also and was provided to the appellant. He also stated that the appellant may not seek same information frequently. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant emphasised that he wanted the basis on which the monthly salary had been calculated for those who had been given appointment as dependents of the employees who had passed away while in the service of the bank.  The respondent stated that the information sought had been provided not once but four times to the appellant wherein all the details were clearly stated.  The appellant stated that what the bank had given was only the summary but not the sheet showing the calculations. The respondent stated that they had provided every information that was available with the bank including the sheet containing the name of the deceased, the date of death, the terminal liabilities under terminal benefits monthly interest pension and the calculation of the final net monthly income and that there was no further information left to provide. The appellant argued that she received the calculation sheet in respect of her own family members but in respect of the other cases; she had been given only the summary sheet which had created a doubt in her mind about the basis of the calculation.",The Commission directed the respondent to enable inspection of the relevant file by the appellant. +501,"Under RTI Act, information can be denied only under section 8 or section 9",State Bank of India (SBI),overtime allowances and other related issues,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the respondent to provide the information to the appellant.,"Under RTI Act, information can be denied only under section 8 or section 9 + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information on overtime allowances and other related issues. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the matter was subjudice in the court and that if the appellant wanted this information, he should apply through court. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had been denied the overtime dues. Therefore, he had sought copies of the correspondence between the bank and the RBI that related to his working for long hours in connection with cash remittances. The respondent stated that this matter of overtime is disputed and pending in the court and thus the correspondence between the bank and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has not been provided to the appellant.","The Commission observed that there is no adequate reason to deny the information to the appellant. The CIC directed the respondent to provide the information to the appellant. + +Comments + +The information sought under the RTI Act can be denied only if it falls within the purview of section 8 or section 9. Any information cannot be denied merely on the grounds that the matter is subjudice before the court." +502,Can ITR filed by ex-wife be disclosed?,Income Tax (IT),action taken against his ex-wife on the basis of a Tax evasion petition (TEP) filed against her,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission further directed the PIO to conclude the enquiries expeditiously and to inform the appellant about the broad outcome of the investigation without giving any specific details.,"Can ITR filed by ex-wife be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) seeking information on action taken against his ex-wife on the basis of a Tax evasion petition (TEP) filed against her. He also wanted the details of income tax returns filed by her for 2008-09 and 2009-10 along with copies of statements of her bank accounts etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the investigation is still under progress and the tax liability has not been determined. He denied the copies of various documents sought stating that the same have been objected to by the assessee. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that information sought by the appellant relating to ITRs is third party information and is exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. Regarding the TEP, the PIO submitted that their enquiries were still going on and once the enquiries concluded the results would be communicated to the appellant.","The Commission referred to a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC wherein it was held that IT return is personal information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act and exempt from disclosure unless larger public interest is shown. The CIC observed that the appellant has not shown any larger public interest and the information is exempt from disclosure. The Commission further directed the PIO to conclude the enquiries expeditiously and to inform the appellant about the broad outcome of the investigation without giving any specific details." +503,Disclosure of details of persons engaged in tabulation work of examination under RTI,Jamia Milia Islamia (JMI),,"['8(1)(e)', '8(1)(g)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission concurred with the decision of the public authority and dismissed the appeal.,"Disclosure of details of persons engaged in tabulation work of examination under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Jamia Milia Islamia (JMI) seeking name and designation of persons engaged in coding, decoding, tabulation and preparation of final list of Class 1 to VI and IX and X. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the names of persons engaged in tabulation work of examination cannot be disclosed under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to a Supreme Court order in the case of Aditya Bandopadhayay v. CBSE wherein it was held that the particulars of examiner, scrutinizer, coordinator and Head Examiner who deals with the answer books, is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act. The Commission concurred with the decision of the public authority and dismissed the appeal." +504,Action taken on the confidential letters written by the appellant to Income Tax Department,Income Tax (IT) department,,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to inform the appellant whether the information given by him was found to be true, partially true or false.","Action taken on the confidential letters written by the appellant to Income Tax Department + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) department seeking to know the action taken on the confidential letters written by him regarding Rohilkhand Educational Public Charitable Trust. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.stating that the information sought relates to third party. The PIO further informed that on the basis of a complaint filed by the appellant and subsequent inquiries by the Income Tax Department, the matter is pending before the Allahabad High Court. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the RTI application filed by him pertained to Assessment year 2007-08 while the matter which was pending before the Allahabad High Court pertained to the period 2002- 03 to 2006-07. The appellant also claimed that larger public interest was involved in the disclosure hence the information should be provided.","The Commission directed the PIO to inform the appellant whether the information given by him was found to be true, partially true or false." +505,Addressing the issue of non-payment of allowance through RTI,Union Bank of India,the mode of calculation of pension payable to him and the arrears,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the respondent to respond to the appellant on the all points and also provide a copy of the calculation sheet.,"Addressing the issue of non-payment of allowance through RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Bank of India seeking information about the mode of calculation of pension payable to him and the arrears. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant referred to his RTI application which had four points and submitted that the bank had responded to it in a mechanical way without application of mind which has led to deprivation of one allowance to which he was entitled to. The appellant also stated that he had taken resort to RTI Act only because he did not get justice through the normal channel. The respondent stated that the bank was willing to look into the matter again and that if any step needs to be taken for rectifying any calculation, that would be done within the next couple of weeks and the appellant would also be informed. The respondent explained that the bank will look into the question of entitlement of the appellant to the professional qualification allowance and the personal allowance. The respondent also said that the bank had no intention of withholding any information and that in fact the calculation sheets had been made available to the appellant earlier too.",The Commission observed that the matter needs to be reviewed by the respondent following which the appellant must be informed along with the calculation sheets. The CIC directed the respondent to respond to the appellant on the all points and also provide a copy of the calculation sheet. +506,Can an officer of CVC be a guest of the bank against whom he conducts an enquiry?,Bank of Baroda,"alleged stay of an officer of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) at the bank's guest house including the charges for stay, breakfast and dinner, the car's use and the TA/DA claims of the officer",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide to the appellant the information as available with the bank.,"Can an officer of CVC be a guest of the bank against whom he conducts an enquiry? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bank of Baroda seeking information about alleged stay of an officer of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) at the bank's guest house including the charges for stay, breakfast and dinner, the car's use and the TA/DA claims of the officer. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the records were not available. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the records were available only from January 2008 and the appellant was seeking information for the year 1999. The appellant stated that when he wrote to the Chairman to provide the information, the ED was directed to provide the information but he did not comply. The appellant also stated that the information was being concealed by the bank. He claimed that the CVC's officer should not have been a guest of the bank against whom he was conducting the enquiry.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide to the appellant the information as available with the bank. +507,RTI applicant should attend the hearing before CIC to avoid the rejection of appeal,Delhi Development Authority,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission decided that no action was required at the level of the Commission and dismissed the appeal.,"RTI applicant should attend the hearing before CIC to avoid the rejection of appeal + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Development Authority seeking inspection of file relating to a particular plot. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not reply. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant has been submitting repeated RTI applications on subjects not related to him. The respondent stated that the appellant was seeking inspection of the file relating to a plot in the Housing Society of which he was not a member. The respondent further stated that they had written to the society seeking their consent for providing the information and that the society did not give their consent. The appellant did not attend the hearing and hence his viewpoint in the matter could not be ascertained.",The Commission decided that no action was required at the level of the Commission and dismissed the appeal. +508,Removal of unauthorized water motors along with the water lines,,whether it is legal to install unauthorized water motor along with the water meter that has been initially installed,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission closed the case with these directions.,"Removal of unauthorized water motors along with the water lines + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with Superintendent Engineer of Delhi Jal Board (DJB) wanted to know whether it is legal to install unauthorized water motor along with the water meter that has been initially installed. He also sought the rules in respect of such installation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information and informed that unauthorized water motor was not allowed to be installed along with water line. The PIO also enclosed the copy of relevant rule under section19(3)A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission: +Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.of the DJB Act. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) advised the appellant to approach other mechanisms for the redressal of his grievance. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that as the installation of water motors on water lines was illegal, the Commission may direct the DJB to remove all such motors. The respondent informed that the illegal water motor has been disconnected from the water line at the appellant’s residence and produced photographs as documentary evidence to prove it.","The Commission noted that the appellant’s grievance has been redressed and the purpose of filing the RTI application has been achieved. Holding that the request of the appellant is beyond the ambit of the RTI Act, the Commission recommended taking appropriate action to remove all illegal water motors connected to water lines in the said area in the interest of the public. The Commission closed the case with these directions." +509,Weightage given to interview for recruitment to different posts,Union Public Service Commission (UPSC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC ruled that if any such document is found, the PIO should provide a copy of that to the appellant and if no such document is found the PIO should inform the appellant suitably.","Weightage given to interview for recruitment to different posts + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) seeking to know the weightage given in the process of an interview for open recruitment to various posts under the Government/ Non-government Organizations. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded that the weightage was decided on a case to case basis. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he wanted the copy of any particular guideline or circular or instruction the UPSC or any other authority might have issued fixing any particular ceiling on the weightage to be given to interview in any recruitment process.","The Commission directed the PIO to verify the relevant records and find out if any such guidelines or circular had been issued either by the UPSC or by any other central government authority fixing a ceiling on the weightage to be given to marks in an interview following the written test in any open/direct recruitment process. The CIC ruled that if any such document is found, the PIO should provide a copy of that to the appellant and if no such document is found the PIO should inform the appellant suitably. + +Comments + +For various examinations conducted by different bodies, there are different marks allotted for the interview. For the similar posts, the percentage of marks reserved for interview varies drastically with no reasons to support such a varied practice." +510,PIO should provide a copy of relevant records rather than giving an explanation,North Eastern Railway,whether he and his junior had the authority to barricade the area,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission however held that this relief being sought by the appellant falls outside the ambit of the RTI Act.,"PIO should provide a copy of relevant records rather than giving an explanation + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Eastern Railway seeking information related to barricading of certain part of the Vinayakpur crossing. The applicant referred to a particular person and wanted to know whether he and his junior had the authority to barricade the area. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent explained that the person referred to in the RTI application is the Senior Section Engineer and is the overall in-charge of the said area. They further stated that he along with his junior is responsible for protecting the railway property and to demarcate land that belongs to the Railways. The concerned person had only discharged the responsibility which has been vested in him by barricading the area to protect the railway land.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant with the rule/ circular which vest the authority on the Senior Section Engineer to barricade and protect railway land. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the PIO to remove the barricade. The Commission however held that this relief being sought by the appellant falls outside the ambit of the RTI Act. +511,Ownership of revolver – Is such information exempt under RTI?,Delhi Police,action taken on his complaints against Jangid Welfare Society,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant.,"Ownership of revolver – Is such information exempt under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information regarding action taken on his complaints against Jangid Welfare Society. He also referred to a particular person and wanted to know whether he had a licensed revolver and if yes, the details thereof. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information but denied the information regarding the licensed revolver under sections8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;and  section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that the information sought consists of information given in confidence to the law enforcement authorities and consists of personal information which does not seem to have any larger public interest. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that on the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO had provided a copy of the enquiry report and informed the appellant that his RTI application had been transferred to Licensing Branch for providing the information directly to the appellant. The PIO, Licensing provided information to the appellant stating that person is not holding any arms license.",The Commission rejected the appeal observing that requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant. +512,Enquiry regarding death of a patient during treatment,Delhi Police,some queries about his wife who expired in Batra Hospital during treatment,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission remitted the matter back to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with the direction to provide complete information to the appellant including a report on the present status of the case.,"Enquiry regarding death of a patient during treatment + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information on some queries about his wife who expired in Batra Hospital during treatment. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the PIO can provide only that information which is available on record and that he had already done so. The FAA further stated that the appellant may have grievances but the forum to address such grievance is not the FAA under the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed to the Delhi Medical Council testimonial that report on viscera for contrast dye has not been furnished as per Post Mortem report. The appellant also submitted that in response to another RTI application, the DCP had informed him that in this case, the examination of ‘contrast dye’ is required. The appellant requested that since FSL, Ahmedabad has not given report on ‘contrast dye’, he wants to know from the respondent whether the viscera is again being sent for ‘contrast dye examination’, and if so to which FSL.",The Commission held that the FAA instead of providing information to the appellant has simply advised that the RTI Act was not the forum for redressal of grievances. The Commission remitted the matter back to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with the direction to provide complete information to the appellant including a report on the present status of the case. +513,DPC proceedings can be disclosed only in public interest,Railway Board,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Regarding the action been taken on appellant’s representation, the CIC directed the PIO to furnish this information to the appellant as available in the records.","DPC proceedings can be disclosed only in public interest + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Railway Board seeking copies of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings along with file notings in respect of empanelment of IRSEE officer for JAG promotion in different years. He also wanted copies of norms being followed for promotion of JAG officers and the status of his representation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that information about the DPC proceedings relates to third parties and there is no public interest in disclosing the same to the appellant. Regarding the action been taken on appellant’s representation, the CIC directed the PIO to furnish this information to the appellant as available in the records." +514,Information regarding alleged corruption in recruitment of Traffic Probationary Officers,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant a photocopy of the letter by which his complaint had been forwarded to the Visakhapatnam Port Trust and the copies of any other documents available in this regard.,"Information regarding alleged corruption in recruitment of Traffic Probationary Officers + +Background: +The appellant had filed a complaint with the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) alleging corruption in the recruitment of Traffic Probationary Officers by the Visakhapatnam Port Trust. Later, he filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose any information on the ground that the CBI had been included in the second schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. + +ProceedingDuring the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that he was entitled to obtain the information because it pertained to allegations of corruption. The respondent submitted that the CBI had not investigated into this case and had merely forwarded the complaint received from the appellant to the Visakhapatnam Port Trust for further necessary action and thus they had no information to disclose.","The Commission observed that against the allegation of alleged corruption in the recruitment by the Port Trust, the CBI had not taken up any investigation. The CBI had thought it fit only to forward the complaint to the Port Trust for further necessary action. The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant a photocopy of the letter by which his complaint had been forwarded to the Visakhapatnam Port Trust and the copies of any other documents available in this regard." +515,Information relating to tender notice for laptops,"IIT, Kharagpur",tender notice for laptops and related issues,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also held that seeking of manpower charges is not permissible under the RTI Act.,"Information relating to tender notice for laptops + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the IIT, Kharagpur seeking information relating to tender notice for laptops and related issues. The Public Information Officer (PIO) asked the appellant to deposit Rs. 5,500/- for the documents which also included Rs. 2000/- as manpower charges. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide information on payment of cost. The PIO asked appellant to deposit Rs. 3000/- for 1500 pages of documents.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to allow inspection of the relevant file to the appellant on a mutually convenient date and time and provide photo copies of the documents he desires free of charge. The Commission also held that seeking of manpower charges is not permissible under the RTI Act. + +CommentsIt has been explained repeatedly that the only fees a PIO can demand is that which is prescribed under the Fee rules. The PIO should not commit this folly of demanding any other fees. If the documents demanded are huge and voluminous, resort should be taken to section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the Act." +516,Status of investigation regarding abduction was sought under RTI,Delhi Police,investigation conducted and the status of charge sheet/ court case in a case registered in connection with the abduction of his younger brother,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the details of investigation carried out so far to the appellant and also to contact the appellant as per the assurance given during the hearing.,"Status of investigation regarding abduction was sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information about investigation conducted and the status of charge sheet/ court case in a case registered in connection with the abduction of his younger brother. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the case is under investigation. + +ProceedingDuring the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the investigation in the case is still in progress and there has been no clue about the whereabouts of the victim. The appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the progress of investigation as the matter is now 2 ½ years old. He also stated that he was never been contacted by the Police during the course of the investigation. The respondent stated that they would contact the appellant and examine the points of suspicion raised by the appellant during the course of investigation.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide the details of investigation carried out so far to the appellant and also to contact the appellant as per the assurance given during the hearing. +517,Using RTI to get the details regarding the Yoga Shivir of Baba Ramdev,Delhi Police,"the incident that happened during the Yoga Shivir of Baba Ramdev on June 4/5, 2011",['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the total number of Police personnel Company-wise unit/district-wise to the appellant.,"Using RTI to get the details regarding the Yoga Shivir of Baba Ramdev + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information regarding the incident that happened during the Yoga Shivir of Baba Ramdev on June 4/5, 2011. He wanted to know the name and designation of the officer who gave orders for dispersal of the crowd; when this order was given and which officers were present at the time of incident; the number of rounds of teargas shells fired and water canon used; the number of persons injured their names and information about their treatment and whether a team of doctors, ambulance were stationed at the venue at the time of the incident. He also wanted to know the names of Police Officers involved in the incident and copies of correspondence made regarding the incident and details of detention of Baba Ramdev. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that a case has been registered in this regard and investigation is pending. The PIO held the matter was sub-judice before the Honourable Supreme Court of India and disclosure of information at this stage would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. + +ProceedingDuring the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the investigation into the case FIR has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed in the concerned Court. The Supreme Court had also passed final order in the case and information can now be disclosed. Regarding the names of Police personnel present on duty along with ranks, the respondent submitted that a number of Companies from CRPF/ RAF were present at the time of incident altogether 15,000 Police personnel were present on the spot and providing names and ranks of Police personnel present at the spot would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the total number of Police personnel Company-wise unit/district-wise to the appellant. +518,Can CIC expedite the process of amendment in passport?,Ministry of External Affairs (MEA),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal and advised the appellant to follow the guidelines already conveyed to her in order to get a correct passport issued.,"Can CIC expedite the process of amendment in passport? + +Background: +The appellant claimed that in the passport issued to her there were some wrong entries and that she had applied to the authorities for making relevant amendments in her passport. She later filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) seeking to know about the progress of the action taken on her application. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed her that she had already been advised to deposit the passport application form duly filled in along with Rs. 1000/- as application fee so that action could be taken for issuing a correct passport.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO has informed the appellant about what she must do so that further action could be taken in the matter and a correct passport could be issued. The CIC also held that the issue of passport to a citizen or making amendments in the passport is entirely in the domain of the competent authority and that the Commission could not expedite the process through RTI. The citizen will have to complete the formalities as prescribed before a passport can be issued or amendments could be made in the existing passport. The CIC rejected the appeal and advised the appellant to follow the guidelines already conveyed to her in order to get a correct passport issued. +519,Is a PIO supposed to provide the same information to the RTI applicant again and again?,Union Public Service Commission (UPSC),action taken on her representation and the reply given by the UPSC to the Registrar General India (RGI) in response to the clarification sought by RGI in a particular matter,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide the photocopies of the file noting from the relevant file in which her representation had been processed and the copy of the communication which the UPSC had sent to the RGI in response to the clarification sought by them.,"Is a PIO supposed to provide the same information to the RTI applicant again and again? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) seeking information regarding action taken on her representation and the reply given by the UPSC to the Registrar General India (RGI) in response to the clarification sought by RGI in a particular matter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the details about the action taken on the representation have already been provided to the appellant in the past in response to another RTI application. Regarding the clarification sought by the RGI, the PIO claimed that they have not received any such communication from the RGI. + +ProceedingDuring the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that the exact information was never provided to her. The respondent stated that the subject matter of the representation was similar to the matter already considered earlier and some information had been provided in response to a previous RTI request.","The Commission held that the appellant had made a representation with the UPSC and she has a right to know the manner in which the representation was disposed of which could be found out only from the file noting in the relevant file. Regarding the clarification sought by the RGI, the CIC obsered that the response of the UPSC can be found out from the communication which it might have sent to the RGI. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the photocopies of the file noting from the relevant file in which her representation had been processed and the copy of the communication which the UPSC had sent to the RGI in response to the clarification sought by them." +520,Is Afro-Asian Rural Development Organization a public authority under RTI?,Ministry of Rural Development (MRD),action taken on the petitions filed by him,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission noted that the matter between the appellant and AARDO has been settled and no action is called for on the part of the Commission.,"Is Afro-Asian Rural Development Organization a public authority under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant had filed petitions filed before the Secretary Rural Development and the Ministry of Rural Development regarding termination of his service from Afro-Asian Rural Development Organization (AARDO) where he was employed. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Rural Development (MRD) seeking information regarding action taken on the petitions filed by him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information sought by him pertained to administrative matter of AARDO which is not a Public Authority within the meaning of section2(h)“public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted +(a) by or under the Constitution; +(b) by any other law made by Parliament; +(c) by any other law made by State Legislature; +(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- +(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; +(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;of the RTI Act. ProceedingDuring the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that AARDO is an autonomous inter-governmental organization having 29 Member countries from Africa and South Asia. India was President of AARDO represented by the Minister (RD) for triennium 2009-2011. All member countries contribute membership annual subscription for running of the Organization. The respondent further explained that the matter has been heard by Secretary (RD) in his capacity as President of the Executive Committee of AARDO and after a final hearing a compromise has been arrived and the matter has been settled between both the parties.",The Commission noted that the matter between the appellant and AARDO has been settled and no action is called for on the part of the Commission. +521,Rules under which test is being conducted for an employee for promotion,,the Rule under which an employee who has passed suitability test for Senior Clerk is called for the test again after being transferred on her own request,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission however directed the PIO to send a reminder to the Headquarters and obtain the clarification from them in the appellant’s case and furnish the said clarification to the appellant.,"Rules under which test is being conducted for an employee for promotion + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Railway DRM office and wanted to know the Rule under which an employee who has passed suitability test for Senior Clerk is called for the test again after being transferred on her own request. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied to the applicant that her queries do not qualify to be information as defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondents informed that they have provided the relevant rule to the appellant under which she is required to appear in the exam once again after being transferred on her request. The respondents explained that in Nagpur Division, the appellant had to join at the same level at which she was working in the earlier Division. In order to be promoted as senior clerk in Nagpur Division, she has to appear for the suitability test once again. They also mentioned that they have sought clarification from their Headquarters office in this regard.",The Commission noted that the appellant had some grievance against the public authority which is purely administrative in nature and as such the same could not be settled under the RTI Act. The Commission however directed the PIO to send a reminder to the Headquarters and obtain the clarification from them in the appellant’s case and furnish the said clarification to the appellant. +522,Should information about relaxation for visually challenged be given in bold prints?,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show why he should not be penalized for not responding to the appellant in time.","Should information about relaxation for visually challenged be given in bold prints? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking to know why he was not selected in the Combined Graduate Level Examination even though he had secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in the visually handicapped category for the post of Tax Assistant. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond the application and the appellant filed a complaint directly with the Central Information Commission (CIC). + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent pointed out that the appellant failed to qualify in the data entry skills test which was a mandatory requirement. He explained that although there was a relaxation available for visually challenged persons from this test, the appellant did not produce any such claim in the Allahabad office and therefore, no such relaxation could be given to him. The appellant submitted that being visually challenged, he had not noticed the fine print and submitted his claim papers in the Allahabad office of the SSC.","The Commission observed that the desired information should have been given without any delay and directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the desired information. The CIC also directed him to place the facts of this case before the competent authority in the SSC so that he can take a view if the appellant on the basis of his higher marks and his entitlement to relaxation from the data entry skills test should be reconsidered and declared successful. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show why he should not be penalized for not responding to the appellant in time." +523,RTI application seeking copy of stenographic skill test including sample copy,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to send a sample copy of that particular document to the appellant and if it is not available, he should inform the appellant accordingly.","RTI application seeking copy of stenographic skill test including sample copy + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking information concerning the stenographic skill test including the sample copy of the skill test. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the desired information except the sample copy.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that if there is any such sample copy available with the public authority there is no reason why it should not be disclosed. The CIC disagreed with the denial of information as a policy by the SSC and observed that denial could be only under the exemption provisions provided in the RTI Act which can be cited for not disclosing any information. The Commission directed the PIO to send a sample copy of that particular document to the appellant and if it is not available, he should inform the appellant accordingly." +524,"Under RTI, can the contents of a complaint filed with CVC be disclosed?",,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the photocopies of the relevant file noting dealing with the complaint.,"Under RTI, can the contents of a complaint filed with CVC be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in respect of a complaint (against the appellant) which the CVC had forwarded for investigation to the Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the Airports Authority of India (AAI). The appellant wanted to inspect the file in which the complaint had been dealt with and a copy of the complaint. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that the CVC held such complaints in a fiduciary capacity and considered the disclosure of such complaints as a breach of trust with the Complainant. He invoked the provisions of sections8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act in support of his decision.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that unless the complainant specifically demands confidentiality, it could not be presumed that every complaint is received in confidence. The CIC noted that the complaint had triggered action against the appellant affecting his career and it would be very unfair not to allow him access to this complaint. The CIC directed the PIO to forward the copy of the complaint to the appellant. In case the complainant had desired his complaint to be kept confidential, then the PIO may adopt the procedure laid down in section 11 of the RTI Act before deciding whether to disclose the complaint or not. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the photocopies of the relevant file noting dealing with the complaint." +525,CIC- records relating to ongoing RTI application should be preserved,,,['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to convey this to the appropriate authorities so that the evaluated answer sheets are kept duly preserved.,"CIC- records relating to ongoing RTI application should be preserved + +Background: +The appellant had appeared in the Civil Services Main examination, 2010 and was not satisfied with the marks awarded to him in the Geography paper II. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to get the copy of the evaluated answer sheet of this particular paper. The Public Information Officer (PIO) declined to provide it under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent pointed out that the Supreme Court of India had stayed the orders passed by the Kerala High Court in which it held that the UPSC must disclose the evaluated answer sheets to the candidates. The UPSC is thus no longer required to disclose the evaluated answer sheets as long as the stay continues.","The Commission held that in view of the recent stay granted by the Supreme Court, it would be prudent to await the final outcome of that case. The CIC directed the UPSC to retain the physical records relating to this case until the matter is finally settled by the Supreme Court. The Commission directed the PIO to convey this to the appropriate authorities so that the evaluated answer sheets are kept duly preserved." +526,Action taken against the RPF staff for misbehavior with substitute labourers,Railway Board,the action taken on his complaint and the name of the officer who is expected to take action against his complaint,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission directed the Senior DPO to provide a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant after severing the information under section10(1)Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.of the RTI Act if it is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1).","Action taken against the RPF staff for misbehavior with substitute labourers + +Background: +The appellant had registered a complaint related to misbehavior of the RPF staff with the substitute labourers in Sonpur Division East Central Railway. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Railway Board seeking information on the action taken on his complaint and the name of the officer who is expected to take action against his complaint. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI Application to the PIO East Central Railway Hajipur. The application was further transferred to the PIO, Personnel Officer Sonpur for taking appropriate action. Meanwhile the applicant filed his first appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the appellant that a reply has already been sent in this regard by the PIO. He enclosed the copy of this letter for the perusal of the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant complained about the delay that has occurred in enquiring into his allegations. The respondent stated that information as available at that time was provided to the appellant by the PIO under his covering letter. Explaining reasons for the delay in enquiring into the appellant’s complaint, the PIO stated that the Investigating Officer who was appointed at first had left half way without completing the enquiry and that they had then appointed another investigating officer. The current investigating officer submitted that he had completed the enquiry and as per the enquiry report the allegations leveled by the appellant against the RPF could not be substantiated.","The Commission directed the Senior DPO to provide a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant after severing the information under section10(1)Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.of the RTI Act if it is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)." +527,Does the public authority holds ACRs of its employees in fiduciary capacity?,Punjab National Bank requesting,his own self so the exemption section quoted by the public authority is not relevant,['8(1)(e)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the information sought in the RTI application.,"Does the public authority holds ACRs of its employees in fiduciary capacity? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab National Bank requesting for a copy of his annual entry assessed and reviewed by the competent authorities. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he is seeking information about his own self so the exemption section quoted by the public authority is not relevant. The appellant also said that the assessing officer had given an excellent entry of over 89% marks but the reviewing authority had downgraded him by two notches to 69%. The respondent explained that this information was protected under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act and hence it was denied to the appellant on the grounds of fiduciary information.","The Commission observed that the appellant is seeking performance related information about his own self where section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;will not apply. The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the information sought in the RTI application." +528,Are documents relating to lease and renewal of license liable to be disclosed under RTI?,Delhi Police,several queries pertaining to Amusement Park cum Swimming Pool,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The commission rejected the appeal observing that the PIO has provided the documents within reasonable period and the question of refund of extra fee does not arise.,"Are documents relating to lease and renewal of license liable to be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information on several queries pertaining to Amusement Park cum Swimming Pool. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information relating to lease and renewal of license under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act stating that this is personal and trade information. For rest of the information the PIO asked the appellant to deposit a fee of Rs. 42/- for information consisting of 21 pages. The appellant remitted Rs. 50/- towards the fee for supply of 21 pages of information. The PIO vide provided requisite copies of the documents to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the PIO’s decision and noted that the PIO took 29 days to send the reply of RTI application and another 13 days for providing the copies of documents after receipt of the fee, which is correct as per the provisions of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO took 42 days to supply the information; therefore, the fee deposited should be refunded.","The Commission observed that the information relating to lease and renewal of license attracts the provisions of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act and the appellant has not established any larger public interest for the disclosure of these documents. The commission rejected the appeal observing that the PIO has provided the documents within reasonable period and the question of refund of extra fee does not arise. + +Comment + +The PIO is obliged to respond to the RTI application within 30 days of receipt of the application. However the intervening period between the intimation of deposition of further fee and actual deposition of further fee is excluded from the time frame of 30 days." +529,Seeking information regarding hypothetical situations under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that it is beyond the scope of the duty cast on the PIO.,"Seeking information regarding hypothetical situations under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in which he described an imaginary case and had requested the PIO to inform him if it was necessary to consult the CVC for the second stage advice. The Public Information Officer (PIO) explained that the Group ‘A’ Officers of the Central Government came under the jurisdiction of the CVC and its first and second stage advice was required. He also stated that in composite cases involving both Groups ‘A’ officers of the Central Government and others and those not coming under CVC’s jurisdiction were also referred to the Commission for its advice.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that what the appellant has sought did not fall within the meaning of information as defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that it is beyond the scope of the duty cast on the PIO." +530,Reason for delay in announcing the award under performance linked cash incentive scheme,Canara Bank,eligibility conditions for getting the cash award under performance linked cash incentive scheme; particulars of amendments and other related issues in the matter,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission held that the respondent has already taken action under the RTI Act, and nothing further needs to be done on this RTI application.","Reason for delay in announcing the award under performance linked cash incentive scheme + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Canara Bank seeking information pertaining to eligibility conditions for getting the cash award under performance linked cash incentive scheme; particulars of amendments and other related issues in the matter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some of the information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the deferral of the results of the performance linked cash incentive scheme was inappropriate. The respondent stated that as the appellant had taken VRS, he become ineligible for the scheme which may have prompted this RTI application. The respondent added that that it was a routine delay and nothing more than that and the scheme incidentally also did not earmark any cut-off date.","The Commission held that the respondent has already taken action under the RTI Act, and nothing further needs to be done on this RTI application." +531,No inspection note generated by Delhi HC Judges after inspection of subordinate courts,High Court of Delhi,the inspection of the Subordinate Courts done by the Judges of the Delhi High Court,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission observed that the High Court did not maintain any record by way of inspection reports for the inspections made by its Judges.,"No inspection note generated by Delhi HC Judges after inspection of subordinate courts + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the High Court of Delhi seeking information regarding the inspection of the Subordinate Courts done by the Judges of the Delhi High Court. The Public Information Officer (PIO) observed that such details were not maintained in the High Court. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent reiterated that there were no records available from which the PIO could have provided any information to the appellant about the inspections conducted by the Judges of the High Court. They explained that no structured reports were generated after such inspections or any other record created as expected by the appellant.","The Commission observed that the High Court did not maintain any record by way of inspection reports for the inspections made by its Judges. In the absence of any such reports it is not possible to provide any plausible information to the appellant. + +Comments + +In all organisations, an inspection note is issued by the senior functionary after visit to the lower formation. Are there any different rules for the judiciary?" +532,Report concerning a visit to affiliated schools by CBSE officials was sought using RTI,Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide copies of the enquiry reports sought by the appellant and the action taken report.,"Report concerning a visit to affiliated schools by CBSE officials was sought using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) seeking copies of the reports submitted by the Affiliation Section of CBSE after their visits to Central Academy and Lawerence & Mayo Public School Ajmer. He also wanted the details of action taken on the report. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a response in respect of Mayo Public School. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed appellant that disciplinary action is being initiated against the Joint Secretary and as the reports of the Committee were vital documents necessary for smooth conduct of enquiry copies were not provided to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that copies of the reports sought by the appellant have already been provided to him in pursuance of an earlier RTI application filed by him. The PIO further submitted that disciplinary proceedings against that Joint Secretary have since been concluded and a warning has been issued to him vide CBSE memo. The appellant submitted that the reports sought by him in his earlier RTI application have not been provided. He referred to a letter written by joint secretary to Controller of Examinations having a reference to a team from Affiliation Section having visited Central Academy Ajmer and Lawrence & Mayo Public School.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide copies of the enquiry reports sought by the appellant and the action taken report. +533,CIC recommends completing the pending enquiry within three months,East Central Railway,"as to what action has been taken by the Public authority on the fake certificate submitted by him, based on which he was appointed",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also recommended that the enquiry which is going on for years should be completed within three months of receipt of this order and that the appellant be informed about the outcome of the enquiry as also about the action taken based on the outcome of the DAR proceedings.,"CIC recommends completing the pending enquiry within three months + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the East Central Railway seeking to know why and how much payment was made to a particular Assistant Driver during his suspension period. He also wanted to know as to what action has been taken by the Public authority on the fake certificate submitted by him, based on which he was appointed. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the said person was only paid subsistence allowance during his suspension period as per extant rules. Regarding the action taken, the PIO stated that that the matter is still under investigation by the Vigilance branch. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant insisted for the copy of rules which allow such payment of subsistence allowance during suspension period and the exact amount paid to the suspended person. The appellant pointed that the Public Authority had taken many years to complete the investigation and doubted the authenticity of information provided to him by the PIO.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide the rules affirming the position that only subsistence allowance was paid during the suspension period and also to retrieve the payment vouchers from the accounts section and provide copies of the same to the appellant. To clarify the doubts of the appellant regarding the authenticity of information, the Commission directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant records dealing with payments made to the said person during the suspension period. The Commission also recommended that the enquiry which is going on for years should be completed within three months of receipt of this order and that the appellant be informed about the outcome of the enquiry as also about the action taken based on the outcome of the DAR proceedings." +534,Commissioner (IT) directed to probe into contradictory submissions made by the two PIOs,Income Tax Department,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the CIT to probe into these contradictions and submit a report to the Commission.,"Commissioner (IT) directed to probe into contradictory submissions made by the two PIOs + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax Department seeking copies of two letters issued Joint Commissioner Income Tax (JCIT) to Commissioner Income Tax (CIT). The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that investigation against him was under way so disclosure of information at this juncture would impact the investigation and the same is exempt for disclosure under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that penalty proceedings against him had been set aside by the Central Board of Direct Tax (CBDT) and matter has been referred back to the CIT for reconsideration. The PIO submitted that letter dated 4.3.09 has been located and its contents are not related to the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The other letter dated 16.3.09 could not be traced.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of letter to the appellant. The CIC also noted that the earlier PIO had informed the appellant that his request for copies of the two letters sought under the RTI Act, cannot be provided as an investigation against the appellant was underway. Later, the current PIO stated that the letter dated 4.3.09 is untraceable. The Commission held that there are contradictions between the responses of the two PIOs and a letter which was earlier available is now reported to be untraceable raises suspicion. The Commission directed the CIT to probe into these contradictions and submit a report to the Commission." +535,Information regarding prosecution sanction sought from CVC in cases of corruption,Central Vigilance Commission (CVC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the copies of any report or statement prepared from time to time containing any information regarding the cases in which prosecution sanction had been sought by any agency from the Central Government Ministries/Departments.,"Information regarding prosecution sanction sought from CVC in cases of corruption + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) seeking variety of information regarding the prosecution sanction sought in cases of corruption against government officers, staff, public servants and politicians during the period from January 2001 to December 2011. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that there was no readily available database based on which the desired information could be provided and that it would disproportionately divert their resources if this were to be compiled. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that both the PIO was wrong in using the provisions of section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the RTI Act and denying the information. He insisted that the information could have been provided in whatever form it was available. The respondent submitted that the CVC did not seek any prosecution sanction and had only a monitoring role while the actual prosecution sanction was sought by prosecuting authorities like the CBI and others. Therefore, the CVC did not have any such information readily available with it. He further submitted that searching out the details sought by the appellant from innumerable files in the CVC for a period of nearly 11 years would be an extremely time consuming task. The Commission observed that the CVC itself did not seek any prosecution sanction and it could not have the desired information in such details as sought by the appellant. The appellant agreed that he would be satisfied with whatever information was available in the CVC on his queries.",The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the copies of any report or statement prepared from time to time containing any information regarding the cases in which prosecution sanction had been sought by any agency from the Central Government Ministries/Departments. +536,Can the PIO of a Court offer legal assistance to the appellant under RTI?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the PIO could not provide any other information.,"Can the PIO of a Court offer legal assistance to the appellant under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant was convicted in a criminal case and had approached the Supreme Court (SC) against the order of the High Court (HC) and the lower courts. The Supreme Court had dismissed his SLP Review and Curative petitions. He later filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the SC seeking assistance of the PIO for bringing up the matter again through a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court claiming that he was wrongfully convicted. The Public Information Officer (PIO) observed that she could not provide any opinion on such matters and that the request would not be covered under the definition of information given in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the PIO’s order. However, he directed to forward a copy of his order to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee so that they could consider if any legal assistance can be provided in the case. The Committee then informed the appellant that they could not provide any further assistance in the matter since both his Review and Curative petitions had been already dismissed. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he was a prisoner and considered himself to be innocent. So, he wanted assistance in the matter and desired that his case should be again heard by the Supreme Court. The respondent pointed out that under the RTI Act, the PIO could not offer any assistance by way of giving an opinion or advice.",The Commission observed that the appellant can either approach a lawyer or go back to the respective Legal Services Committee for seeking appropriate legal assistance to take up the matter again before any court including the Supreme Court. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the PIO could not provide any other information. +537,Can valuation report of the project be disclosed under RTI?,Punjab National Bank,the amount granted and released to a particular industrial unit including valuation report of the project and loan appraisal report etc,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the respondent had responded in accordance with the RTI Act and that no further action is required in the matter.,"Can valuation report of the project be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab National Bank seeking information about the amount granted and released to a particular industrial unit including valuation report of the project and loan appraisal report etc.. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under sections8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act and also citing section 13 of the Banking Companies Act 1970.",Both the appellant and the respondent did not participate in the hearing. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the respondent had responded in accordance with the RTI Act and that no further action is required in the matter. +538,Application seeking copy of office order directing constitution of a Committee,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,25000.0,,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show-cause notice to the deemed PIO to show-cause why a penalty of Rs.","Application seeking copy of office order directing constitution of a Committee + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Northern Coalfields Ltd. seeking a copy of the Office order vide which a Committee was constituted to examine the employment cases of land oustees and some other related information.  The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that no document related to the proposal submitted before issuance of Office Order duly approved by the competent authority is available in the MP & Recruitment Section.","The Commission observed that it was inconceivable how the deemed PIO can say that copy of the Office Order or copy of the proposal and approval of the competent authority to the proposal is not available with him. The Commission directed the General Manager (MP&R) NCL to provide requisite information to the appellant. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show-cause notice to the deemed PIO to show-cause why a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed upon him for the delay of more than 100 days in replying to the appellant." +539,Asking for a copy of nine year old enquiry report under RTI,Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) requesting,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also advised the appellant to forward to the PIO whatever additional information he may have about his own complaint to the CVC and about this particular affidavit so that the PIO is in a better position to trace the relevant records.,"Asking for a copy of nine year old enquiry report under RTI + +Background: +The appellant referred to some affidavit filed by the then Deputy Secretary in the CVC before the Guwahati High Court and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) requesting for a copy of the enquiry report based on his complaint as indicated in the affidavit. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that it was not possible to find out any such information based only on the details given by the appellant and that he should provide some further details to enable him to trace the desired records.","The Commission observed that the details given by the appellant were scanty and the matter was more than nine years old. The CIC held that in order to locate the case file, the CVC office would require some reference number along with the date of either the complaint which the appellant claims to have filed or any communication issued by the CVC in this regard. The CIC directed the PIO to verify the records and try to find out the original records concerning this particular affidavit and provide the same to the appellant, if available. The Commission also advised the appellant to forward to the PIO whatever additional information he may have about his own complaint to the CVC and about this particular affidavit so that the PIO is in a better position to trace the relevant records." +540,Can a PIO file an appeal against the order of FAA with the CIC?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to apprise the RTI applicant about the Central Excise Procedure Manual pertaining to Licenses under Gold Control Act.,"Can a PIO file an appeal against the order of FAA with the CIC? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax seeking copies of the Gold Dealers License of a particular license number as on March 31 in the years 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that his Office does not have Gold Dealers License with that particular license number however, renewal entries of that License were provided to the applicant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that from the submissions made by the PIO, it is not clear as to whether the records pertaining to the information sought has been legally destroyed or not or whether they have made any diligent search to trace the records pertaining to the information sought. The FAA directed the PIO to provide the information sought by the appellant. The PIO filed the second appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) against the order of the FAA. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO (appellant) submitted that the documents sought by the RTI applicant pertained to an Act which was repealed in 1990 and the documents sought were 48 years old. The PIO also informed the CIC that as per Central Excise Office Procedure Manual, records pertaining to Licenses under Gold Control Act are to be preserved only up to 3 years from expiry of validity of the licenses. In the instant case, the license referred to was last renewed in the year 1980 and would have been destroyed after 1983. However, sincere efforts were made to trace the records sought by the applicant and after a thorough search, a reference to these licenses was found in Kundapur Range Office wherein some renewal entries of it were made. The copies of the same were provided to the RTI applicant. The respondent representing the FAA stated that the PIO has not mentioned about the Central Excise Procedure Manual pertaining to Licenses under Gold Control Act, in his reply submitted before the FAA.",The Commission observed that the information sought by the applicant is about 48 years old and as per procedure of the Central Excise Procedure Manual the records sought for were supposed to be weeded out. The Commission directed the PIO to apprise the RTI applicant about the Central Excise Procedure Manual pertaining to Licenses under Gold Control Act. +541,Addressing the issue of rejection on grounds of medical fitness invoking RTI,Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide an attested copy of the report to the appellant.,"Addressing the issue of rejection on grounds of medical fitness invoking RTI + +Background: +The appellant claimed that he has been declared medically unfit for the post of driver and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) seeking the copy of the report declaring him unfit. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the medical report. He also informed that a decision has been taken by the competent authority to get those candidates who have been declared medically unfit by the DTC Medical Board to submit their requests for reconsideration along with fitness certificates issued by any Government Hospital and that the an independent Medical Board will reexamine such cases. He further stated that efforts were being made to constitute the independent Medical Board and the appellant’s case will also be reexamined when the independent Medical Board is constituted. The appellant filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) enclosing a report issued by a Doctor of the Safdarjung Hospital stating that he (appellant) is medically fit and can manage gears in big vehicles. He sought to know when the independent Medical Board will be constituted. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the independent Medical Board that was constituted as per order of the Competent Authority had examined the appellant’s case and that this Board too had declared the appellant to be medically unfit in their report.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide an attested copy of the report to the appellant. +542,Public authority can provide only the information it is supposed to maintain in its official course,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also held that the income tax return is third party information and the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity or interest and hence cannot be disclosed.,"Public authority can provide only the information it is supposed to maintain in its official course + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Education in which he stated that his wife had filed a fabricated complaint at Police Station. He claimed that in the complaint, she had submitted to the police a list of items which he has apparently received as dowry from her parents at the time of their marriage. In this context, he sought information some information in relation to his mother in law (working as a Primary school teacher) such as details of moveable/ immoveable assets submitted by her from the year 2000 onwards till date; intimation/ declaration in respect of expenditure incurred by her on her daughter’s marriage; details of the gifts and articles from relatives and friends received on her  daughter’s marriage and the income tax returns indicating the net income for the financial years 2000-01 to 2011-12 along with details of income from other sources as declared by her. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the personal details of concerned official were not available. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent informed the Commission that as per the reply received from the Principal of the school, the information about the appellant’s mother in law is not available since the school is not expected to maintain such information. Regarding the income tax returns, it was submitted that the same could not be furnished as per the Honourable Supreme Court order in SLP (Civil) No.27734 of 2012 dt.3.10.12 in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC and others since it is third party information. + +(For the Supreme Court judgment, please seehttp://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt/SCDecision.pdf)",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to supply a copy of the letter received from the Principal of the School to the appellant. The Commission also held that the income tax return is third party information and the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity or interest and hence cannot be disclosed. +543,Can question paper and answer key be disclosed before the examination process is over?,,"the said test such as, the outcome of the recruitment test; the question paper and the answer key; the details of the marks awarded to him and to some others",[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"Observing that the examination process has been completed, the CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the desired information including the copies of various records and documents such as the question paper and answer key and the marks awarded to him in the said test.","Can question paper and answer key be disclosed before the examination process is over? + +Background: +The appellant had appeared in the recruitment of the drug inspectors test conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). He later filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the UPSC seeking information relating to the said test such as, the outcome of the recruitment test; the question paper and the answer key; the details of the marks awarded to him and to some others. The Public Information Officer (PIO) declined the information on the ground that the examination process was not yet over. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO should have at least provided part information like the question and the answer key because it was not dependent on the final outcome of the examination process. The respondent submitted that the examination process continued all through and completed only this year and that the information could not have been disclosed then.","The Commission observed that some of the information namely the question paper and the answer key could have been provided right away without affecting the examination process in any manner. The CIC also stated that the remaining information could not have been provided since the final results of the recruitment process were not published. Observing that the examination process has been completed, the CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the desired information including the copies of various records and documents such as the question paper and answer key and the marks awarded to him in the said test." +544,Can copy of charge sheet issued to third party be disclosed under RTI?,,,"['8(1)(h)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the respondent have no disclosure obligation under the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act, 2005.","Can copy of charge sheet issued to third party be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant is the accused in Special Case at the Special Court CBI, Indore. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise seeking copy of Departmental Charge Sheet issued to the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise and the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise in the case of M/s. Maikaal Fibres Ltd. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that the information is related to disciplinary proceedings which have not yet attained finality. Providing information at this stage would impede the process of investigation in the matter as it would reveal the identity of source of information and the views expressed by the investigators. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant referred to a decision of High Court of Delhi and requested that information may be provided to him. The appellant further pleaded that justice cannot be granted to him in the criminal matter till the said facts are presented before the Court which will go on to assist the Court in arriving at the correct decision. The copies of the charge sheet of the concerned officers are vital to the case and so in the interest of fair play and justice to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the information sought for by the appellant relates to charge sheets issued to other officers (third party) and the departmental proceedings are underway against the said two officers. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the respondent have no disclosure obligation under the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act, 2005." +545,Is a PIO obliged to provide hard copy of information already available on website?,Supreme Court of India in which he wanted to know the mode of depositing the fees,the mode of depositing the fees for filing an appeal against the order of the National Commission for Consumer Grievance Redressal,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The decision of various benches of CIC has varied on this count.,"Is a PIO obliged to provide hard copy of information already available on website? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Supreme Court of India in which he wanted to know the mode of depositing the fees for filing an appeal against the order of the National Commission for Consumer Grievance Redressal. The Public Information Officer (PIO) referred him to the Supreme Court Handbook containing all such rules which was also available on its website. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he was not aware of the mode and method of depositing such fees for preferring an appeal before the Supreme Court and wanted the PIO to provide him with the relevant information.","The Commission observed that the sought information might be available in the Supreme Court Handbook and on its website but there is no reason why the PIO could not provide a hard copy of the relevant rule. The CIC directed the PIO to forward to the appellant the a copy of the relevant rule showing the amount of fees and the mode by which such payment could be made for preferring an appeal against the order of the National Commission for Consumer Grievance Redressal. + +Comments + +In cases where the information has already been made public by putting on the web, it has often been claimed by the PIO that the information is no longer ‘held’ by them and as such, there is no obligation to provide a copy under the RTI Act. The decision of various benches of CIC has varied on this count. In our opinion, while referring the specific web page link to the applicant, the PIO should also ask the applicant if he still needs the copies of the documents in hard form, the charges as per the rules may be deposited. This would help those citizens who do not access to internet while others would find it more economical to take printouts from web rather than paying Rs. 2 per copy and waiting for getting the information." +546,Can information pertaining to one’s own suspension be disclosed under RTI?,,his suspension,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Regarding the rest of the information sought by the appellant, the CIC upheld the decision of the FAA.","Can information pertaining to one’s own suspension be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Custom Surat-II seeking information pertaining to his suspension. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to the application. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that the appellant was posted in this Commissionerate and was suspended for a while. Upon revocation of suspension, the appellant was transferred to Surat-II Commissionerate without regularization of his suspension period so the appellant should file the first appeal before FAA, Surat-I Commissionerate. The Central Information Commission (CIC) remitted back the matter to the FAA, Surat-1 Commissionerate with the direction to pass speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and after taking into consideration the points raised by him in his second-appeal.  The FAA after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant rejected the appeal under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of RTI Act 2005 stating that it may affect the investigation proceedings pending in the case. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the information was denied as it is exempt from disclosure as per section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of RTI Act 2005. The further submitted that a case of fraudulent availment of rebate of Central Excise duty was detected and investigation was being carried out against 83 departmental officers. Subsequently the case was also investigated by the C.B.I. and no reply from DGV (Vigilance) was received and therefore no information could be imparted as the same might have resulted into adversely affecting the investigation.","The Commission held that the appellant is entitled to know the grounds of his suspension and directed the PIO to provide grounds of suspension to the appellant. Regarding the rest of the information sought by the appellant, the CIC upheld the decision of the FAA." +547,Show cause issued to the PIO for not complying with the orders of FAA,New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"The Commission also noted that the PIO has not supplied all the documents identified by the appellant and therefore issued a show cause notice to the PIO why penalty should not be imposed upon him under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act.","Show cause issued to the PIO for not complying with the orders of FAA + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) seeking certified copy of the latest license deed in respect of two shops, copy of the license deed at the time of allotment and copy of the affidavit submitted by the occupiers of those shops. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the information sought is too voluminous and will take up a large time and manpower resources. However for some information, he directed the PIO to allow the applicant to inspect one file per day and supply photocopies of documents up to one hundred pages per week. With regard to the rest of the queries, the FAA directed the PIO to transfer the RTI application to the Personnel Department. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he has not received any information from the Personnel Department nor is he aware of whether the RTI application has been transferred to them in compliance with the order of FAA. He added that in compliance with the order of the FAA he had inspected all the files and had identified the documents required by him but he has been given copies of only some of the documents till date.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the remaining copies of documents as identified by the appellant during inspection. Noting that the PIO has neither responded to the RTI application nor has transferred it to the Personnel Department, the Commission directed the PIO to transfer the RTI application to the Personnel Department so that information could be provided by him directly to the appellant. The Commission also noted that the PIO has not supplied all the documents identified by the appellant and therefore issued a show cause notice to the PIO why penalty should not be imposed upon him under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act." +548,Take action against the official responsible for misplacing the file: CIC direction,Department of Revenue,why her objection was not taken into consideration before issuing NOC and also the action taken by the officials on her letter,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed that the appellant should be kept informed about the outcome of the enquiry and the action taken based on the outcome.,"Take action against the official responsible for misplacing the file: CIC direction + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue seeking information with regard to the action taken on her letter wherein she had raised objections in respect of the sale of a particular property. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a response to the application. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant explained that the said property is in the name of her son as per the will left by her deceased husband and when the son wanted to sell the property she had sent a letter to the Department objecting to the sale of property. The appellant added that despite her objection the department had gone ahead and had issued an NOC to her son for selling the property. The applicant wanted to know why her objection was not taken into consideration before issuing NOC and also the action taken by the officials on her letter. The respondent submitted that this particular letter is not traceable in the records and hence they are unable to explain as to why NOC was issued despite the objection letter. The appellant handed over a copy of the letter to the respondent indicating that the letter has been diarized in the office of the Public Authority and also contains the signature of the receiver.","The Commission directed the PIO to check the entry records in the office to ascertain that the diary no. relates to the appellant’s letter and once is it is established that the letter has been received in the office to locate the file and provide the copy of the complete file in which the letter has been processed to the appellant. The CIC further directed that if the diary number matches with the letter but the concerned file remains untraceable, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) should enquire into the matter of the missing file, fix the responsibility and take appropriate action against the official found guilty of misplacing the file. The Commission also directed that the appellant should be kept informed about the outcome of the enquiry and the action taken based on the outcome." +549,Can rates and commercial terms of private company be disclosed under RTI?,Public Works Department (PWD),,['8(1)(d)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The Commission observed that rates can be disclosed as they did not attract the provisions of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act and directed the PIO to provide the rates in the contract for different works to the appellant.","Can rates and commercial terms of private company be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Public Works Department (PWD) seeking a copy of the contract entered between Government of Puducherry and a construction Company for the construction of Fishing Harbour at Mahe. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the third party has objected to the disclosure of sought information stating that the content of the Contract like rates and commercial terms etc. were confidential in nature and if furnished to an external party may reach their competitors and will jeopardize their competitiveness in other future projects. While filing the second appeal, the appellant stated that the contract will not come under the purview of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that if information pertaining to the aforesaid contract revealed contains rates including specifications of technical condition drawing and general contract conditions would harm the competitive position of the third party and is exempted under the provisions of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The respondent agreed to disclose the rates in the contract for works.","The Commission observed that rates can be disclosed as they did not attract the provisions of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act and directed the PIO to provide the rates in the contract for different works to the appellant." +550,"Seeking details regarding pay fixation, seniority list, and other service matter under RTI",North Western Railway Headquarters,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission also recommended that the competent authority should take a decision on the issue of appellant’s pay fixation and communicate the same to him.,"Seeking details regarding pay fixation, seniority list, and other service matter under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed some applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Western Railway Headquarters seeking details regarding his service matter such as pay fixation, his position in the seniority list, issuance of the seniority list, selection of Group B employees and benefits given to Senior Clerks after cadre reorganization etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded to the application. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondents stated that the appellant has been filing multiple RTI applications on the same issue. The respondent also referred to an earlier decision of the Commission regarding similar queries from the same applicant and submitted that as per the directions given by the CIC, the appellant was allowed to inspect all the files dealing with his service matters and no additional information exists to be given. The appellant stated that he has inspected the files but the information which he is looking for is not available in said files. The Commission then informed the appellant that he could not be given information which is not available in the files of the public authority as under the RTI Act only available information can be given.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that all the available information has been given to the appellant and no further disclosure is needed. However, in the interest of the appellant, the Commission once again grants the opportunity of inspection of all the relevant records related to all the issues that he has mentioned in all the three RTI applications so that he can satisfy himself about the non- availability of information. The Commission also recommended that the competent authority should take a decision on the issue of appellant’s pay fixation and communicate the same to him." +551,Action taken by the Chief Justice on representation was sought under RTI,Supreme Court of India,"what was the exact order, passed by the Chief Justice on their representations",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to find out if there is anyfile notingavailable on record showing the decision of the competent authority to file these representations and provide the same to the appellant.,"Action taken by the Chief Justice on representation was sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed four applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Supreme Court of India seeking to know about the action taken on some representations sent to the Chief Justice of India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the representation had been filed since no action was called for. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the representations should have been placed before the then Chief Justice and he wanted to know what was the exact order, passed by the Chief Justice on their representations. The respondent submitted that as per the practice followed in the Supreme Court, these representations had been considered by the appropriate authority and decided to be filed since there was no action called for.",The Commission observed that the appellant had made representation seeking some astronomical compensation for some alleged wrong done to the son and some action to be taken against the Prime Minister and the then Finance Minister of India. The Supreme Court decided to file these representations. The CIC directed the PIO to find out if there is anyfile notingavailable on record showing the decision of the competent authority to file these representations and provide the same to the appellant. However if there are no such file noting then the appellant should be informed suitably. +552,Why foot over bridge was not constructed at the railway station?,Northern Railway,when the computerized ticket counter will be provided in Khathauli station,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the available information has been provided to the appellant.,"Why foot over bridge was not constructed at the railway station? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Northern Railway seeking some information such as, how to catch a train without violating section 147 of the Railway Act since because of absence of foot over bridge (FOB) they have to cross the railway lines to go from one platform to another; why the Platform at Kathauli station is much lower than at other stations and the reason as to why foot over bridge has not been constructed at the station. He also wanted to know when the computerized ticket counter will be provided in Khathauli station. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the computerized ticket counter has already started functioning at the station. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that no information is available on record regarding the reason as to why foot over bridge has not been constructed at the station and why the platform in Kathauli station is much lower than in other stations.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant is seeking the opinion of the PIO with respect to catching a train without violating the Railway Act and that the PIO is not obligated to provide his opinion under the RTI Act. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the available information has been provided to the appellant. + +Comment + +Citizens have tried to use the RTI Act not only for seeking information but also for getting solutions to their problems with varying degree of success. Even when they are unsuccessful, the issue being raised gets highlighted." +553,RTI application seeking information regarding Daily Diary entry,Delhi Police,"Daily Diary entry + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information regarding Daily Diary (DD) entry",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to obtain a written statement from the ASI on whether he recorded the statement of his sister-in-law and provide the authenticated copy of it to the appellant.,"RTI application seeking information regarding Daily Diary entry + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information regarding Daily Diary (DD) entry. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he has received all documents except a copy of the statement made by his sister in law recorded by the ASI. The respondent stated that all the documents have been provided to the appellant and that no statement was recorded by the police except a DD entry which has also been made available to the appellant.",The Commission directed the PIO to obtain a written statement from the ASI on whether he recorded the statement of his sister-in-law and provide the authenticated copy of it to the appellant. +554,CIC- President Secretariat should upload details of official visits of dignitaries on website,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"Holding that a lot of public interest has been noticed in the visit of high dignitaries as the President, Vice President and the Prime Minister of India, the CIC suggested that the authority responsible in the President Secretariat may decide to upload as much information as possible about the official visits, specially the details of the delegation accompanying the President, in the official website for the information of the general public.","CIC- President Secretariat should upload details of official visits of dignitaries on website + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat and Ministry of External Affairs seeking information concerning the official visits of the President of India especially that of Smt. Pratibha Devi Singh Patil. He had wanted to know the details of the visit both inside and outside the country including the composition of the delegation and the expenses incurred on each such visit including the expenditure on accommodation, local travel, DA and miscellaneous items in respect of the President's visit to some 24 countries during the period April 2008 to October 2011. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and denied the rest stating that these were not available in a compiled form and would disproportionately divert their resources if this had to be compiled and collated. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the PIO had provided him with similar information in the past in response to his RTI application and that it was odd that he is not be able to give the information for the remaining period.  The respondent submitted that the desired information was not available centrally in a compiled form and had to be collected from various sources before giving it to the appellant. They argued that this was a time consuming process and would have to be repeated if they were asked to give the same information for the remaining period.","The Commission observed that the expenditure incurred on any visit by the President whether inside or outside the country is booked and maintained in various ministries and departments of the government and is not available with any single public authority in a readymade and compiled form. The CIC held that no PIO cannot collect data from multiple sources, compile it and then provide to the appellant. Regarding the composition of the delegation, the Commission observed that the information should be available in the President Secretariat and directed the PIO to provide the details of the delegation including the name of the individual members their designation and the name of the Ministry/ Department each one represented to the appellant. The CIC also directed the PIO to inform the appellant about the exact budget allocation in the last five years against the domestic and foreign travel and the expenditure incurred annually against the said budget allocations. The CIC directed the PIO, Controller of Accounts and Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), to provide the breakup of the miscellaneous expenditure incurred on these visits. + +Holding that a lot of public interest has been noticed in the visit of high dignitaries as the President, Vice President and the Prime Minister of India, the CIC suggested that the authority responsible in the President Secretariat may decide to upload as much information as possible about the official visits, specially the details of the delegation accompanying the President, in the official website for the information of the general public. + +Comments + +The Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) has issued directions to disclose the details of official tours of Ministers and other officials vide F. No. 1/ 8/2012-IR Dated: llth September, 2012. Link –http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt/Official%20tours.pdf" +555,Can a PIO be penalised after retirement?,,the details of his full Provident Fund (PF) account and the method by which he could claim the outstanding balance,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"The CIC noted that the PIO responded nearly one year after the filing of the RTI application and thus, such an action calls for imposition of penalty as per the provisions of section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act.","Can a PIO be penalised after retirement? + +Background: +The appellant claimed that he was an employee of the GSI between1965 to 1979 and was dismissed from service later. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Geological Survey of India (GSI) in which he wanted to know the details of his full Provident Fund (PF) account and the method by which he could claim the outstanding balance. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that no records were available in this regard. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant admitted that although he had no records with him about his own PF account or the deductions made from his salary towards the PF but he was sure that he used to contribute to the PF. Therefore, he wanted this information in order to claim the outstanding balance from his PF account. The respondent submitted that the GSI had made a lot of efforts to locate the relevant records but could not do so the case being very old now.","The Commission observed that it was indeed a very old case and that without the PF account number it may not be possible to find out any further details about this account. To help the senior citizen, the CIC directed the PIO to make another effort in locating the relevant records within the GSI and in the office of the AG which is responsible for maintaining the PF account of the government employees and forward the same to the appellant. The Commission further stated that if he fails to locate the relevant records he should inform the appellant suitably clearly stating what all efforts he had undertaken in the process. The CIC noted that the PIO responded nearly one year after the filing of the RTI application and thus, such an action calls for imposition of penalty as per the provisions of section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act. However, the respondent submitted that the PIO had since retired from service with effect from April 2012 on attaining the age of superannuation and thus no penalty could be imposed on the said person." +556,Does Kendriya Bhandar have provisions of reservation for SC/ST/ OBC?,Kendriya Bhandar,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the desired information has been provided and that no other remedy is available under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.,"Does Kendriya Bhandar have provisions of reservation for SC/ST/ OBC? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Kendriya Bhandar seeking to know whether Kendriya Bhandar came under the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) and if the provisions of reservation for SC and ST and OBC were applicable to that organization. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that it was a Multistate Cooperative Society and that the reservations did not apply to them. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that it was an organization under the government and therefore the reservation was applicable to them. The respondent submitted that it was neither under any department nor the reservation was applicable to it.","The Commission observed that if the appellant is of the view that the reservation for SC/ST/OBC should be applicable to this particular organisation and that this organisation had not been following the reservations in employment, he may take up this matter with the appropriate authorities in the government. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the desired information has been provided and that no other remedy is available under the Right to Information (RTI) Act." +557,Action taken on representation given to the President of India,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal advised the appellant to directly approach the laboratory and not through the President Secretariat.,"Action taken on representation given to the President of India + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat seeking to know the action taken on his representation given to the President of India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that his representation had been forwarded to the CBI for further necessary action.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant had sent some documents with his representation and wanted those documents to be examined by the CFSL to determine their correctness. The CIC held that it was not the duty of a PIO to get documents examined in forensic laboratories and apprise the information seeker about the outcome. The Commission also ruled that the CFSL is a part of the CBI and was expected to examine only those documents which were referred to it by an investigating agency or a court of law. The Commission rejected the appeal advised the appellant to directly approach the laboratory and not through the President Secretariat. +558,Can disciplinary action be taken against the PIO if he fails to attend the hearing?,Department of Revenue,,[],REMANDED,,,The Commission also served a notice to the PIO to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him for not appearing before the Commission for the hearing and for delegating the authority vested in him to apeonwho was unable to answer the queries of the Commission.,"Can disciplinary action be taken against the PIO if he fails to attend the hearing? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue seeking information in respect of WILL registered with the Sub Registrar VIII. The Public Information Officer (PIO) furnished a point wise reply to the appellant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the Complainant had approached the Commission without waiting for the mandatory time period allowed to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to dispose of the appeal. The Commission remanded the case to the FAA with the direction that he hear the appellant and dispose of the appeal. The Commission also served a notice to the PIO to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him for not appearing before the Commission for the hearing and for delegating the authority vested in him to apeonwho was unable to answer the queries of the Commission. +559,Is academic qualification of a government employee his personal information?,,,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to forward to the appellant the academic qualification of each of the several employees named by him.,"Is academic qualification of a government employee his personal information? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the National Aluminium Company Ltd. in which he raised a number of queries relating to the recognition of the Degrees awarded by various educational institutions and universities and also about the academic qualification of some specific employees along with the approval status of their degrees. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded to each of his queries with appropriate response and also informed him that what he is seeking was not information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;. He denied the academic qualification of employees claiming that it was personal information exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the expression ‘information’ has been defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act to refer to material record and that the PIO has addressed the queries with appropriate information. The appellant should remember that information refers only to record held either in material or virtual form. Therefore whenever he wanted any information he should ask for the copies of the relevant records. The PIO was not expected to offer clarifications or comments on queries. Regarding the academic qualification of individual employees the Commission held that it is not personal information. Academic qualification is one of the basic requirements for getting into the service of the company. The CIC directed the PIO to forward to the appellant the academic qualification of each of the several employees named by him." +560,PIO must respond to RTI applications on proper office letterhead with his name and designation,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also held that the PIO must send his reply on proper office letterhead with his name and designation clearly mentioned and directed him to reply to the appellant accordingly.,"PIO must respond to RTI applications on proper office letterhead with his name and designation + +Background: +The appellant filed four applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking a copy of rules and regulations based on which the SSC had allowed age relaxation to the employees of the Union Territories up to the year 2003 and the details of recruitment made for the NCT of Delhi under SC/ST/OBC categories over a period of time. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the SSC follows the rules and regulations framed by the central government in the matter of the age relaxation for recruitment to various posts. Regarding the recruitment details the PIO stated that no such information was compiled by the SSC and thus the desired information was not available. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant emphasized that the SSC must provide the government circulars based on which it had been advertising up to the year 2003 that age relaxation would be applicable to the employees of not only the Central Government but also those of the Union Territories. He further submitted that while responding to one of the RTI applications, the PIO had provided the information in a handwritten note on the copy of the RTI application itself. The appellant objected to this and wanted the reply to be sent on proper stationery and office letterhead.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of that government circular based on which the advertisement notices issued up to the year 2003 clearly stated that the age relaxation would be available also to the employees of the Union Territories in recruitment to the central government posts. However, if there is no such circular available now, the PIO should very clearly state that. The Commission also held that the PIO must send his reply on proper office letterhead with his name and designation clearly mentioned and directed him to reply to the appellant accordingly. Observing that if the SSC had made recruitments for the government of NCT of Delhi, it would be appropriate for the PIO to ask the relevant divisions in the SSC to search their records, especially up to the year 2003 and send the photocopies of the lists of candidates recommended by the SSC to the NCT of Delhi. However, if no such record is available the PIO should suitably reply the appellant." +561,RTI application seeking information regarding establishment of President and its entitlements,,the complaint handling policy followed in the President Secretariat and others relating to both the establishment of the President and its various entitlements,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC directed the PIO to find out from the relevant divisions and provide this information to the appellant if it is already available in a compiled form and if it was not available in an aggregate and compiled form, the PIO should inform the appellant suitably.","RTI application seeking information regarding establishment of President and its entitlements + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat seeking information relating to the complaint handling policy followed in the President Secretariat and others relating to both the establishment of the President and its various entitlements. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose any information on the ground that the queries did not amount to information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. On the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), he provided some information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant complained that the information provided by the PIO was not adequate and complete. He wanted to know about the total number of vehicles in the President Secretariat and their cost including the maintenance cost. The respondent submitted that there were in all 52 vehicles in the President Secretariat garage and these vehicles had been bought at various times in the past. He explained that the details about the maintenance of these vehicles were kept in different files and compilation of the data regarding all the vehicles just in order to respond to the appellant would be a very time consuming task. Hence, the PIO had mentioned only about the total number of vehicles in his reply and not any information about the cost or maintenance.","The Commission observed that it would be useful if the information about the gross expenditure on the maintenance of the vehicles in the garage annually including the cost of the POL can be disclosed because such information should be available already in a compiled form. The CIC directed the PIO to find out from the relevant divisions and provide this information to the appellant if it is already available in a compiled form and if it was not available in an aggregate and compiled form, the PIO should inform the appellant suitably." +562,CIC- furnish an affidavit for non-availability of records sought in RTI application,,"the details of the doctors who were in the operation theatre during that period, after how much time she was brought to the ward room etc",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to furnish an affidavit providing therein the factual situation and affirming the position that the information sought by the appellant could not be furnished due to non-availability of records along with the reasons for its non-availability.,"CIC- furnish an affidavit for non-availability of records sought in RTI application + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Lady Hardinge Medical College claiming that his wife had given birth to a baby girl there and he wanted to know the details of the doctors who were in the operation theatre during that period, after how much time she was brought to the ward room etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that it is not possible to provide information sought against points as the case sheet of 2001 had been weeded out as per hospital policy. The PIO also informed that some of the information sought pertained to Department of Anesthesia and Blood Bank who have informed that records of 2001 are not available with them. The PIO stated that the only information regarding this case available is an entry in a particular book indicating the birth of a female baby. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the records sought by the appellant were not available as they are supposed to retain the records for only seven years as per schedule for preservation of records. The appellant also wanted to know the details of doctors and nurses who had attended his wife. The respondent stated that this information too is not available in the records. The appellant refused to accept this reply from the respondent.","The Commission directed the PIO to furnish an affidavit providing therein the factual situation and affirming the position that the information sought by the appellant could not be furnished due to non-availability of records along with the reasons for its non-availability. + +Comments + +Mere completion of the retention period of the records is not a sufficient cause for the denial of information. The PIO should be able to produce the destruction memo to show that the records have actually been destroyed." +563,Is there a provision in the RTI Act to deal with the non-compliance of orders of Commission?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"If the Information Commission itself feels powerless, who would enforce the RTI Act in the country?","Is there a provision in the RTI Act to deal with the non-compliance of orders of Commission? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat stating that he had not got any information in spite of the orders of the Rajasthan State Information Commission. He had also complained that the information officers were not depositing the penalty imposed on them or implementing the orders of the State Information Commission. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that no information had been sought by the applicant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the RTI Act was deficient in the sense that it did not have any remedy against the non-compliance of the orders of the Information Commission by the Information officers. He wanted the President of India to get the law suitably amended to remove these deficiencies.","The Commission observed that the grievance of the appellant appears to be genuine. The CIC further noted that on many occasions, the public information officers do not implement the directions given by the Information Commissions and continue to deprive the information seekers of the information they need. The CIC held that there is no specific provision in the RTI Act to deal with such situations. However, by continuous monitoring of the non-compliance cases and pursuing the information officers, the Information Commissions can ensure the implementation of their own orders. The Commission advised the appellant to go back to the Rajasthan State Information Commission and draw their attention to the non-compliance of their own orders. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the President Secretariat does not have information to disclose in the case. + +Comments + +The penalty provisions provide enough powers to the Information Commission to ensure compliance of its orders. If the Information Commission itself feels powerless, who would enforce the RTI Act in the country?" +564,Information about action taken for furnishing fake information to obtain passport,Ministry of External Affairs,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,He was also directed to send photocopies of relevant documents including file noting to show what action had been taken.,"Information about action taken for furnishing fake information to obtain passport + +Background: +The appellant filed a complaint with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) alleging that some individuals had obtained passports by furnishing fake information. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of External Affairs seeking to know what action was taken against those individuals. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that action was being taken in this matter under the passport laws. Subsequntly, the appellant was informed that the passports of both the individuals had been impounded based on the police report. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the information provided by the PIO was neither adequate nor very clear. He demanded that the information should be provided clearly in respect of each of the two individuals against whom he had complained.",The Commission observed that the PIO had neither clearly stated the exact action taken against each of the two individuals in the case nor he had enclosed the copies of any material record to show the exact nature of the action taken. The Commission held that under the RTI Act information refers only to material or virtual record and nothing else. The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant clear information about the action taken against both these passport holders separately. He was also directed to send photocopies of relevant documents including file noting to show what action had been taken. +565,Using RTI in case of a marital discord,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also noted that adequate information been provided to the appellant and the grievance of the appellant too seems to have been redressed to a large extent.,"Using RTI in case of a marital discord + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the South Eastern Railway Division stating that she has been hospitalized after being beaten by her husband who is an employee of the Railways. She sought some information about her husband including copy of his service record. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the reply along with a copy of service record. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the copy of service book was provided to the appellant which the appellant denied having received. The respondent also stated that the court had ordered the Railway employee to deposit Rs 500/- per month in the account of the appellant. It was informed that the railway employee (the appellant’s husband) had met the cost incurred on the treatment of the appellant in the hospital.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide one more set of the information that was sent including a copy of service book to the appellant along with proof of having sent the information earlier. The Commission also noted that adequate information been provided to the appellant and the grievance of the appellant too seems to have been redressed to a large extent. +566,Disclosure of the names of members of President’s family who formed part of official delegation,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also directed the PIO to provide the names of those members of the delegation during the visit who comprised the family of the President.,"Disclosure of the names of members of President’s family who formed part of official delegation + +Background: +The appellant filed four applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat seeking a variety of information on different subjects. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that there were some specific items of information which had not been given to him without assigning any convincing reason.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO as under: + +i. The copy of the letter written by Dr Subramanyam Swamy to the then President on the formation of the Council of Ministers to be provided after following the procedure laid down in section 11, if the CPIO considers such consultation necessary. + +ii. Regarding the provision of accommodation for the then President in Pune after her demitting office, the PIO was directed to transfer the remaining queries to the MHA. + +iii. The available information including file noting in respect of the cognisance taken by the then President / the President Secretariat of a particular news item and the action taken, if any, to be provided. + +iv. The copy of the invitation received from the President of Seychelles, if available in material form to be provided. As the CPIO said that this was available with the CCB and hence could not be disclosed, the CIC directed the PIO to write to the appellant once again either providing the copy of the invitation or, if he decides to deny it, then to pass a speaking order citing the appropriate exemption provision of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide the names of those members of the delegation during the visit who comprised the family of the President." +567,Gifting of gold coins for the promotion of insurance business by Max New York Life Insurance,Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) seek information,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"In the interest of greater transparency and trust, the IRDA was directed to issue specific guidelines to the insurers to appropriately print the administrative costs of servicing the policy so that this information becomes is to the prospective buyers of the insurance policies at point of purchase.","Gifting of gold coins for the promotion of insurance business by Max New York Life Insurance + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) seek information regarding the status of the four complaints made by him and also to know the outcome of any investigation done by the IRDA regarding the gifting of gold coins for the promotion of insurance business by Max New York Life Insurance Company Limited. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a copy of the response received from the insurer. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had not received a response regarding pertaining to the promotion of the insurance business by the above mentioned insurer by offering gold coins. The PIO submitted that the appellant could escalate the matter of his grievance through the Grievance Call Centre or by using the online Integrated Grievance Management System of IRDA.","The Commission held the matter is serious in nature and touches the very roots of the ethics required to be maintained in the insurance business and the IRDA cannot shy away from taking cognizance of such a serious allegation by a responsible senior citizen. The Commission directed the PIO to provide information regarding any action taken by the IRDA on this specific complaint made by the appellant and if such action has been initiated then the outcome of the action will be intimated to the appellant. Agreeing with the appellant, the Commission directed the IRDA 19(8)(iii) of the RTI Act to ensure that all insurers publish the clauses pertaining to the administrative costs of servicing the policy on their policy bond under section. In the interest of greater transparency and trust, the IRDA was directed to issue specific guidelines to the insurers to appropriately print the administrative costs of servicing the policy so that this information becomes is to the prospective buyers of the insurance policies at point of purchase." +568,Should PIO collect information from another public authority about the action taken?,,the action taken and the PIO had informed him about whatever action the President Secretariat had taken on the said petition,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"However, the CIC directed the PIO of the President Secretariat to transfer his RTI application to his counterpart in the Defence Ministry.","Should PIO collect information from another public authority about the action taken? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat seeking to know the action taken on his representation regarding the legal advice of the President with a view to approaching the Supreme Court for changing certain recruitment rules. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that his petition had been forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, for further necessary action and that he should approach that Ministry directly. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that if the PIO did not have any information to offer he should have transferred his RTI application under the provisions of section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the Defence Ministry or should have collected the information from there and provided to him. The respondent submitted that the appellant wanted to know about the action taken and the PIO had informed him about whatever action the President Secretariat had taken on the said petition.","The Commission observed that the President Secretariat normally forwards the petitions received from the citizens to various other authorities for further necessary action and in almost all such cases does not call for any action taken report. Therefore, all that they can inform in such cases is about the date on which the original petition had been forwarded and the name of the authority to which it was forwarded. The CIC added that the appellant knows that his petition had been sent to the Defence Ministry and should have found the further outcome from that Ministry. The Commission also stated that it is not within the duties of the PIO to collect any information about the action taken from another public authority and provide. However, the CIC directed the PIO of the President Secretariat to transfer his RTI application to his counterpart in the Defence Ministry." +569,A liberal reading should be given to the RTI application,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,3000.0,3000.0,The Commission also directed the PIO to provide a copy of the one page format in which the performance of the appellant was recorded and recommendations of the Divisional Manager/Branch Manager was given before sanctioning/not recommending the stagnation increment of the appellant in 2006.,"A liberal reading should be given to the RTI application + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd to seek information pertaining to stagnation increment as sanctioned on the basis of performance and recommendations ofDivisional Manager/ Branch Managerwhich was due to the appellant in 2006. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided partial information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that partial information has been provided to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted the reluctance of the PIO to provide specific and correct information and disagreed with the argument of the PIO that the request for information has to be seen within the narrow confines of the words used by the appellant. The Commission held that the refusal of the PIO to enlarge the words to cover their natural meaning has caused delay in disclosure of information to the appellant thereby resulting in mental anguish and harassment to him. Therefore, the commission directed that under the provisions of section 19 (8)(b) of the RTI Act, a compensation of Rs. 3000/- should be provided by the public authority to the appellant for the detriment caused to him. + +The Commission also directed the PIO to provide a copy of the one page format in which the performance of the appellant was recorded and recommendations of the Divisional Manager/Branch Manager was given before sanctioning/not recommending the stagnation increment of the appellant in 2006." +570,Can information regarding the IRDA’s surveyor engagement be obtained under RTI Act?,Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA),,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The CIC held that in the absence of any larger public interest established by the appellant in disclosing the information, the personal information of surveyor could not be disclosed under the RTI Act.","Can information regarding the IRDA’s surveyor engagement be obtained under RTI Act? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) seeking details in respect of engagement of the full time surveyor. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that they have taken action under section 11 of the RTI Act and awaiting reply from the third party. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the respondent submitted that partial information has been provided to the appellant.","The Commission observed that the information sought by the appellant was personal information of the third party surveyor. The Surveyor stands in a fiduciary relationship with the Public Authority as he is not an employee of the Public Authority. The CIC held that in the absence of any larger public interest established by the appellant in disclosing the information, the personal information of surveyor could not be disclosed under the RTI Act." +571,"Penalty of Rs. 25,000 for refusal to accept the RTI applications",,some civil contractors,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,25000.0,,25000/- on the PIO and directed thim to furnish the complete information to the appellant.,"Penalty of Rs. 25,000 for refusal to accept the RTI applications + +Background: +The appellant filed five applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) seeking information regarding some civil contractors. The Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) returned the applications on the ground that fee of RTI was not in order due to incorrect address of the payee on the postal order and asked the appellant to submit the said applications with correct payee address. The appellant then addressed a letter to the Public Information Officer (PIO) requesting him to intimate the “correct address of the payee” however no reply was given. The First Appellate Authority too did not pass any order regarding the first appeal filed by the appellant. + +ProceedingsDuring the first hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the CIC observed that as per section 5(3) of the RTI Act, the APIO was bound to render reasonable assistance to the appellant but he failed to do so. The commission also observed that the DoPT has issued consolidated updated guidelines on the RTI Act to help all stake holders in dealing with RTI matters. All the postal orders enclosed with the five RTI applications were in the name of AO, BSNL and the PIO could not have refused the same in terms of the above guidelines. The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the complete and correct information as requested by the appellant in his 05 RTI applications. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI act, the Commission issued a show- cause notice to the concerned PIO to explain whether he had any reasonable cause for refusing to accept the RTI applications. + +During the second hearing before the CIC, the PIO was unable to give any satisfactory reply and admitted that refusal on his part to receive the RTI applications were not in accordance with the RTI rules. As regards non-supply of information the PIO pleaded that the information sought is very voluminous and there was acute shortage of staff and hence the same could not be furnished.","The Commission noted that the IPOs filed by the appellant were in accordance with the RTI rules and that the refusal of the said RTI applications by the PIO is a gross violation of the RTI Act. The Commission observed that the burden of proving that denial of information was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per section19(5)In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.of the RTI Act. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission levied a maximum penalty of Rs. 25000/- on the PIO and directed thim to furnish the complete information to the appellant." +572,Can the outcome of Tax Evasion Petition be disclosed to a third party under RTI?,,action taken on his complaint and lapses in assessment of their TEPs,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant, however, full details of investigation are not required to be disclosed.","Can the outcome of Tax Evasion Petition be disclosed to a third party under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant had filed a complaint with the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (IT) against three people. Later he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information on action taken on his complaint and lapses in assessment of their TEPs. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that it was third party information and exempted from disclosure under sections8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to its previous judgment where it was observed that blanket ban on disclosure of information regarding the action taken on tax evasion complaints may not always be in the best interest of the state revenue. The enthusiasm of the information givers may be adversely affected as information givers are generally keen to know whether the information provided by them has been of some value to the authorities or not. The Commission directed the PIO disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant, however, full details of investigation are not required to be disclosed." +573,Information regarding empanelment of officers in the Indian Railways,Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),,['8(1)(i)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC also ruled that such records should be disclosed after the decision of the Cabinet/ ACC are fully implemented as per the proviso to section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act.","Information regarding empanelment of officers in the Indian Railways + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) seeking to know the action taken on some representations he had sent from time to time. He also sought the copies of the file noting and other related documents in respect of the empanelment of officers for the post of General Manager in the Indian Railways for the years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that this particular section in the DoPT had not received any of these representations however; three of his representation had been received in some other section and were then forwarded to the Ministry of Railways. The PIO denied the remaining information on the ground that the records relating to the empanelment of officers for the post of General Manager were part of the ACC papers and exempted for disclosure under section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that as far as the representations of the appellant were concerned the DoPT seems not to have taken any other action on those than forwarding those to the Ministry of Railways. Regarding the ACC papers the CIC held that in the past in respect of ACC papers any disclosure has been stayed by the Delhi High Court and it would be better to await the final decision of the High Court on this subject. The CIC also ruled that such records should be disclosed after the decision of the Cabinet/ ACC are fully implemented as per the proviso to section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act." +574,Should the details of bank transactions be disclosed for settlement of a dispute?,Union Bank of India,ATM transactions by the customers in a particular branch of the bank including the number of withdrawals and specifically with respect to an amount of Rs,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the arguments put forth by the respondent and rejected the appeal.,"Should the details of bank transactions be disclosed for settlement of a dispute? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Bank of India seeking information regarding ATM transactions by the customers in a particular branch of the bank including the number of withdrawals and specifically with respect to an amount of Rs. 24,000. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the bank was required to maintain secrecy of its customers and denied the details stating that the matter was of fiduciary relationship under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he had sought this information because he needed to clear his name in a certain matter. The respondent stated that the information was denied because the account number mentioned in the RTI application belonged to a lady customer of the bank and that the appellant had no relation to that account. The respondent further stated that this appellant and some others had filed a number of appeals earlier seeking a number of information about this account. The respondent also submitted that there is some dispute pending between the appellant and his family on one hand and the daughter in law on the other hand. The respondent said that the appellant has been seeking information about the account of his daughter in law to make use of it in connection with the pending dispute.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the arguments put forth by the respondent and rejected the appeal. +575,Can the marks of selected candidates be disclosed to third party under RTI?,Union Public Services Commission (UPSC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also held that if the desired information is not available fully or partly the PIO shall inform the appellant suitably.,"Can the marks of selected candidates be disclosed to third party under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) seeking the details of her own raw and scaled up marks for the Civil Services Main Examination and the marks of the last 20 candidates invited for interview. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the information was not maintained in the form it had been sought. He also stated that the Supreme Court had already decided that the final marks awarded to a candidate would be recognized and not the raw marks. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the desired information should be disclosed. The respondent pointed out that the information was denied because the UPSC did not maintain such information and the appellant had approached the Karnataka High Court where the matter was now sub-judice.",The Commission observed that a candidate has a right to have access to her own evaluated answer sheets if available. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the appellant’s own raw marks and scaled up marks for the Civil Services Main Examination as well as the marks of the last 20 general category candidates invited for interview without disclosing their names or roll numbers. The Commission also held that if the desired information is not available fully or partly the PIO shall inform the appellant suitably. +576,Should a public authority disclose information originating from another organisation?,Union Public Services Commission (UPSC),the post of nautical surveyor and the interview conducted by the UPSC in this regard,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant.,"Should a public authority disclose information originating from another organisation? + +Background: +The appellant filed three applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) seeking information about the post of nautical surveyor and the interview conducted by the UPSC in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that that the interview process was not yet complete or that the information should be obtained from the office of the DG Shipping as the original letters have been issued by them.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that much of the desired information should be disclosed as these were not covered any of the exemption provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission also held that any public authority which holds the information irrespective of the source of the information is obliged to disclose the information when demanded. The CIC also noted that in the RTI Act, it is not provided that a citizen must seek the information from the original source only. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant. + +Comments + +In similar cases, the PIO should consider seeking the views of the other public authority under section 11 treating it as a third party or transfer the application to them." +577,Is the information about pending adjudication liable to be provided under the RTI Act?,Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI),,['8(1)(h)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission observed that requisite information on one point has been provided to the appellant by the PIO DGCEI.,"Is the information about pending adjudication liable to be provided under the RTI Act? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) seeking to know as to how many cases have been booked by the Office of the Additional Director General of DGCEI Zonal Office for misuse or wrongful availment of exemption Notification pertaining to Industries located in Kutch. He also wanted to know whether any letter was written by Director General (DG) for any of such cases to Board or Chairman CBEC broadly indicating his disagreement with the investigation drawn by the Office of Additional Director General,  DGCEI in any of the above cases. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI application to the PIO, DGCEI and also provided requisite information related to cases investigated by DGCEI. As regards another point of the RTI application the information was denied under the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act since the case was still under investigation and the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation or prosecution of the offenders. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the respondent submitted that the contention of the appellant that the information sought at one point in any way impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders since the Show Cause Notice (SCN) has already been issued to M/s. Global Hi-Tech and there is overwhelming interest involved of the employees of the Company. In this case even though the investigation process leading to issue of SCN is complete but the process of adjudication and determination of final tax liability and sanction of prosecution is yet to be completed.","The Commission observed that requisite information on one point has been provided to the appellant by the PIO DGCEI. As far as information on another point was concerned the process of adjudication in the matter has not yet complete and the respondent have no disclosure obligation under the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act." +578,CIC- Information means not only material record but also virtual record,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),the total number of candidates who had appeared in this examination within the age group of 18 to 19 years of age and a copy of the government order by which the age limit had been so fixed,[],REMANDED,,,"The Commission also noted that the expression information has been defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act means not only material record but also virtual record.","CIC- Information means not only material record but also virtual record + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking information related to the fixation of the age limit for the candidates who had appeared in the combined graduate level examination 2011. He wanted to know the total number of candidates who had appeared in this examination within the age group of 18 to 19 years of age and a copy of the government order by which the age limit had been so fixed. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded that the SSC did not compile any information about the number of candidates within the age group of 18 to 19 years of age. In regard to the authority under which the age limit for this particular examination had been notified the PIO clarified that it was as per the recruitment rules for various posts for which the examination was being held. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the age limit notified for this examination was 18 to 27 years and that it was impossible that there would be any candidate who would have completed his graduation at the age of 18 and appeared in this examination. He also submitted that the age limit fixed by the SSC/ government was absolutely not logical specially when seen in the context of the age limit fixed by the UPSC for the candidates appearing in the civil services examination in which also the minimum qualification was graduation. He demanded that the statistical details sought by him should be provided to him as he needed this information in order to approach the High Court in a writ petition. The respondent submitted that the SSC did not maintain segregated data of the candidates based on their age profile and the bio-data of every single candidate appearing in the examination would have to be scrutinized in order to find out the exact number of candidates between the age group of 18 and 19. It was added that the SSC did not fix the age limit but the same was done by the ministries/ departments of the government based on the recruitment rules framed by them.","The Commission observed that if the minimum educational qualification is graduation for both the combined graduate level examination conducted by the SSC and the civil services examination conducted by the UPSC it is rather strange that the lower age limit in both the examinations should vary so much, 18 to 21 years. The Commission held that only the respective government ministries and departments can revisit their recruitment rules to bring those in harmony with similar recruitment rules which apply to the civil services examination conducted by the UPSC and there is little that could be done about it under the RTI Act. Regarding the number of candidates between the age group of 18 and 19, the CIC agreed with the PIO that he could not be expected to create this information afresh through research if it is not already available as such in material/virtual form. The CIC directed the PIO to make an effort through the relevant division of the SSC to explore the possibility of generating this information from the electronic database and if found forward it to the appellant. The Commission also noted that the expression information has been defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act means not only material record but also virtual record." +579,Seeking the reason for impounding of security pass of parliament under RTI,Rajya Sabha Secretariat and the Lok sabha Secretariat,the impounding of his security pass,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the photocopies of the relevant file noting and other records showing the decision of the competent authority to impound the said security pass.,"Seeking the reason for impounding of security pass of parliament under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat and the Lok sabha Secretariat seeking information relating to the impounding of his security pass. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Lok Sabha transferred his RTI application to the Rajya Sabha. The PIO of the Rajya Sabha provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he wanted to know the reasons for impounding his security pass and about the rules and regulations under which it had been impounded. The respondent pointed out that details about security passes should not be disclosed as it would have an adverse effect on the security of the Parliament.",The Commission observed that if the security pass had been impounded it must have been done on the orders of some competent authority. The details of the decision making in this regard would be available in the relevant file in which this entire matter was processed. The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the photocopies of the relevant file noting and other records showing the decision of the competent authority to impound the said security pass. +580,Information regarding FDI and letter by MP questioning the suitability of Lt. Gen. Bikram Singh,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of this letter to the appellant.,"Information regarding FDI and letter by MP questioning the suitability of Lt. Gen. Bikram Singh + +Background: +The appellant filed applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking details about the discussion between the Prime Minister (PM) of India and the President of the United States of America (USA) on the subject of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) during the 19th ASEAN Summit in Bali and the letter written by MP to the Prime Minister questioning the suitability of Lieutenant General Bikram Singh. The Public Information Officer (PIO) declined the information citing exemption provisions of the RTI Act. Regarding the letter written by the MP, he informed the appellant that the procedure prescribed in section 11 of the RTI Act was followed and the information was denied on the demand of the MP concerned. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the exemption cited by the PIO for denying the details of the discussion supposedly held between the Prime Minister and the US President would not be attracted in this case. Regarding the letter, he submitted that if the PIO had the intentions of disclosing the information, he need not have been influenced by the demand of the third party MP and should have disclosed the letter. The respondent submitted that the information regarding the supposed exchange of views between the Prime Minister and the US President could not be disclosed because the disclosure of this information would have adverse effect on India's relationship with foreign countries. He also submitted that the letter was not disclosed because the MP concerned claimed that he had sent the letter confidentially and did not want it to be disclosed.",The Commission observed that that the appellant had sought information only about the discussion relating to FDI and if there is any such record in existence showing any discussion on this particular subject only then the PIO has to consider if the same should be disclosed or not depending on the contents of the documents and subject to the various exemption provisions given in the RTI Act. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the case and inform the appellant suitably. The Commission perused the letter written by the MP questioning the suitability of Lieutenant General Bikram Singh and held that it did not show anywhere that the MP had treated the contents of that letter to be confidential. Therefore there was no obligation on the part of the PIO to consult him because the letter written by him was not covered under section 11. The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of this letter to the appellant. +581,Can the statement of appellant recorded during investigation be provided to him under RTI?,Delhi Police,two complaints filed by him,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The PIO was also directed to provide status of the enquiry against IO and the outcome thereof if the enquiry is completed.,"Can the statement of appellant recorded during investigation be provided to him under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information regarding two complaints filed by him. One of the complaints was filed against Inquiry Officer (IO) for not conducting proper enquiry into his complaints and the other was regarding delay by the PIO in providing information to his previous RTI application. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent informed that the appellant sought for copies of his own statement, statement of witnesses and that of IO recorded by the Vigilance Department of Central District. Regarding the delay on part of the PIO the respondent submitted that the RTI application was addressed to the PIO, PHQ and was later received by the PIO, Central District who had replied to the appellant within the stipulated time. The appellant submitted that he would like to know the action taken against IO on his complaint.","The Commission directed the PIO, Central District to provide copies of appellant’s statement, statement of witnesses and that of the IO recorded by the Vigilance Department of Central District. The PIO was also directed to provide status of the enquiry against IO and the outcome thereof if the enquiry is completed." +582,Inspection of the original OMR sheet offered to applicant to clarify his doubts,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show- cause notice to the PIO to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him as he failed to respond to the appellant even though the RTI application was forwarded to him.","Inspection of the original OMR sheet offered to applicant to clarify his doubts + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking information related to his performance in the combined police examination conducted by the SSC in 2011. The Public Information Officer (PIO), SSC transferred the application it to his counterpart in the headquarters but no information was provided to the applicant. The applicant filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC). The Commission directed the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to look into the matter and ensure that the desired information was disclosed. Following this direction, the PIO informed the applicant that he had failed to code his role number in the OMR sheet and therefore it was not evaluated. A copy of the OMR sheet was also provided to him. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the photocopy of the OMR sheet provided to him was not very clear and he strongly felt that he had written his roll number.","The Commission observed that in the interest of the information seeker it would be fair to show him the original OMR sheet so that he could see for himself if he had filled up the roll number or not. The CIC directed the PIO, SSC to get the original OMR sheet from the headquarters and then invite the appellant to inspect it. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show- cause notice to the PIO to explain why penalty should not be imposed on him as he failed to respond to the appellant even though the RTI application was forwarded to him." +583,Can amount of loan waived by a public authority be disclosed under RTI?,,,['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the required information on this to the appellant.,"Can amount of loan waived by a public authority be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Pondicherry Industrial Promotion Development & Investment Corporation Ltd (PIPDIC) seeking information regarding PIPDIC such as, the purpose for which the PIPDIC was created; whether it is a commercial organization or for promoting the welfare of the people in the State to start industries; whether it had waived or granted relief to the people with who obtained loan from it due to unfortunate financial circumstances and owing to sickness of the industry started by them and how much loan was waived year-wise so far. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and denied the information related to the waiver of loans under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act stating that the disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he had not sought the name of the individual or companies who have been granted waiver of loan or any other relief. He only wants to know whether any loan was waived or grant of relief to the people who obtained loan and if so how much loan was waived year-wise.","The Commission observed that the respondent has only quoted commercial confidence as a reason for denial of information and has not explicitly explained how such disclosure will harm the competitive position of the third party. The appellant merely asked for the total year wise quantum of loan waived and not the details of the recipients of it, the exemption provision of section 8(1) (d) cannot be applied. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the required information on this to the appellant." +584,What happens to the representations made by the public to the PMO?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission also directed the PIO, DoPT to once again send the reply to the appellant that did not reach him before.","What happens to the representations made by the public to the PMO? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) seeking information concerning the drafting of the Lokpal Bill and the action taken on the suggestions he and other members of the public had sent from time to time. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided information available in material form to appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that one of the replies sent by the PIO of the DoPT had not reached him. He requested that this should be sent to him again. The respondents clarified that various representations, complaints, suggestions and other communications received from the public were usually processed in the PMO at the official level and forwarded to various Ministries and Departments for any further action. All such communications were not put up to the Prime Minister for his personal perusal. They also clarified that there was no mandatory requirement for consultation with the members of the public prior to the formulation of any bill and that any such decision in the drafting of any particular bill was taken on a case to case basis.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the submissions made by the respondent during the hearing would remove some of the doubts of the appellant in the case. The Commission also directed the PIO, DoPT to once again send the reply to the appellant that did not reach him before." +585,Information regarding a company and its operations was sought using RTI,,a company and its operations,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO, Registrar of Companies to inform the appellant about the initiative taken till now to probe this case and to provide the information about the status of the investigation at present, if available.","Information regarding a company and its operations was sought using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking information about a company and its operations. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI application to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. The PIO of the Registrar of Companies one of the establishments under that Ministry provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent representing the Registrar of Companies submitted that the allegations against this particular company had been referred to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs which, in turn, had entrusted this matter to the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) which has been investigating this case. They further submitted that the appellant had also been advised to make complaints to the police authorities if he felt that he had been cheated by the company concerned.","The Commission directed the PIO, Registrar of Companies to inform the appellant about the initiative taken till now to probe this case and to provide the information about the status of the investigation at present, if available." +586,Seeking interpretation of section 428 of the CrPC under RTI,Ministry of Home Affairs,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal holding that the respondent can only provide information as is readily held by them and they are not obliged to provide any opinion under the RTI Act.,"Seeking interpretation of section 428 of the CrPC under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs seeking information related to detention such as, against which detention will be set-off if the accused is punished with death for the same case; is this non set-off not a Double Jeopardy; is this non set-off not a violation of Fundamental Right Guaranteed by Article20(2)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.of the Constitution of India and what relief can the accused take. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the applicant that the information sought points relates to interpretation of law which amounts to tendering legal opinion on the provision available under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. He denied the information stating that tendering opinion is not covered in the ambit of definition of information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal holding that the respondent can only provide information as is readily held by them and they are not obliged to provide any opinion under the RTI Act. +587,Can list of people who had deposited black money in foreign banks be disclosed under RTI?,,the black money including the names of those who were found to have deposited such money in foreign banks,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to inform to the appellant whether any such list of individuals is held centrally and if the list exists he must provide a copy of it.,"Can list of people who had deposited black money in foreign banks be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking information regarding the black money including the names of those who were found to have deposited such money in foreign banks. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and transferred many of the queries to the PIO of the Department of Revenue. The PIO, Department of Revenue provided some information but denied the list of individuals who might have deposited unaccounted money in foreign banks. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant laid emphasis on the refusal of the list of individuals alleged to have deposited unaccounted money in foreign banks by the PIO. He submitted that this information had been denied on the ground that the disclosure of such information was governed by the provisions of section 138 of the Income Tax Act. The respondent submitted that the above provision of the Income Tax Act mandated that such information could be disclosed in public interest by the competent authority and citizens would have to approach those authorities.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to inform to the appellant whether any such list of individuals is held centrally and if the list exists he must provide a copy of it. In case the PIO decides not to disclose this information he must pass a speaking order citing appropriate exemption provision of the RTI Act. +588,Information regarding outcome of a complaint for release of salary,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO (South West District) to transfer the appellant’s RTI application to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) along with a copy of the appellant’s complaint letter and a copy of communication by which they had forwarded the appellant’s said letter to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central).,"Information regarding outcome of a complaint for release of salary + +Background: +The appellant had filed a complaint with the Office of the Labour Commissioner against M/s Delhi Engineering & Construction Company for not releasing his salary and allowances. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking to know the outcome of his complaint. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the application to the PIO, South West District who furnished the reply to the applicant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant’s matter pertained to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) to whom they had forwarded the appellant’s complaint letter. They also stated that the appellant’s RTI application has not been transferred to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central).",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO (South West District) to transfer the appellant’s RTI application to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) along with a copy of the appellant’s complaint letter and a copy of communication by which they had forwarded the appellant’s said letter to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central). +589,Are the call details obtained during investigation liable to be disclosed under RTI?,Delhi Police,whether call details were taken from the service provider of telephone and if so under which law the records were obtained from the service provider and a copy of letter of request,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide requisite information to the appellant.,"Are the call details obtained during investigation liable to be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking to know whether call details of the appellant and staff of Kaveri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. were taken from the service provider of telephone, the law under which these records were obtained from the service provider and a copy of letter of request given to the service provider. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI application to the South District Delhi who in turn transferred it to Crime Branch. The PIO, crime branch, informed the appellant that a FIR has been registered by SIT/ Crime Branch and was investigated by them. After investigation, the cancellation report has been submitted by SIT/Crime Branch. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he has not asked for any record. He wanted to know whether call details were taken from the service provider of telephone and if so under which law the records were obtained from the service provider and a copy of letter of request. The representative of SIT Crime Branch stated that investigation into the case has been conducted by the SIT Crime Branch and in case any call details have been taken from the service provider during investigation they have no objection to provide the information requested to the appellant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information sought by the appellant could not be denied under any of the provisions of RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to provide requisite information to the appellant. +590,Who holds the information regarding foreign deputation of IAS officers?,Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),foreign training of a particular IAS officer who had been deputed to the Queen Elizabeth House programme in the Oxford University,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The CIC directed the PIO to recheck their own records and also to find out from all other public authorities concerned with the foreign training of an IAS officer on deputation to the central government and provide the available information to the appellant.,"Who holds the information regarding foreign deputation of IAS officers? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) seeking information regarding foreign training of a particular IAS officer who had been deputed to the Queen Elizabeth House programme in the Oxford University. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the department did not have any details about his foreign training. He enclosed a copy of the executive record sheet of the officer concerned which showed his various postings including his foreign training during a particular period. The PIO also transferred his RTI application to the BIFR where the officer concerned was posted at the relevant time. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to obtain information from other government departments and to provide the same to the appellant. The PIO tried to seek some information from the Department of Economic Affairs which claimed not to have any such information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that it was surprising that an IAS officer had undergone training abroad and the Government of India did not have any information about that.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that it is unlikely that such information or, at least, some of it should not be available with the Central Government. The Commission also stated that whenever an IAS officer is deputed for foreign training, cadre clearance is sought from the cadre controlling authority. The public authority where the officer concerned is posted at the relevant time reimburses certain costs of the foreign visit. On completion of the training, the officer concerned on return submitted certain report to the office where he is posted at the relevant time. Therefore, there would be some or the other information available with a number of public authorities. The Commission observed that this information should be provided by the cadre controlling authority of IAS officers by accessing such information from wherever it is available. The CIC directed the PIO to recheck their own records and also to find out from all other public authorities concerned with the foreign training of an IAS officer on deputation to the central government and provide the available information to the appellant." +591,Can inspection under RTI be denied if the files are with higher authorities?,Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),the vacancy position in the CIC and the steps taken by the government to fill up those vacancies,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission closed the issue of delay and the demand of fixing liability of the PIO for any alleged delay observing that he did not intentionally avoided showing the files.,"Can inspection under RTI be denied if the files are with higher authorities? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) seeking information relating to the vacancy position in the CIC and the steps taken by the government to fill up those vacancies. He also wanted to know the staff strength and the vacancies relating to the staff at CIC and to inspect the relevant files. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and allowed inspection of some files. The appellant claimed that he had inspected only part of the files and had not completed the inspection due to constraints of time. He desired to inspect the remaining files but the PIO intimated him that the relevant files were under submission to higher authorities and therefore the information could be provided only after the files were returned to the relevant section. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that either the files should have been called back by the PIO to show to him or his RTI request could have been transferred to those higher authorities with intimation to him so that he could have inspected the files wherever they were pending. He also argued that considerable delay was caused and the PIO should be penalised for the delay. The respondent submitted that the file was shown to the appellant and he was not sure why the appellant failed to inspect the file completely. He also argued that it would be impractical and not possible to summon files back from higher authorities only to show to the information seekers for their inspection and this would render decision making difficult if not impossible. The respondent offered to show the remaining files to the appellant for inspection now on any appointed date. The Commission observed that both the sets of information sought by the appellant are primarily statistical in nature and the PIO should have clearly mentioned about the number of vacancies as on the reference dates mentioned by the appellant. The Commission also observed that the time taken for inspecting a file would be mostly dependent on the volume and the content of the file and that no public authority can allow an unreasonably long time for inspection of government files as that would adversely affect the efficiency.","The Commission held that if there are files which clearly deal with both the sought subjects (as on the reference dates) and have not been inspected by the appellant due to whatever reason, those must be shown to the appellant for inspection.  The CIC further ruled that the appellant is not entitled to see any other file except exactly those which deal with both the subjects and with reference to the dates mentioned by him. The CIC noted that the relevant files were under submission over a long period of time as they had been put up to the Secretary of the Department and the Minister of State and in one case to the Cabinet Secretariat. The CIC observed that the PIO has to strike a balance in all such cases and that the submission of any file to higher authorities cannot be an alibi for not allowing the information seeker access to information. As long as this principle is observed the government business will not be affected and the citizen will not be inconvenienced. The Commission closed the issue of delay and the demand of fixing liability of the PIO for any alleged delay observing that he did not intentionally avoided showing the files." +592,Can comments made by higher authority on the leave application be disclosed under RTI?,,procedure for sanction of leave,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the sought information to the appellant.,"Can comments made by higher authority on the leave application be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the NIT seeking information regarding procedure for sanction of leave. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he wanted a copy of the comments made by the Head of Department (HoD) Macs on his leave application.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the sought information to the appellant. +593,Is there any definition of the term 'RTI activist'?,Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),the murder of RTI activists and other related issues,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission further added that the authorities concerned should devise preventive ways so that citizens can seek information without any fear from any quarter and wherever any offence is committed against an individual information seeker the state authorities should take quick and decisive action to bring the offenders to book.,"Is there any definition of the term 'RTI activist'? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) seeking information regarding the murder of RTI activists and other related issues. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a list of 14 persons supposed to be RTI activists who had been murdered in the past and pointed out that the Department did not have any other information as desired. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent pointed out that the DoPT did not collect or compile information on the reported offence against information seekers under the RTI and therefore they did not have any such information with them. The Commission noted that in the absence of any statutory definition of an RTI activist it is impossible for anybody conclusively to attribute any offence against an individual as an offence against an RTI activist. It is only after the law courts decide such cases and conclude that the offence was motivated by the fact that the victim sought any particular type of information that it should be possible to attribute the offence as exclusively against an information seeker.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the Department concerned did not have the desired information on this subject and that the law and order issues fall in the domain of the State Governments. Therefore all such information should be available with the respective State Government public authorities. The CIC rejected the appeal holding that DoPT did not collect or compile information on the reported offence against information seekers under the RTI and therefore did not have any such information with them. + +The Commission further added that the authorities concerned should devise preventive ways so that citizens can seek information without any fear from any quarter and wherever any offence is committed against an individual information seeker the state authorities should take quick and decisive action to bring the offenders to book." +594,What should a PIO do if the RTI application is unintelligible?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission also advised the PIO that when an unintelligible application is received, the best course is promptly to return it to the information seeker asking him to specify the exact information sought rather than to sit over it indefinitely.","What should a PIO do if the RTI application is unintelligible? + +Background: +The Central Information Commission (CIC) had issued a show cause notice to the Public Information Officer (PIO), Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) to explain why there was a delay in responding to the Right to Information (RTI) application. + +Proceeding + +During the show cause hearing before the CIC, the PIO submitted that the delay was caused because the RTI application was not very intelligible and there were a large number of enclosures making it very difficult for the office to decipher the exact nature of the information sought. He further submitted that it was in this process that much time was lost and eventually it was found that the subject matter itself did not concern their office and this was exactly what the PIO had informed the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) perused the RTI application and observed that the application was very clumsily drafted, mostly handwritten and in a rather meandering style. The Commission held that it was not surprising that the PIO and his office found it difficult to make any sense out of it. The CIC dropped the penalty proceeding and accepted the explanation given by the PIO.  The Commission also advised the PIO that when an unintelligible application is received, the best course is promptly to return it to the information seeker asking him to specify the exact information sought rather than to sit over it indefinitely." +595,Separate appeals should be filed if the sought information relates to different Public Authorities,,Narcotics Commissioner Smt,"['8(1)(g)', '8(1)(j)', '8(1)(h)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC also advised the appellant to file separate appeals before the Commission for the remaining points which are related to different Public Authorities i.e.,"Separate appeals should be filed if the sought information relates to different Public Authorities + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking information regarding Narcotics Commissioner Smt. Jagjit Pavadia such as copies of administrative order under which she was working on sensitive post for six years against the transfer policy of CBEC; number of vigilance and non-vigilance complaint received by PMO, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, CVC and CVO, CBEC against the person; name and designation of officer who had recommended her stay against transfer policy; name and post of the competent disciplinary authority for Narcotics Commissioner; and copies of rule under which the Narcotics Commissioner is declared immune to disciplinary action inspite of several vigilance complaints. The RTI application was transferred to Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise to respond to two queries i.e. number of vigilance and non- vigilance complaint received to PMO, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, CVC and CVO, CBEC against the person and copies of rule under which the Narcotics Commissioner is declared immune to disciplinary action instead of several vigilance complaints. The Public Information Officer (PIO), Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise provided part information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to re-examine the issue regarding supply of the copies of reply filed by the officer in case where investigation and action has been completed. The FAA however denied the note sheets of the file under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide status of the cases referred by the appellant. The Commission rejected the copies of note sheet related to closed matters under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.and that of the ongoing proceedings under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. The CIC also advised the appellant to file separate appeals before the Commission for the remaining points which are related to different Public Authorities i.e. PMO and Ministry of Finance." +596,Can the RTI application and first appeal be filed by different persons?,Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA),the LIC policy of a third party,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the RTI application was filed by one person and the second appeal has been preferred by another person.,"Can the RTI application and first appeal be filed by different persons? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) seeking information pertaining to the LIC policy of a third party. He also sought information regarding action taken on his letters while submitting that the third party belonged to the below poverty line segment. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the Grievance Cell of Consumer Affairs Department did not entertain complaints written by Advocates or agents or any third parties on behalf of policyholders. The First appeal was filed by the third party. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that as per the provisions of the RTI Act, the person who filed the RTI application and the person preferring the first appeal should be one and the same person. As there were two different persons as in the present case, the FAA dismissed the appeal.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the RTI application was filed by one person and the second appeal has been preferred by another person. +597,Can information be denied under the RTI ACT when the investigation is over?,,,['8(1)(h)'],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC found nothing wrong in the PIO’s decision for these reasons.,"Can information be denied under the RTI ACT when the investigation is over? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) sought a number of information about a departmental enquiry. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not disclose the information on the ground that it was exempt under the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;(j) of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant raised only one issue namely that whether any information regarding a departmental enquiry could be denied under the above provisions of the RTI Act when the investigation was complete. He argued that once the investigation was over, no information could be denied in connection with a departmental enquiry. The respondent submitted that the departmental enquiry was in the nature of the prosecution of an offender. Therefore, the UPSC had denied the desired information as it considered that this would adversely affect the departmental enquiry and the final decision to be taken in the matter. He further submitted that all the documents and records relevant to the departmental enquiry had already been provided to the person concerned.","The Commission recalled that that on several occasions in the past, it has been held that the departmental enquiry instituted against any public servant is equivalent to the investigation and prosecution of an offender as contemplated in section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. The CIC held that the exemption of certain category of information could as much apply in the case of departmental enquiry as it would apply in the case of any police investigation leading to prosecution in a court of law. The CIC found nothing wrong in the PIO’s decision for these reasons. + +Comments + +In respect of the section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;, both the investigation and prosecution in a criminal case and the disciplinary proceedings in a departmental enquiry case are similar. It is important to examine whether the disclosure of the exact information sought by the appellant has the potential to impede the process of investigation or prosecution or disciplinary proceedings." +598,Absence of applicant during the hearing may result into rejection of appeal,Central Bank of India,the career prospects of officers and establishment related matters,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that no action is called for on the RTI application at the level of the Commission and rejected the appeal.,"Absence of applicant during the hearing may result into rejection of appeal + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bank of India seeking information about the career prospects of officers and establishment related matters. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the information sought covered a very wide ground that would imply collecting the information from a large number of branches which would serve no public purpose. The respondent further stated that taking into account that the information was not readily available it would be appropriate to close the matter in view of the fact that collecting information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. The appellant was not present at the hearing.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that no action is called for on the RTI application at the level of the Commission and rejected the appeal. +599,Information concerning pending litigation in the trial court was sought under RTI,Calcutta High Court,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission advised the appellant to approach the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) of the relevant District Court to find out about his case.,"Information concerning pending litigation in the trial court was sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Calcutta High Court seeking information concerning some pending litigation in the trial court for a very long period of time, such as the destruction of the case file and some other related matters. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the High Court had forwarded his letter to the District Judge of Alipore for further necessary action. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had been waiting for more than 26 years for a final outcome of the litigation concerning his property and had several grievances against the trial court in respect of the manner in which his case had been conducted.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the questions raised by the appellant are directly concerned with the case records and the manner of the maintenance of those records by the lower court. The Commission held that the said lower court comes under the jurisdiction of the District Court which has a separate PIO. If there is any information regarding the queries raised by the complainant, those could be answered only by the PIO of the District Court and not of the High Court. The CIC held that the right place where the RTI application should be preferred is the PIO of the District Court of Alipore, which comes under the jurisdiction of the State Information Commission (SIC) and not the CIC. The Commission advised the appellant to approach the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) of the relevant District Court to find out about his case." +600,Can a copy of letter pertaining to the ATM be disclosed under RTI?,State Bank of India (SBI),"the norms for issuing ATM security PIN code number to account holders, the number of ATM security PIN codes issued in a particular period and other related information",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed to provide the available information on an affidavit.,"Can a copy of letter pertaining to the ATM be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India (SBI) seeking information regarding the norms for issuing ATM security PIN code number to account holders, the number of ATM security PIN codes issued in a particular period and other related information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise reply. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he had suffered a loss of Rs. 16,000/- on account of the connivance of the bank with the courier system used by the bank. The appellant also submitted that the bank had acted with a malafide intention by not sending him his security pin code but also made him suffer a loss. He was seeking a copy of the letter pertaining to the ATM dispatched to him but the bank was denying him that information. The respondent stated that the information was not available in the bank as the records had been lost. The respondent also stated that the ATM card was always sent to the address of the account holder whereas the security pin code mailer was given personally by inviting the ATM account holder to the branch. The respondent stated that the account holder had received the ATM card but he had not received the security pin code mailer and it was the pin mailer receipt that was missing in the bank. The appellant stated that he neither received ATM card nor the security pin code.",The Commission observed that the respondent is obliged to provide the information sought in the RTI application because it relates to the day to day banking services. The Commission directed to provide the available information on an affidavit. +601,RTI Query - Information regarding NSC and Indira Vikas Patra,Department of Posts,"deposits made in Ajra Post Office by three persons, withdrawals made during the year 1986 and 1987 and photo copies of related documents",['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that accounts of customers maintained at post office/banks are held under fiduciary relationship and hence information relating to such accounts is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.","RTI Query - Information regarding NSC and Indira Vikas Patra + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Posts seeking information regarding deposits made in Ajra Post Office by three persons, withdrawals made during the year 1986 and 1987 and photo copies of related documents. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that it relates to a third party. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant wanted information relating to NSCs and Indira Vikas Patra (IVPs) in the name of third party(s), which cannot be disclosed being exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that accounts of customers maintained at post office/banks are held under fiduciary relationship and hence information relating to such accounts is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Comments + +The information relating to bank accounts, NSCs and Indira Vikas Patra (IVPs) in the name of third party(s) cannot be disclosed being exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. It is the personal information of the third party and it may have an impact on the commercial interest of the third party." +602,RTI Applicants should ask for file noting instead of reasons for taking a certain decision,Department of Legal Affairs (DLA),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC further observed that the appellant should approach the Ministry of Law and ask for the copy of the file noting from the file in which the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare reference in this case had been processed and the said recommendation issued.,"RTI Applicants should ask for file noting instead of reasons for taking a certain decision + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Legal Affairs (DLA) seeking information in respect of the decision of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for giving certain benefits of ACP to a particular physiotherapist Grade 1. He wanted certain clarifications from the PIO of the DLA concerning the basis on which the said recommendation had been given by the Department. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the application to the PIO of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). He responded to the appellant with the observation that he could not offer any such clarification since it was not covered within the scope of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the RTI application should not have been transferred to DoPT since the desired information was held by the DLA and not the DoPT.","The Commission observed that there was no reason why the RTI application was transferred in the first place. The PIO of the Department of Legal Affairs could have himself responded to the appellant. However, the Commission rejected the appeal holding that the PIO cannot speculate about the basis on which the recommendation would have been made. The CIC further observed that the appellant should approach the Ministry of Law and ask for the copy of the file noting from the file in which the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare reference in this case had been processed and the said recommendation issued. The file noting might reveal the logic and the argument behind the recommendation." +603,Can the Department of Public Grievances redress the grievance of State Government employee?,,a teacher who served under the State Government of Jharkhand,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission advised the appellant to approach the State Government authorities for the desired information.,"Can the Department of Public Grievances redress the grievance of State Government employee? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances seeking information regarding a teacher who served under the State Government of Jharkhand. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that his RTI application was transferred to the respective State Government since the Department was not concerned with the information.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information sought relates to an employee serving under a State Government. The department concerned in the Government of India has no control or anything to do with the service conditions of State Government employees. The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances cannot redress any grievance of any State Government employee when the grievance pertains to that Government and not to the Central Government. The CIC rejected the appeal holding that there is nothing which the PIO can offer by way of information in the case. The Commission advised the appellant to approach the State Government authorities for the desired information. +604,RTI Query - Proceedings of Committee appointed in wake of Fifth Pay Commission,Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),the removal of anomaly in the pay scale of investigators raised before the National Anomaly Committee appointed after the implementation of the Fifth CPC,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The Commission also directed the PIO to recheck the records and provide the available information to the appellant however, if the records are not still traceable or had been destroyed according to the record retention schedule; the PIO must inform the appellant suitably.","RTI Query - Proceedings of Committee appointed in wake of Fifth Pay Commission + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) seeking information regarding the removal of anomaly in the pay scale of investigators raised before the National Anomaly Committee appointed after the implementation of the Fifth CPC. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the relevant file was not traceable in spite of his best efforts and that the desired information would be provided after the file was available. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations had come many years back and the specific file relating to the Anomaly Committee and its recommendations on any particular anomaly in the pay scale of investigators/ junior investigators was not traceable.","The Commission directed the PIO to find out whether such records have a lifespan and whether they are supposed to be available even now. The CIC held that if these records are supposed to be in existence, the relevant section in the department must search for the records and locate the specific file based on which information could be given. The Commission also directed the PIO to recheck the records and provide the available information to the appellant however, if the records are not still traceable or had been destroyed according to the record retention schedule; the PIO must inform the appellant suitably. + +Comments + +Untraceable/ missing files are fairly common in the government set-up. In the RTI era, good record keeping has become a must for the public authorities." +605,Information regarding automated car parking at Delhi was sought under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC also held that regarding the disclosure of information pertaining to DIMTS Limited, a decision shall be taken by the Commission as and when the Division Bench of the High Court pronounces its decision on whether DIMT is a Public Authority or not.","Information regarding automated car parking at Delhi was sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Integrated Multi Modal Transit (DIMT) Ltd. seeking information related to automated car parking at various places in New Delhi. The Public Information Officer (PIO), DGMHR Government of NCT of Delhi stated that DIMTS Ltd. is not a Public Authority as per section2(h)“public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted +(a) by or under the Constitution; +(b) by any other law made by Parliament; +(c) by any other law made by State Legislature; +(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- +(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; +(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;of the RTI Act. He also returned the RTI Fee and the RTI application to the applicant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the applicant stated that the website of DIMTS clearly mentions that it is a joint venture company with fifty percent equity share of the GNCTD and is substantially financed by funds provided by the appropriate government and as such is covered under section2(h)“public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted +(a) by or under the Constitution; +(b) by any other law made by Parliament; +(c) by any other law made by State Legislature; +(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- +(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; +(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;(d)(ii) of RTI Act. The respondent submitted that in an earlier decision the CIC and the single bench of High Court of Delhi had declared DIMTS Ltd. as a public authority. However, the DIMTS Ltd. approached the High Court against the decision of the single Judge and the Division bench of the High Court of Delhi has stayed the decision of the single Judge, allowing disclosure of only that information to the respondent that did not pertain to DIMT. The respondent further added that as most of the information related to NDMC, the RTI application was forwarded by DIMTS Ltd. to the PIO NDMC for furnishing information against some points directly to the appellant. The applicant submitted that no response has been received by him from PIO, NDMC.","The Commission directed the PIO, New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) to furnish the information available with to the applicant. The CIC also held that regarding the disclosure of information pertaining to DIMTS Limited, a decision shall be taken by the Commission as and when the Division Bench of the High Court pronounces its decision on whether DIMT is a Public Authority or not. + +Comments + +Even after seven years of the coming in force of the Act, confusion about whether an organisation is covered under the RTI Act denotes a poor state of affairs." +606,Can a marginal delay of two- three days be condoned by the CIC?,,the approved newspapers and their advertisements,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC also held that if the appellant desires, he may inspect the records and identify the information which he wants to obtain.","Can a marginal delay of two- three days be condoned by the CIC? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Information & Publicity Government of NCT of Delhi seeking information about the approved newspapers and their advertisements. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information and asked the applicant to pay Rs. 4950/- for the copies of documents sought by him. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant requested the Commission to direct the PIO to give the sought information free of cost as the reply of the PIO did not reach him within the stipulated time period of 30 days.","The Commission noted that information sought by the appellant runs into thousands of pages which cannot be allowed to be given free of cost, especially when there is a marginal delay of one or two days in responding to the appellant. The Commission directed that first 100 pages of information be given free of cost to the appellant while for the remaining pages the appellant is required to pay the prescribed fee. The CIC also held that if the appellant desires, he may inspect the records and identify the information which he wants to obtain. In that case too, the appellant shall be given first 100 pages of information free of cost and for the rest he would need to pay the prescribed fee. In case the appellant does not want to come for an inspection, the PIO should provide the breakup of amount to be paid by him for supply of information. + +Comments + +Following the time schedule strictly would avoid the marginal delays in responding to the applicant in cases of information running into thousands of pages. In cases of voluminous information, an applicant should be offered inspection of the documents within the prescribed time limit otherwise the PIO might end up supplying the information free of cost." +607,CIC - DoPT should put the information of public interest on its website,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC also stated that if the DoPT can upload the information in its website it would be a welcome gesture as the information is of great public interest.,"CIC - DoPT should put the information of public interest on its website + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) seeking information in respect of the Task Force constituted by the Central Government for implementation of the provisions of section 4 of the RTI Act including the copies of the minutes of the Task Force meetings, its recommendations and the consequent action taken on those recommendations. The Public Information Officer (PIO) demanded Rs. 460/- towards the photocopying charges at the rate of Rs. 2/- per page for providing 230 pages of information. The appellant preferred an appeal in which he requested the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to pass an order to provide the information as per the provisions contained in section 7(3) of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO should provide detailed calculation of the cost of providing the information item wise and that the DoPT should upload this information in the department’s website.","The Commission did not agree with the demand of the appellant and held that the PIO had responded within the stipulated period and had indicated very clearly the total number of pages of information to be disclosed and the photocopying charges as prescribed. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that if the appellant is interested, he can send the photocopying charges and get the records. The CIC also stated that if the DoPT can upload the information in its website it would be a welcome gesture as the information is of great public interest." +608,Which CPSUs have implemented revised pay as per the Justice Mohan Commission directives?,Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises,the names of 69 PSUs whose employees wages were covered by the CDA pattern wage revision as ordered in the Supreme Court judgment,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The PIO (DPE) was further directed to collect such information from the respective Ministries and put it on the website of the DPE in compliance with section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the RTI Act.","Which CPSUs have implemented revised pay as per the Justice Mohan Commission directives? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises seeking information regarding the names of 69 PSUs whose employees wages were covered by the CDA pattern wage revision as ordered in the Supreme Court judgment. He also wanted to know the names of those Central PSUs out of the above 69 PSUs whose IDA pattern employees were allowed revision of pay and wages based on the recommendations of the Justice Mohan Commission Pay Revision through Presidential Directives which empowered the PSUs to pay the revised wages on a monthly basis. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the list of 69 CPSEs covered under High Power Pay Committee following CDA pattern scales of pay. Regarding the second query the PIO stated that DPE is the nodal Department in Government to issue policy guidelines for CPSEs and that implementation of these guidelines rests with the respective CPSEs and its administrative departments. The appellant was dissatisfied with the reply to the second query and filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority. The FAA mentioned that the information in DPE O.M. contain only the broad guidelines for implementing the 1997 pay revision. Pay revision in CPSEs depends on various factors like affordability of the concerned CPSE to pay etc. The issue of Presidential directive is not same as with its implementation, unless all the elements of the guidelines/directives are fulfilled. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that Department of Public Enterprises (DPE) is the nodal Department for issue of policy guidelines in respect of CPSEs. The implementation of DPE guidelines rests with the respective administrative Ministries and the CPSEs. The pay scales depend on several factors including affordability of the concerned CPSE. The petitioner is seeking information on those CPSEs out of those 69 CPSEs where IDA pay scales have been allowed through Presidential directives, which are issued by the respective Ministries/ Departments. The DPE does not have the information related to this. In case the appellant had asked for the implementation of the DPE’s guidelines in a particular CPSE, the request could have been forwarded to the said CPSE for providing the relevant information.","The Commission directed the PIO to transfer one point of the RTI application to the respective Ministries and the respective PIOs of the respective Ministries will provide requisite information on that point. The PIO (DPE) was further directed to collect such information from the respective Ministries and put it on the website of the DPE in compliance with section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;of the RTI Act." +609,Information regarding the length of the median and chainage of the NH 66,Public Works Department (PWD),NH66 Puducherry,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to furnish the length and chainage of the median that earlier existed in Puducherry to Tindivanam Road to the appellant free of cost to the appellant, as per the available records.","Information regarding the length of the median and chainage of the NH 66 + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Public Works Department (PWD) seeking information pertaining to NH66 Puducherry. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the NH 66 Puducherry – Tindivanam Road was declared as National Highway during 1998. On declaration of NH the entire stretch of the road was the property of Government of India. The PIO also added that the information sought for is voluminous and requires deployment of disproportionate manpower. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to furnish the appropriate available information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that in compliance with the directions of the FAA the office has again informed the appellant about voluminous records nearing about 2000 pages and that it requires culling out information from more than 20 files and requested the appellant to inspect the available records. The appellant has inspected the required records and copy of 29 pages of documents was subsequently provided to the appellant. The appellant submitted that though the roads have been demolished, the PIO has to provide the length of the median and chainage of the road with their official records.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to furnish the length and chainage of the median that earlier existed in Puducherry to Tindivanam Road to the appellant free of cost to the appellant, as per the available records." +610,Seeking information regarding the constitution of the Group of Ministers under RTI Act,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also stated that the appellant has the entire list of Groups of Ministers for this period he can approach any individual Ministry/ Department for further details.,"Seeking information regarding the constitution of the Group of Ministers under RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel & Training and Cabinet Secretariat seeking details about the venue, date of meeting and the minutes of the meeting etc. about the Group of Ministers. The Central Information Commission heard the case and directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) in order dated 15 October 2012, to explain why the RTI application was transferred late. + +Proceedings + +The PIO submitted that the details sought by the appellant were secret and could not have been disclosed without the approval of the competent authority. He explained that the process of seeking approval of the competent authority itself took some time and only after due permission was granted only then the available details about the constitution of the Group of Ministers could be provided to the appellant. The PIO stated that further details about the venue, date of meeting and the minutes of the meeting etc were not available in the Cabinet Secretariat and should be sought only from the Ministries/ Departments which serviced the Groups of Ministers and hence other than the information relating to the constitution of the Group of Ministers, the Cabinet Secretariat could not have made available the other details as sought by the appellant. The appellant submitted that about the initial delay of nearly one year in deciding about the desirability of disclosing details about the Group of Ministers.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the time taken for deciding on whether various details about the Group of Ministers should be disclosed in the public domain or not was inordinately long. The conventional marking of government records as secret or confidential cannot be ground for withholding that information if it is not otherwise covered under any of the exemption provisions. The CIC noted that the appellant has already got some information regarding the constitution of the Group of Ministers though very late. Regarding the other details the CIC held that the PIO could not be expected to collect such information from several dozen government ministries and departments which might have serviced these Groups of Ministers over the entire period for which the information has been sought. The Commission also stated that the appellant has the entire list of Groups of Ministers for this period he can approach any individual Ministry/ Department for further details. +611,Is a public authority required to maintain a list of employees on leave?,Aligarh Muslim University (AMU),break up of staff position in different departments of AMU as per proforma provided and related issues,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information stating that access to personal files of teachers by a third party was not desirable.,"Is a public authority required to maintain a list of employees on leave? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) seeking information regarding break up of staff position in different departments of AMU as per proforma provided and related issues. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant to deposit Rs 48/- to obtain the information. Regarding the information related to number of teachers who are on leave, he offered an inspection of the personal files of the teachers to the appellant stating that this would involve collation from different files and would disproportionately divert the resources of the University.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that it is difficult to believe that information relating to number of teachers who are on leave was not available centrally in the University system. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information stating that access to personal files of teachers by a third party was not desirable. +612,Addressing the issue of road blocks done by the police through RTI,Delhi Police,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that requisite information has been provided to the appellant by the PIO and no action is called for on the part of the Commission.,"Addressing the issue of road blocks done by the police through RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking to know how many roads have been blocked for the movement of traffic and general public by the police near DCP (North-East) Office and the name and designation of the officer who has given the order for blocking the above-said roads and etc. He also wanted to inspect all the files/ records related to the blocking of these roads.  The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that no road has been blocked for thoroughfare and some vehicles are diverted some times as per exigency. The RTI application was transferred to the PIO (Traffic) for furnishing the rest information. The PIO (Traffic) Eastern Range provided requisite information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO has deliberately not provided the correct information in order to shield the malpractices of local Police causing inconvenience and problems to the general public. The appellant also added that the PIO Traffic Police Eastern Range has also provided a totally false and misleading reply in collusion with PIO of NED.",The Commission rejected the appeal observing that requisite information has been provided to the appellant by the PIO and no action is called for on the part of the Commission. +613,The reasons for rejecting the extension of CL was sought using RTI application,Delhi Armed Police,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"As the reason for rejecting the application for extending CL had already been provided, the Commission rejected the appeal observing there is no reason to interfere with the replies of the respondent.","The reasons for rejecting the extension of CL was sought using RTI application + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Armed Police seeking to know from the reasons for rejecting the application of extending the Casual Leave (CL) of her husband and copy of the CCS (Leave) Rules and Standing Order.  The Public Information Officer (PIO) supplied the requisite documents to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant’s husband has already been informed of the reasons for rejection of extension of CL through various mails and letters.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that as per the provisions of the RTI Act, information held by or under the control of the respondent is to be provided to the appellant. As the reason for rejecting the application for extending CL had already been provided, the Commission rejected the appeal observing there is no reason to interfere with the replies of the respondent." +614,Addressing the issue of suspension from school using RTI,Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS),suspension of his son,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +The CIC has preferred not to take a decision regarding disclosure but merely directed the PIO to ‘respond’.","Addressing the issue of suspension from school using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) seeking information relating to suspension of his son. The RTI application was transferred by Regional Office, to Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV). The Principal, KV, responded to the application. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that his son had been suspended from the school for some period and then reinstated. He wanted a copy of the complaint on the basis of which his son had been suspended. The PIO submitted that the student was suspended for indiscipline and the incident had taken place before his joining the school.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the Principal/ PIO to provide a response to the appellant. + +Comments + +The CIC has preferred not to take a decision regarding disclosure but merely directed the PIO to ‘respond’." +615,RTI application seeking details of selection of Chairperson of CBEC/ CBDT,,selection of Member/ Chairperson of CBEC/CBDT for the last five years,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"Comments + +The issue whether the applicant is required to send the application to the specific PIO has not been addressed by the CIC in this case.","RTI application seeking details of selection of Chairperson of CBEC/ CBDT + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Finance and Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) seeking information regarding selection of Member/ Chairperson of CBEC/CBDT for the last five years. The RTI application was transferred to the Public Information Officer (PIO) (CX-9), CBEC who advised the appellant to send a DD/Bankers cheque/ IPO payable to the P&AO, Department of Revenue for a sum of Rs. 402/- or deposit the same amount in cash, for obtaining the copies of meetings of CBEC. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant contended that he should be provided the information free of cost, since there has been a considerable delay in providing the information. The respondent contended that the appellant had filed his RTI application to the Department of Financial Services, instead of filing the RTI application to the PIO, (CX-9), CBEC. The website of CBEC clearly indicates the nature of documents held by the CBEC in general and by each PIO of the concerned sections, despite which the application was addressed to the PIO, Department of Financial Services. He transferred the application to the PIO, Department of Revenue who thereafter transferred the RTI application to the concerned PIOs, including the PIO (CX-9). The PIO (CX-9) has provided requisite reply to the appellant without any delay and the appellant is bound to pay the requisite fee for the information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the respondent’s plea is valid to the extent that no delay has been caused on the part of the PIO (CX- 9) who replied within the stipulated period of 30 days. However, the Commission observed that there has been an unexplained delay of more than three months from since the date of filing of RTI application and the date of issue of Department of Revenue asking the PIO (CX-9) to provide the information to the appellant. The CIC directed the PIO (CX-9) to provide information to the appellant free of cost in view of the delay caused to the appellant. The Commission also advised the appellant to address his RTI applications to the correct public authority in order to avoid such delays. + +Comments + +The issue whether the applicant is required to send the application to the specific PIO has not been addressed by the CIC in this case. The PIO is required to transfer the application to the concerned PIO within 5 days which does not appear to have been done. In this case, even the PIO who received the RTI application did not know where the information was located hence expecting outsiders to know about it would be farfetched." +616,RTI query - Details of a President's medal awardee,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) advised the appellant to find out more details about the individual concerned and then make a fresh RTI application to the appropriate public authority.,"RTI query - Details of a President's medal awardee + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat seeking to know the details of a person in Hyderabad namely Hakim Mahmud Ur Rahman who had been decorated with the President's medal.  The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that no such information was maintained in the President Secretariat. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) endorsed the response of the PIO and also directed him to transfer the RTI application to the relevant public authority. Following this, the PIO transferred the application to a certain public authority in Hyderabad. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had not received any information. The respondent stated that the appellant has given no details other than just the name of the person and the name of the city where he supposedly lived and that this was not adequate enough details based on which any one can find out if the person concerned had been decorated with the President's medal.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) advised the appellant to find out more details about the individual concerned and then make a fresh RTI application to the appropriate public authority. +617,Are the dates and purpose of official visits disclosable under RTI?,Punjab National Bank,the dates and purpose of visits to Bangalore by the five CMDs of the Bank along with the photocopies of the hotel bills,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed to provide whatever further information has become available with the bank to the appellant.,"Are the dates and purpose of official visits disclosable under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab National Bank seeking information about the dates and purpose of visits to Bangalore by the five CMDs of the Bank along with the photocopies of the hotel bills. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and denied the rest on some or the other ground. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that information is needed to expose the alleged corruption in the bank and the culture of brokers that has been introduced in the bank. The appellant further stated that it is important to know the details of the hotel in which the higher levels of bank officers have stayed. It is to pin down the facts about the claims and the payments that have been made and expose the practices of the bank. The respondent stated that they have given information on 18 out of 23 counts. They further explained that the rest of the information was denied because the points were in the shape of queries and not information seeking. On certain points, the papers were not available, e.g., hotel bills. The respondent also stated that some more information in recent weeks has become available, which can be provided to the appellant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed to provide whatever further information has become available with the bank to the appellant. +618,Information regarding the insider trading of shares of the Reliance Petroleum,Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI),,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC further ruled that the information regarding the assets and liabilities of the Chairman SEBI is clearly in the nature of personal information which is exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","Information regarding the insider trading of shares of the Reliance Petroleum + +Background: +The appellant filed four applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) seeking a variety of information relating to the SEBI investigation into the allegations of insider trading and short sale of shares of the Reliance Petroleum in 2007 by the Reliance Industries Ltd. He also sought some information regarding the consent order cases filed by the Reliance Industries Ltd. and other entities for offence under the Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Practices Regulations. The appellant further wanted the copies of the returns of the assets and liabilities filed by the Chairman of SEBI with the details of all the entities involved in the short sale of shares. + +The PIO ruled against disclosure against (i) and (ii) below holding that being part of the quasi-judicial proceedings, the disclosure of such information would impede the process of investigation already underway. Besides, the disclosure of such information which is in the nature of commercial confidence could also affect the competitive position of the third party. + +(i) The investigation report or the details of the consent order proceedings, and + +(ii) The details about the identity of the entities involved in the short sale of the shares of the Reliance Petroleum in 2007, + +(iii) Regarding the assets and liabilities of the current Chairman, SEBI and his monthly emoluments, the PIO claimed that the same are exempt under sections8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, being personal information held in a fiduciary capacity. + +(iv) Regarding the question of the disclosure of the file noting and other relevant records resulting in the issue of a certain circular in 2007 laying down the guidelines for the consent order mechanism, the PIO provided part of the information and claimed exemption under sections8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;and (j) of the RTI Act for the remaining. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the insider trading by the Reliance Industries Ltd. had been widely reported in the press and it was believed that an illegal gain of more than Rs. 500 crore rupees had been made. He claimed that a greater public interest would warrant the disclosure of the desired information.","1. The CIC noted that: + +If the SEBI took cognizance of allegations of any breach of law by any entity for unlawful private gain, the information generated in the process of its investigation needs to be disclosed in the public domain. Such disclosure would keep the general public informed and educated about the risks in making investments in the market and would also prevent many entities from adopting shortcuts to make profit. The Commission held that the argument that at the end of the quasi-judicial proceedings, the charged entities may be found innocent cannot be an argument against disclosing the information. This becomes especially important as the SEBI has also initiated consent order mechanism on the request of party involved and the violations found in the investigation could be settled through a consent order thereby nullifying the likely penalty which would have visited the party involved at the end of the quasi-judicial proceedings. The CIC ruled that the disclosure of the information as sought in (i) and (ii) would serve a larger public interest. + +2. The Commission held that the file noting and other related information relating to the issue of the circular in 2007 regarding the guidelines for the consent order mechanism cannot fall under any of the exemption provisions. The CIC observed that transparency demands that the entire process of deliberation leading to the formulation of important policies like in this case should be disclosed up front in the public domain so that the people can find out why and how such important decisions have been taken. + +3. The CIC further ruled that the information regarding the assets and liabilities of the Chairman SEBI is clearly in the nature of personal information which is exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Comments + +This order opens up the murky world of insider trading to the public. However, as reported in the latest byte below, this order has been challenged in the High Court." +619,Public Authority should retain proof of destruction of records,Air India,some queries pertaining to his outstanding dues,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,Regarding the rest of the information the Commission rejected the appeal observing that requisite information has been provided to the appellant.,"Public Authority should retain proof of destruction of records + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Air India seeking information on some queries pertaining to his outstanding dues. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated the Annuity/ Salary slips for each month had been provided whereas the revised salary slips for the mentioned period could not be provided as the same are generated by the EDP Department on Main Frame System for the complete Region as a whole. Therefore, the appellant was provided annuity slips for the aforementioned period in lieu of salary slips. + +Regarding payment of arrears, the respondent submitted that the appellant was paid Rs. 8721.33 towards the interim relief for the period 1.9.1990 to 1.4.1991. The payment of interim relief was paid separately to employees of Corporation and was later on adjusted at the time of final payment on account of wage arrears and that it was evident from the payment details Rs. 16622 that during the period April 1991 to June 1991 only the Annuity amount was shown as Amount paid. Interim Relief payment was not incorporated in amount paid while calculating the arrears. In the column amount payable revised salary figures were included and hence the arrears were finally paid to him. Regarding the Qualification Allowance the respondent submitted that the appellant was paid Rs. 14,420 towards Qualification Allowance. + +Regarding destruction of records, the respondent submitted that the records are not destructed by any individual but by the Committee and that as per law the subsidiary records like cash/bank vouchers are required to be kept for 8 years only. The appellant insisted to know the mode of payment like STA, Qualification Allowance, Telephone Pay, and Kit Maintenance. The respondent clarified to him that the payment of Kit maintenance and telephone allowance was paid to Pilots separately through vouchers and these records have already been destroyed.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide copy of the approval of Competent Authority for destroying the records of the mentioned period to the appellant. Regarding the rest of the information the Commission rejected the appeal observing that requisite information has been provided to the appellant. +620,Can the fact that the PIO was non-conversant with Hindi be accepted as credible explanation for delay?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission also recommended the Director of the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) to issue written warning to the scientist who retained the RTI application unauthorisedly, causing violation of the provisions of the RTI Act.","Can the fact that the PIO was non-conversant with Hindi be accepted as credible explanation for delay? + +Background: +The Central Information Commission (CIC) had issued a show cause notice to the Public Information Officer (PIO) to give reasons as to why the penalty should not be imposed on him for the delay in providing the information to the appellant. The PIO submitted that the RTI application was addressed to ‘Mananiya Nirdeshak’ and not to the PIO and was written in Hindi. The PIO further explained that the said RTI application was received by one of the scientists in the Institute and since he could not understand the subject matter of the letter being not very conversant with Hindi language, he retained the same and did not forward it to the PIO. The PIO also submitted that he became aware of the pending RTI application only on receipt of the reminder from the applicant. On learning of this pendency, the PIO took immediate action to furnish information to the appellant. The PIO pleaded that the delay in providing information was not intentional and therefore, penalty should not be imposed.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the explanation as credible and dropped the penalty proceedings against the PIO. The Commission also recommended the Director of the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) to issue written warning to the scientist who retained the RTI application unauthorisedly, causing violation of the provisions of the RTI Act." +621,Why was CMD Air India called back abruptly from his foreign tour?,,,['8(1)(i)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the photocopies of the relevant records which constituted the grounds for the government decision to revert the then CMD of the Air India and appoint someone else in his place.,"Why was CMD Air India called back abruptly from his foreign tour? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Cabinet Secretariat in Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). He had referred to some news item regarding the abrupt return of the CMD of the Air India from his foreign tour and raised a number of queries against which he sought various clarifications. The PMO transferred the RTI application to the Ministry of Civil Aviation which in turn transferred it to the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT). The Public Information Officer (PIO) DOPT transferred some of the queries to the Cabinet Secretariat. The PIO of the Cabinet Secretariat denied the information on the ground that the desired records constituted Cabinet Papers and therefore it could not be disclosed under section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +The respondent of Cabinet Secretariat submitted that the decision to revert the then CMD of the Air India and appoint someone else in his place had been taken on the basis of a proposal received from the Minister Civil Aviation addressed to the Prime Minister of India and, therefore, it was considered that not only his letter but all related documents including file noting was in the nature of Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) papers. The appellant argued that as per the provisions of the section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act, this information should be disclosed since this was being sought much after the decision had been taken and the matter was complete and over.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the desired document should be disclosed even if it is admitted that these documents constitute part of the papers which had been put up before the ACC and the decision of the ACC has already been implemented. The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the photocopies of the relevant records which constituted the grounds for the government decision to revert the then CMD of the Air India and appoint someone else in his place. +622,Information regarding vigilance inquiry against misutilisation of public money,State Bank of India,,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide information on the various points in the RTI application and an affidavit stating whether the information provided is complete.,"Information regarding vigilance inquiry against misutilisation of public money + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of India seeking information pertaining to a certain vigilance inquiry that had taken place a few years ago in Hindupur branch, such as, the names with designation and grades with nature of appropriate disciplinary action taken and extent of accountability of all the allegedly erring staff members. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded point wise to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that some information has been denied under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act as the information pertains to the internal processes of the bank.The appellant stated that this is a matter of public interest involving serious irregularities wherein the bank had misused public money of a very high order for their private gains and that the money was not a small amount but was to the extent of Rs.1,60,200 crores. The appellant said that the lack of transparency of the bank and its hesitation to provide the information is a matter of public interest. The appellant also stated that he is a social worker and he is interested in this matter as public funds have been mis-utilised.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide information on the various points in the RTI application and an affidavit stating whether the information provided is complete. +623,Seeking attendance recorded through Biometric attendance device under RTI,Export Inspection Council (EIC) of India,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comment + +As per section 2 (j), the ""right to information"" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to— + +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; + +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; + +(iii) taking certified samples of material; + +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.","Seeking attendance recorded through Biometric attendance device under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Export Inspection Council (EIC) of India seeking information of the Biometric attendance device from date of its installation and ID card attendance device from date of its installation till date, recorded in a CD. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that providing the sought information in CD is amicable to tempering and therefore not feasible in soft copy. Further, the appellant was informed that EIA-Delhi has issued a memorandum regarding his attendance on certain dates when he had neither signed the attendance register nor recorded his attendance through Access Control Machine and subsequently a reminder was issued calling his explanation on the aforesaid memorandum. The appellant had submitted his comments to EIA-Delhi which is under process of investigation. The information was denied under the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that providing the sought information in CD form will not temper the records as they are being electronically stored and if so then the system is faulty which requires repair or replacement.","The Commission observed that the information sought by the appellant was disclosable under RTI Act and directed the PIO to provide Biometric attendance of the employees in CD form to the appellant. + +Comment + +As per section 2 (j), the ""right to information"" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to— + +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; + +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; + +(iii) taking certified samples of material; + +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device." +624,Hypothetical queries are beyond the purview of RTI Act,South East Central Railway Office,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comments + +Applicants should adhere to the definition of ‘information’ as per the section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act whenever they wish to seek information as per the RTI Act.","Hypothetical queries are beyond the purview of RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the South East Central Railway Office seeking certain information on situation ‘if a railway employee writes about some gross irregularities going on in a Central Government institution in which he is undergoing training along with some other Govt. Employee…’. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that his queries are hypothetical in nature which is out of the purview of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the PIO that the appellant has not sought any material information as defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that his queries were totally based upon a hypothetical situation which he himself has created. + +Comments + +Applicants should adhere to the definition of ‘information’ as per the section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act whenever they wish to seek information as per the RTI Act." +625,Answer sheets are liable to be disclosed under the RTI Act after the declaration of results,Punjab University,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,3000.0,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show reasons as to why the penalty should not be levied on him.","Answer sheets are liable to be disclosed under the RTI Act after the declaration of results + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab University seeking certified copies of his answer sheets for the Exams of Bachelor of Dental Sciences fourth year for the subject Oral Surgery for the subject of Orthodontics for the Session 2012-2011. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing, the Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to the decision of the Supreme Court of India as held in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 dated 9 August 2011 in the case of CBSE and Anr Vs Aditya Bandhopadhyay and Ors (http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/supremecourt1-459) whereby it was held that under the RTI Act, 2005 the evaluated answer sheets of the candidate can be disclosed to him/ her after the declaration of results by the public authority. The respondents could not give a satisfactory response to the Commission’s queries as to why they had continued to act in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court of India. The appellant stated that he had drawn the attention of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to the aforementioned case also in his first appeal.","The Commission observed that it is beyond comprehension as to why the PIO and FAA of the Punjab University have chosen to ignore the order of the Supreme Court of India. In the said case, the Apex Court also clarified that the right to access information does not extend beyond the period determined by the examining body to retain the answer books. Accordingly, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the appellant with copies of his answer sheets as sought in his RTI application. The Commission granted compensation of Rs. 3000 /- to the appellant noting that he has been put to great physical and mental harassment. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO to show reasons as to why the penalty should not be levied on him." +626,Using RTI to obtain details of action taken on representations made to the Director CBI,Delhi Police,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that requisite information has been provided to the appellant by the PIO and no action is called for on the part of the Commission.,"Using RTI to obtain details of action taken on representations made to the Director CBI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking to know how many roads have been blocked for the movement of traffic and general public by the police near DCP (North-East) Office and the name and designation of the officer who has given the order for blocking the above-said roads and etc. He also wanted to inspect all the files/ records related to the blocking of these roads.  The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that no road has been blocked for thoroughfare and some vehicles are diverted some times as per exigency. The RTI application was transferred to the PIO (Traffic) for furnishing the rest information. The PIO (Traffic) Eastern Range provided requisite information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO has deliberately not provided the correct information in order to shield the malpractices of local Police causing inconvenience and problems to the general public. The appellant also added that the PIO Traffic Police Eastern Range has also provided a totally false and misleading reply in collusion with PIO of NED.",The Commission rejected the appeal observing that requisite information has been provided to the appellant by the PIO and no action is called for on the part of the Commission. +627,Can the order passed by Supreme Court be questioned under RTI?,Supreme Court of India,the basis for several conclusions in that order,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the photocopy of any available relevant record on which the fact of his inspection of these particular records would have been noted and in case no such record is presently available for any reason the PIO has to inform the appellant about those reasons.,"Can the order passed by Supreme Court be questioned under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Supreme Court of India seeking the rationale and the basis for certain conclusions reached by the bench in a particular order it passed in the SLP No CC 11085/2011. The Public Information Officer (PIO) observed that it was beyond the scope of her duty to offer any interpretation or opinion on judicial pronouncements and that the queries did not amount to information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. Regarding the request of the appellant to inspect some judicial records, the PIO stated that the appellant was earlier allowed inspection of the desired records. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant alleged that the orders passed by the Supreme Court in his case were without any basis and that was the reason that he wanted to know the basis for several conclusions in that order. The respondent submitted that the order passed by the Supreme Court spoke for itself and it was beyond the jurisdiction and duty of the PIO to speculate about the basis on which the order might have been passed. The appellant further claimed that he had never been allowed to inspect the relevant judicial records. The respondent claimed that as per the information provided by the concerned division of the Supreme Court the appellant had indeed inspected the records.","The Commission held that it is not envisaged under the RTI Act that the PIO or anyone else should speculate or surmise why a particular decision was taken in any matter. The CIC added that under the RTI Act, the order passed by the Supreme Court could not be interrogated and there is no information which the PIO can provide. Regarding the issue as to whether the appellant was allowed the inspection of records, the Commission ruled this could be easily found out by looking at the available records in the concerned division of the Supreme Court. The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the photocopy of any available relevant record on which the fact of his inspection of these particular records would have been noted and in case no such record is presently available for any reason the PIO has to inform the appellant about those reasons." +628,Seeking information related to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre under RTI,Commissioner Income Tax (IT),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comment + +All the cases where the decision of CIC has been challenged in the Court and the matter is pending, no disclosure can be done under the RTI Act.","Seeking information related to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Commissioner Income Tax (IT) seeking information related to Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre (Delhi and Chandigarh Society) and Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd (Chandigarh Ltd Co). The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information sought by the appellant relating to the Escorts Group could not be provided in view of the stay order of the Honourable High Court of Delhi staying the CIC’s previous similar order.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information sought is part of the information which was earlier permitted by CIC and had been stayed by the Delhi High Court. The Commission upheld the decision of PIO and rejected the appeal. + +Comment + +All the cases where the decision of CIC has been challenged in the Court and the matter is pending, no disclosure can be done under the RTI Act." +629,Deemed PIO has to share the responsibility equally with the PIO,Department of Revenue,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed that all concerned officers shall file sworn affidavits before the Commission clearly stating whether the information sought by the appellant is available with them or not.,"Deemed PIO has to share the responsibility equally with the PIO + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue seeking certain information about some enquiry conducted by the department including copy of government notification regarding land which was given to the gram sabha but possession was not taken etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and also informed that the RTI application was forwarded to the Vigilance branch who had stated that no part of the application pertained to them. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that SDM (SV)’s representative would allow the inspection of relevant records to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the respondent told him that files related to information sought by him are not available with him. The respondents then showed to the Commission a copy of some enquiry report which, according to them they had obtained from Naib Tehsildar. But they could not firmly tell the Commission as to who is the actual holder of the records related to the information sought by the appellant. The appellant also perused the enquiry report brought by the respondents and stated that the same is not related to the present issue.",The Commission observed that it was not clear as to whether the information sought by the appellant is available with the respondent or not. The CIC directed that all concerned officers shall file sworn affidavits before the Commission clearly stating whether the information sought by the appellant is available with them or not. +630,Can a copy of will be disclosed under RTI Act?,Department of Revenue,"the Will and General Power of Attorney made by three people, such as whether they have been registered or not",[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal holding that the information sought by the appellant has already been provided to him.,"Can a copy of will be disclosed under RTI Act? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue seeking information regarding the Will and General Power of Attorney made by three people, such as whether they have been registered or not. He also wanted the copies thereof. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that as per provisions of Registration Act any information regarding document registered with the title as ‘WILL’ it cannot be disclosed to anyone. Later on directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO furnished point wise reply to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he is no longer interested in obtaining copies of documents but requested for confirmation on whether the different documents mentioned in the RTI application have been registered or not. He stated that the FAA assured him that he will be informed by the PIO whether the various documents mentioned in the RTI application have been registered or not as a yes or a no.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has already been informed that documents mentioned by him against some points have been registered by the Sub Registrar and the Sub Registrar has also clearly stated that the document mentioned by the appellant against some points does not match with the records available in their office. The Commission rejected the appeal holding that the information sought by the appellant has already been provided to him. +631,Information regarding Phase III Metro Rail route was sought under RTI,Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,the project report and project scheduling,"['8(1)(j)', '8(1)(d)']",INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission further directed the respondent to provide to the appellant the traffic survey details and the details of the approvals pertinent to the phase III Metro Rail route.,"Information regarding Phase III Metro Rail route was sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation seeking information regarding Phase III Metro Rail route from Mukandpur to Yamuna Vihar Delhi including name of the government or state government who approved this route and total amount worked out to complete the project and other pertinent issues in the matter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated the supporting documents which were expected had not been given by the respondent and neither had he been given the traffic survey details or the details of the approvals pertinent to the phase III Metro Rail route. The appellant also sought details about the project report and project scheduling. The respondent stated that they had provided the information as available with them. It was also stated that the information sought by the appellant was actually with reference to a newspaper's clipping hence there was lack of specificity about the questions. The appellant argued that the DPR was not covered by the IPR norms and hence it was not covered under the exemption from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. On being asked by the respondent to tell the purpose of seeking information, the appellant stated that the purpose was to ensure transparency in the functioning of the respondent's organization but also argued that seeking of the appellant's purpose by the respondent was not relevant as per the Act.","The Commission observed that any information protected by IPRs will be covered under section 8(1) (d) of the RTI Act, and need not be disclosed. The Commission further directed the respondent to provide to the appellant the traffic survey details and the details of the approvals pertinent to the phase III Metro Rail route." +632,Using RTI to get the details of bidding in an auction,State Bank of Patiala,the details regarding the bidders who had displayed interest in his property that was sold by the bank,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the respondent to provide complete information to the appellant and also submit an affidavit making clear whether all available information has been provided.,"Using RTI to get the details of bidding in an auction + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the State Bank of Patiala seeking information about the details regarding the bidders who had displayed interest in his property that was sold by the bank. He wanted the copies of the deposit slips and vouchers by which the deposits had been made. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied information on the pretext that the matter was pending in court. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) provided five vouchers pertaining to the earnest money in connection with auction and stated that there was nothing to add further in the matter. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the bank had simply gone by the information available with the bank which had been provided by the concerned branch. The appellant stated that it should be noted that what the bank is saying is not correct as the information provided to him by the bank does not even recognize the party who was the highest bidder in the auction proceedings. The appellant further stated that he had been attempting to get the information for last two years from the bank. He had the evidence that what the bank was saying is not correct. The respondent stated that they have no intention to withhold any information and that every effort would be made to reconcile the fact and provide the information. The respondent also said that the bank is a large institution and it is quite possible that the information may not be immediately available, but the cooperation of the appellant would make the task of the bank easier in context of the RTI application with a view to making available the information.",The Commission directed the respondent to provide complete information to the appellant and also submit an affidavit making clear whether all available information has been provided. +633,Can Bill of Entries filed by the importers be disclosed under RTI?,Office of the Commissioner of Customs,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC rejected the appeal stating that in respect of the information pertaining to Bill of Entries of the importers, there is no disclosure obligation under the provisions of sections8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act as it relates to commercial confidence trade secrets and disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third party.","Can Bill of Entries filed by the importers be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Office of the Commissioner of Customs seeking information such as, the details of Electrical Motors cleared by ICD during the period August 2010 to January 2011; the invoice value of the imported electrical motors; the copies of Bills of Entries etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided requisite information in CD as available in the office/EDI System. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the Bill of Entries of the importers under sections8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that it is the information of third party involving commercial confidence, trade secrets etc. and disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest. The FAA also noted that in order to disclose such information, consent of the third party is required to be obtained under section 11 of the RTI Act and it was difficult to obtain consent of the third party as it is not specific and importer/party name-wise so as to enable department to get consent of third party. The information has been sought on the basis of commodity name only. The FAA further held that the Notification by which Daily Lists of imports and exports rules was issued stipulates that the particulars of the EDI Data may be published in the format specified under it. This provides authority to the Customs Department to bring information related to import and export in public domain under certain format. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that during the period for which information is sought the staff of the Commissioner of Customs ICD were hands in gloves with importers of electrical motors causing huge financial loss to Government exchequer therefore as a responsible citizen of the country she thought it appropriate to expose the nexus and try to help in plugging revenue loss to the Government.","The Commission observed that requisite information permissible has been provided to the appellant. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that in respect of the information pertaining to Bill of Entries of the importers, there is no disclosure obligation under the provisions of sections8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act as it relates to commercial confidence trade secrets and disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of third party." +634,RTI application seeking information regarding purchase of shares of Hindustan Lever Ltd.,,purchase of shares of Hindustan Lever Ltd,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also directed the PIO to provide the appellant any material record existing in the form of correspondence; and if there is no material record for any of these queries the PIO should clearly mention that there are no records available.,"RTI application seeking information regarding purchase of shares of Hindustan Lever Ltd. + +Background: +The appellant had sent several letters/representations/complaints to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in respect of purchase of some shares of the Hindustan Lever Ltd. Later she filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the SEBI seeking information about the action taken on the issues raised by her as well as the copies of the correspondence made with various entities in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the husband of the appellant pointed out that the PIO had not provided the entire information that had been sought in both the RTI applications and that some selective disclosures had been made. The respondent submitted that much of the available information had already been provided. The appellant had requested that the SEBI should take adequate action against the broker/ sub broker through whom the shares had been purchased. He further argued that if any action had been taken the PIO should inform him about that and if no action had been taken he should unambiguously state that.",The Commission observed that the PIO should again write to the appellant and provide categorical and unambiguous information against each of the queries made in both the RTI applications. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide the appellant any material record existing in the form of correspondence; and if there is no material record for any of these queries the PIO should clearly mention that there are no records available. +635,Copy of medico legal case in connection with an incident was sought under RTI,Delhi Police,the nature of injuries of his sister-in-law and a copy of the Medico legal case (MLC) in connection with an incident that occurred,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the copy of the final report (MLC) of the injuries inflicted on the appellant’s relative with reasons why the statement of his relative has not been recorded by the police.,"Copy of medico legal case in connection with an incident was sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information regarding the nature of injuries of his sister-in-law and a copy of the Medico legal case (MLC) in connection with an incident that occurred. He also requested a copy of the statement of his sister-in-law taken by the Police and in case no statement was recorded the reasons thereof. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the action taken by the police is one-sided because injuries were inflicted upon the appellant’s sister-in-law as well as the other party whereas the Police have made the appellant’s sister-in-law as an accused and have taken action only against her and no action has been taken against the other alleged person. The respondent showed a copy of the MLC in which it was mentioned against the column of nature of injuries as ‘under observation’.",The Commission observed that the respondent have not explained how the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders would be impeded by providing a copy of the MLC to the appellant. The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the copy of the final report (MLC) of the injuries inflicted on the appellant’s relative with reasons why the statement of his relative has not been recorded by the police. +636,Information regarding written test conducted by the public authority was sought under RTI,Chittaranjan Locomotive Works,"a written test conducted by the public authority such as, the list of candidates with marks obtained by them and names of the officials who have set the question paper etc",[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the SPO (PC) to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not responding to the RTI application within the mandatory period.,"Information regarding written test conducted by the public authority was sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Chittaranjan Locomotive Works seeking information about a written test conducted by the public authority such as, the list of candidates with marks obtained by them and names of the officials who have set the question paper etc.  The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the applicant that his application was forwarded to the SPO (PC) but no information has been received from him. The PIO assured the applicant that as and when it is received the same would be supplied to him.",Neither the PIO nor the applicant attended the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC). The Commission observed that the appellant has not received any information from the SPO (PC) and directed that the SPO (PC) should furnish an appropriate reply to the appellant. The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the SPO (PC) to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not responding to the RTI application within the mandatory period. +637,Is PIO obliged to provide voluminous information under RTI?,Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India,"advertisements inserted by the company during the period 2006 – 07 to 2010 – 11 along with list of agents, agency code and address who did not complete minimum business of Rs",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission however, upheld the order of the PIO in denying the names and addresses of l the over 7000 agents who did not complete minimum business of Rs.","Is PIO obliged to provide voluminous information under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking information regarding advertisements inserted by the company during the period 2006 – 07 to 2010 – 11 along with list of agents, agency code and address who did not complete minimum business of Rs. 1 lakh. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the information for four years in respect of the advertisements released by the Company and the name of the agency through which the advertisements was released along with the amount of expenditure incurred on the same. The respondent informed the appellant that for the year 2006 – 07 this information was not traceable. He also provided the total number of agents who were not able to complete minimum business of Rs. 1 lakh was provided but denied their names and addresses stating that this information was voluminous. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that they had put in efforts to trace out the information pertaining to advertisements released during the years 2006 – 07 but the same was not traceable and perhaps no advertisements may have been released during that year.","The Commission directed the PIO to put in additional effort to trace out the information pertaining to advertisements released during 2006 – 07 and provide it to the appellant. The Commission however, upheld the order of the PIO in denying the names and addresses of l the over 7000 agents who did not complete minimum business of Rs. 1 lakh." +638,Seeking details of promoters not listed in stock exchanges using RTI,Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the above information to the appellant.,"Seeking details of promoters not listed in stock exchanges using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) seeking variety of information such as copies of the latest balance sheets supplied by the credit rating agencies including their subsidiaries; copy of any letter of approval the SEBI might have issued in favour of the six credit rating agencies for creating subsidiaries; copies of some other records concerning credit rating agencies, like details of the promoters not listed in stock exchanges etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information while observing that some other items of information were not available or that the queries did not amount to information within the meaning of it under section 2(f). He denied the details of the promoters provided by some of the credit rating agencies not listed in stock exchanges stating that this information is held in commercial confidence.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that only a few of the queries of the appellant would merit response as several others were clearly in the nature of seeking opinion/confirmation from the PIO. The CIC held that if the credit rating agencies are supposed to give the details of the promoters not listed in stock exchanges to the SEBI in compliance of any legal or statutory requirement and if such information forms the basis on which the SEBI allows those entities to operate, then such information has to be disclosed under the RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the above information to the appellant." +639,RTI query - Information regarding illegal construction on a Samadhi land,Department of Revenue,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that this demand could not be fulfilled as it lies beyond the purview of the RTI Act.,"RTI query - Information regarding illegal construction on a Samadhi land + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue seeking certain information about the outcome of his complaint regarding some illegal construction of shops on a Samadhi land belonging to the Goswami community. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that issues related to illegal construction come under the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and Block Development Officer (BDO). The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that the applicant’s grievance could not be redressed under RTI and also directed the SDM to visit the site and take appropriate action in respect of the illegal construction. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he wanted the Commission to direct the Public Authority to remove the said illegal construction.",The Commission rejected the appeal observing that this demand could not be fulfilled as it lies beyond the purview of the RTI Act. +640,Seeking information regarding missing child under RTI,Delhi Police,her e-mail sent to Police Commissioner regarding missing of her daughter,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comment + +Under RTI Act, only the information which already exists or is held by the public authority or is under the control of the public authority can be supplied.","Seeking information regarding missing child under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information pertaining to her e-mail sent to Police Commissioner regarding missing of her daughter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the enquiry into the matter was conducted through ACP/SWD and also provided the action taken report to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant has been provided photocopies of two files relating to the aforementioned complaint of the appellant.","The Commission rejected the appeal observing that requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant. + +Comment + +Under RTI Act, only the information which already exists or is held by the public authority or is under the control of the public authority can be supplied. The PIO is not supposed to create information, or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the appellant under the RTI Act." +641,Number of Assistant Field Officers and the seniority list in a schedule II organisation,Cabinet Secretariat,the number of Assistant Field Officers serving in that organization and the seniority list of those officers,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal holding that in this case the information sought relates to neither of these two categories of information.,"Number of Assistant Field Officers and the seniority list in a schedule II organisation + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Cabinet Secretariat seeking information regarding the number of Assistant Field Officers serving in that organization and the seniority list of those officers. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the organization is included in the second schedule to the RTI Act and the provisions of the RTI Act did not apply to them. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant contended that the desired information was only factual and concerned service conditions of employees and there should be no problem in disclosing such information.",The Commission observed that the organisations listed in second schedule of the RTI Act are obliged to disclose information only if it pertains to allegations of corruption or human rights violation. The CIC rejected the appeal holding that in this case the information sought relates to neither of these two categories of information. +642,Do the roads have the capacity to carry on the number of vehicles for which permit is issued?,Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC),the periodicity of the running of all DTC buses on all routes,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Regarding whether road has the capacity for the number of vehicles, the PIO of Transport Department was directed by the CIC to provide the information as available on record.","Do the roads have the capacity to carry on the number of vehicles for which permit is issued? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) seeking information against some points with respect to plying of DTC buses including the periodicity of running of various buses on different routes whether the school buses are owned by the schools or belong to DTC and whether helmets are required for scooter riders the appellant also sought types of buses that DTC is running etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that they received the RTI application late. It was also informed that some queries were transferred to State Transport Authority (STA)/Transport Department. The respondent from Computer Branch STA submitted that information against some points was furnished and while the respondent from Secretariat Branch submitted that information was furnished. The appellant wanted to know the periodicity of the running of all DTC buses on all routes. The respondent submitted that there are different time tables for the running of buses on different routes and that the buses are plying according to these time tables. The respondent added that these time tales runs into thousands of pages and could not be provided under section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the RTI Act. The appellant agreed to limit his requirement for information to time tables for 3 mentioned routes. The appellant wanted to know the total number of registered vehicles and total number of permits with total number of license etc. issued for different categories of vehicles. He claimed that the roads do not have the capacity to carry such large number of vehicles.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide the required time tables for the 3 routes mentioned to the appellant. The Commission noted that appellant has already been furnished with available information regard to helmets for scooter riders. Regarding whether road has the capacity for the number of vehicles, the PIO of Transport Department was directed by the CIC to provide the information as available on record." +643,Using RTI for obtaining information regarding irregularities in the Commonwealth Games,,the alleged irregularities in the Commonwealth Games,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The CIC held that all available information has already been provided and there is nothing more left to be disclosed.,"Using RTI for obtaining information regarding irregularities in the Commonwealth Games + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) sought information regarding the alleged irregularities in the Commonwealth Games. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the copies of all the available records as sought by the appellant. In one of his queries, the appellant wanted the PIO to provide the reasons for certain action taken or not taken by the Prime Minister on issues brought to his notice by successive Minister of Sports in regard to the Commonwealth Games. The PIO observed that this was a matter of opinion and could not be addressed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that he was mainly interested in knowing if the provisions of section4(1)(d)Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.of the RTI Act had been complied with in this case. He wanted to know if adequate reasons had been adduced by the competent authority for taking or not taking any action in this case when the matter had been brought to its notice.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO is supposed provide the information available in material form. If the available records do not contain any set of reasoning for any action taken or not taken in any particular case the PIO could not help. The Commission added that the public authority has not recorded any such reasons or has not communicated to the affected persons about that the RTI Act does not provide any remedy or any penalty. The CIC held that all available information has already been provided and there is nothing more left to be disclosed. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. + +Comments + +Section4(1)(d)Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.makes it mandatory for the public authority to provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to the affected persons. It is one of the provisions the proper implementation of which can bring about a radical change in the way the work is done in the country." +644,Information regarding the letters written by the Chief Ministers to the Prime Minister,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC upheld the views of the PIO and rejected the appeal.,"Information regarding the letters written by the Chief Ministers to the Prime Minister + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking the copies of all the letters written by the Chief Ministers of the State Governments to the Prime Minister since the year 2004 and the information about the action taken on those letters. He also sought the copies of all the letters written by the Central Government to the Chief Ministers of the States since the year 1999.The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the desired information was not available in the form in which it had been sought and that the collection and compilation of the desired information would disproportionately divert the resources of the PMO. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to write to the appellant again explaining in greater detail why the information could not be provided.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information sought covers a vast period. It includes not only all the letters written by the Chief Ministers to the Prime Minister but also about the action taken on those letters as well as all letters written by the Central Government to the Chief Ministers. The CIC further added that it is impossible to collect and collate such information all across the Central Government. The CIC upheld the views of the PIO and rejected the appeal. +645,Seeking information regarding the constitution of the Group of Ministers under RTI Act,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also stated that the appellant has the entire list of Groups of Ministers for this period he can approach any individual Ministry/ Department for further details.,"Seeking information regarding the constitution of the Group of Ministers under RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel & Training and Cabinet Secretariat seeking details about the venue, date of meeting and the minutes of the meeting etc. about the Group of Ministers. The Central Information Commission heard the case and directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) in order dated 15 October 2012, to explain why the RTI application was transferred late. + +Proceedings + +The PIO submitted that the details sought by the appellant were secret and could not have been disclosed without the approval of the competent authority. He explained that the process of seeking approval of the competent authority itself took some time and only after due permission was granted only then the available details about the constitution of the Group of Ministers could be provided to the appellant. The PIO stated that further details about the venue, date of meeting and the minutes of the meeting etc were not available in the Cabinet Secretariat and should be sought only from the Ministries/ Departments which serviced the Groups of Ministers and hence other than the information relating to the constitution of the Group of Ministers, the Cabinet Secretariat could not have made available the other details as sought by the appellant. The appellant submitted that about the initial delay of nearly one year in deciding about the desirability of disclosing details about the Group of Ministers.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the time taken for deciding on whether various details about the Group of Ministers should be disclosed in the public domain or not was inordinately long. The conventional marking of government records as secret or confidential cannot be ground for withholding that information if it is not otherwise covered under any of the exemption provisions. The CIC noted that the appellant has already got some information regarding the constitution of the Group of Ministers though very late. Regarding the other details the CIC held that the PIO could not be expected to collect such information from several dozen government ministries and departments which might have serviced these Groups of Ministers over the entire period for which the information has been sought. The Commission also stated that the appellant has the entire list of Groups of Ministers for this period he can approach any individual Ministry/ Department for further details. +646,Using RTI to know the rank achieved in Combined Graduate Level examination,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),the Round Robin Method applied in arriving at the results,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act the Commission issued a show-cause notice to the PIO to show-cause why penalty should not imposed on him for the delay in replying to the RTI application.","Using RTI to know the rank achieved in Combined Graduate Level examination + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking to know his exact rank in the final result for Combined Graduate Level examination (CGL) 2010. He also wanted to know about the Round Robin Method applied in arriving at the results. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and that too with a delay.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant wanted to know about his exact rank and that this information should be provided to him unambiguously. The CIC directed the PIO to provide the exact ranking of the appellant and the details of the Round Robin Method. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act the Commission issued a show-cause notice to the PIO to show-cause why penalty should not imposed on him for the delay in replying to the RTI application." +647,PIO should provide the documents instead of his comments on the issue,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to forward the copy of the medical certificate issued on both occasions, concerning her height to the appellant.","PIO should provide the documents instead of his comments on the issue + +Background: +The appellant appeared in some test conducted by the SSC in course of which she had undergone a medical examination and had been declared unfit. She later filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking to know the basis for declaring her unfit. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed her that her height was less than the prescribed limit and she was not found fit although she had been medically examined twice.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that it would have been better if the PIO had also forwarded the copy of the medical certificate concerning her height. The Commission directed the PIO to forward the copy of the medical certificate issued on both occasions, concerning her height to the appellant." +648,Can copies of vouchers be provided under RTI?,Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),the engagement of permanent or temporary sweepers in offices of the CBI,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to send to the appellant the photocopies of all available records including vouchers showing the engagement of sweepers on a casual/temporary basis in place of regular employees from time to time.,"Can copies of vouchers be provided under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking information regarding the engagement of permanent or temporary sweepers in offices of the CBI. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant wanted to know if sweepers had been engaged during a certain period on a temporary basis in the place of regular employees and if so the payment made to them and the copies of the vouchers to show the payment. The CIC directed the PIO to send to the appellant the photocopies of all available records including vouchers showing the engagement of sweepers on a casual/temporary basis in place of regular employees from time to time. +649,Reasons for assigning a job carrying a lesser grade pay was sought under RTI,Staff Selection Commission (SSC),the Combined Graduate Level examination (CGL) examination conducted by the SSC in 2010 and the reasons for assigning a job carrying a lesser grade pay to him,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to find out if any such reasons are recorded in any file of the SSC and if found then send a copy of the relevant records to appellant.,"Reasons for assigning a job carrying a lesser grade pay was sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant claimed that he had been assigned a job carrying a lesser grade pay although he had been placed in a higher position in the merit list than someone else who had been assigned a job carrying higher grade pay. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking information relating to the Combined Graduate Level examination (CGL) examination conducted by the SSC in 2010 and the reasons for assigning a job carrying a lesser grade pay to him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) referred to the criteria for allocation already published along with the result and available in the SSC website. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the decision of the SSC in recommending him for a job carrying a lesser grade pay was beyond comprehension and he wanted the SSC to explain the reasons. The respondent submitted that apart from whatever had been mentioned in the result itself by way of criteria for allocation there was no written record available to show why the appellant had been so recommended.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant had a higher position in the merit list and was still recommended for a lesser job. The CIC directed the PIO to find out if any such reasons are recorded in any file of the SSC and if found then send a copy of the relevant records to appellant. If there is no such record available the PIO has to clearly indicate that no recorded reasons were available anywhere in the SSC for the recommendations it made in his case. +650,Can a letter be issued from a file without a file noting?,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act the CIC issued a show-cause notice to show as to why penalty should not imposed on him for not providing the right information.","Can a letter be issued from a file without a file noting? + +Background: +The appellant cited some 10 different letters issued by the office of the AG and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Accountant General (AG) (Commercial & Receipt Audit) seeking the photocopies of the file notings leading up to the issue of such letters. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that no file noting was available concerning any of these letters. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that if there was no file noting leading to the issue of any of these letters it would be rather surprising because all these letters had been cited in the charge-sheet issued to him.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that in all government offices, official communications are issued with the approval of the competent authority. In order to get the approval of the competent authority, noting is prepared in file at various stages. Therefore, if such letters have been issued by the office, it is obvious that there must be relevant files with file noting. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the photocopies of all file noting from all the relevant files. The Commission further held that the original response of the PIO was misleading and wrong on the face of it. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act the CIC issued a show-cause notice to show as to why penalty should not imposed on him for not providing the right information." +651,Is the PIO expected to identify the material record for applicant under RTI?,Securities and Exchange Board of India (SBEI),,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The CIC also advised the appellant that she must approach the PIO once again, and specify the exact information she wants clearly indicating the timeframe and other markers so that the PIO can identify the material record available and provide the copies thereof.","Is the PIO expected to identify the material record for applicant under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SBEI) seeking some information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) pointed out that the queries were hypothetical in nature and are in the nature of seeking clarification rather than information. However, the PIO also referred her to some documents including circulars already available in the website of the SEBI having a bearing on the queries.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that section 6(1) of the RTI Act states that the information seeker has to specify the particulars of the information sought while requesting for information, describe the subject matter of the information, specify any other details necessary to identify the records such as, the timeframe, the name of the event or occurrence or the names of the parties involved etc. Merely describing a situation or scenario and then expecting the PIO to find out the corresponding information in material or virtual form is an unfair demand and clearly outside the responsibility cast in the PIO under the RTI Act. The Commission held that the appellant has not specified the exact information she wants and makes extremely roundabout and indirect references which would be difficult for any PIO to interpret or to identify the material record. The CIC also advised the appellant that she must approach the PIO once again, and specify the exact information she wants clearly indicating the timeframe and other markers so that the PIO can identify the material record available and provide the copies thereof." +652,Information regarding contribution of citizens in Planning Process under RTI,Planning Commission,contribution of citizens in Planning Process in the country; the main challenges before the country in the next five to ten years and the Planning Commission’s action plan for different sectors,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant.,"Information regarding contribution of citizens in Planning Process under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Planning Commission seeking information regarding contribution of citizens in Planning Process in the country; the main challenges before the country in the next five to ten years and the Planning Commission’s action plan for different sectors. The Public Information Officer (PIO) returned the RTI application to the appellant with the request to submit the application fee in the correct format. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO informed the appellant the procedure for citizen’s participation in Plan Formulation and identification of challenges. He also informed the appellant that wide ranging consultations were held with various stakeholders including civil societies, business associations, different levels of Government viz. Central, State and local representative institutions etc. and efforts were made to reach out to all citizens, during preparations of the 12th Five Year Plan. The respondents further informed the appellant about the formation of various working groups and steering committees on different sectors, the reports of which were available on the Planning Commission’s website.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant. +653,Seeking information regarding expenditure incurred in renovation using RTI,Mumbai Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission agreed with the appellant’s contention and directed the PIO to forward the RTI application to the PIO of the Bank of Baroda who would provide the available information to the appellant.,"Seeking information regarding expenditure incurred in renovation using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Mumbai Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) seeking to know the details of the expenditure incurred in the renovation of the furniture in the DRT office. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the renovation had been carried out by the Bank of Baroda (BoB) and the DRT did not have the details of such expenditure. Instead of filing a first appeal, the complainant chose to approach the Central Information Commission (CIC) directly. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the CIC, the complainant pointed out that if the renovation had been carried out by the BoB the PIO should have transferred his RTI application to that bank.",The Commission agreed with the appellant’s contention and directed the PIO to forward the RTI application to the PIO of the Bank of Baroda who would provide the available information to the appellant. +654,Are the Service records liable to be disclosed under the RTI Act?,,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comment + +In this decision, the CIC has held that the service record of government employees is his personal information, the disclosure of which would invade privacy of the person.","Are the Service records liable to be disclosed under the RTI Act? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. seeking inspection of service record file of a particular person. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the inspection of the service record under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the appellant has sought inspection of service records of the said person and the respondent have no disclosure obligation under the provisions of section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Comment + +In this decision, the CIC has held that the service record of government employees is his personal information, the disclosure of which would invade privacy of the person. Such information is exempt for disclosure under the RTI Act except in larger Public Interest. This decision is in conflict with decisions given by other benches. Service records contain the date of entry of the individual in service, the increments received by him, his place of posting etc. which can be disclosed applying severability under section 10." +655,Is PIO obliged to provide legible copy of DD entry under RTI?,Delhi Police,PCR call details made from a particular address,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission observed that legible copy of the DD entry has been provided by the respondent to the satisfaction of the appellant and no action was called for on the part of the Commission.,"Is PIO obliged to provide legible copy of DD entry under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information regarding PCR call details made from a particular address. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that as per report the PCR Call was received and filed by the SI. He also provided a copy of the DD entries to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the respondent has provided illegible copy of the DD entry. The respondent provided a typed copy of the aforementioned DD entry duly signed by the SHO to the appellant.",The Commission observed that legible copy of the DD entry has been provided by the respondent to the satisfaction of the appellant and no action was called for on the part of the Commission. +656,Does PMO recommend any officer for promotion?,,all those cases in which officers from a number of departments had written to the Prime Minister of India and those cases in which the PM had recommended their cases for promotion,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there was no such information to be disclosed.,"Does PMO recommend any officer for promotion? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking a variety of information regarding the payments made out of the Prime Minister's relief fund since 2007. He also wanted to know about all those cases in which officers from a number of departments had written to the Prime Minister of India and those cases in which the PM had recommended their cases for promotion. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the available information against all his queries except the number of cabinet meetings. The PIO stated that this request had been transferred to the Cabinet Secretariat that being the nodal agency for conducting Cabinet meetings. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant emphasised to get the information on the number of cases in which the PMO had recommended for promotion of any officer belonging to various departments of the government. The respondent pointed out that the query itself was not very clear and that there was no question of the PM or PMO recommending any particular officer for promotion in any department of the government and thus there is no such information available.",The Commission agreed with the contention of the respondents. The CIC observed that the query was sweeping and unclear and in a peremptory manner the appellant has listed a number of government departments and wants to find out about the number of officers who might have written to the PM or PMO soliciting recommendations for promotion and the number of such cases in which the PM or PMO had made any such recommendation. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there was no such information to be disclosed. +657,Failure to give details of FAA by the PIO can result into filing of complaint with CIC,Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to consider the RTI application within the scope of the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act and pass an appropriate order.,"Failure to give details of FAA by the PIO can result into filing of complaint with CIC + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking to know about the action taken on the complaint against some official of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded that the provisions of the RTI Act no longer apply to the CBI since it had been placed in the Second Schedule of the Act. The PIO did not mention any details of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in his reply and thus the applicant instead of filing first appeal directly complained to the Central Information Commission (CIC).",The Commission observed that the subject matter of the RTI application was about allegations of corruption against a public servant this request is covered under the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act. The CIC further held that the PIO should not have summarily denied considering the application on the ground that the CBI had been placed in the Second Schedule rather should have informed the appellant about whatever action the CBI had taken on the matter. The CIC directed the PIO to consider the RTI application within the scope of the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act and pass an appropriate order. +658,Section 4(1)(a) of RTI Act applies only for the records available with public authority,High Court of Chattisgarh,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC advised the competent authority in the High Court to consider the possibility of including such information in the computerized database for the benefit of the general public so that the disclosure of such information would go a long way in creating an informed citizenry.,"Section 4(1)(a) of RTI Act applies only for the records available with public authority + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the High Court of Chattisgarh seeking details about the number of letter petitions and suo motu cases heard and disposed of by the Chhattisgarh High Court since its inception. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the desired information was not maintained in the manner in which it had been sought and that it would have to be collected by searching through thousands of case files and something which was beyond the duty cast on the PIO under the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that such information should be maintained by the High Court in terms of section4(1)(a)Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;of the RTI Act. He argued that the High Court should have implemented the provisions of this section and kept all its records properly catalogued and indexed so that retrieval of such information would have become easier. The respondent submitted that the Chhattisgarh High Court had scrupulously implemented the provisions of the above section and all such information was available in the public domain. He further contended that the relevant High Court Rules did not require any special cataloguing or indexing of the letter petition and suo motu cases and so such statistical details were not separately maintained.","The Commission observed that implication of section4(1)(a)Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;Every public authority shall maintain all its records duly catalogued and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information under this Act and ensure that all records that are appropriate to be computerised are, within a reasonable time and subject to availability of resources, computerised and connected through a network all over the country on different systems so that access to such records is facilitated;is limited to the available records. It does not require any public authority to create any particular classification of records other than what is usually maintained by it. If the High Court does not have a separate classification for the type of cases about which the appellant wants to know, it cannot be compelled to create such classification under the above subsection. The Commission further observed that only a few letter petitions were taken up by the High Court every year for hearing and disposal. If the total number of such cases taken up during the year in public interest is not very large, it may be possible to create a classification in the computer database for such cases so that statistical details about such cases could be easily compiled and disclosed in the public domain in the same manner as the details of writ petitions and public interest litigations are classified and disclosed. The CIC advised the competent authority in the High Court to consider the possibility of including such information in the computerized database for the benefit of the general public so that the disclosure of such information would go a long way in creating an informed citizenry." +659,Who imposed section 144 of CrPC in Rajghat during the Anshan of Anna Hazare?,"Delhi Police, Police Head Quarter (PHQ)",arrest of persons at Rajghat in connection with theanshanby Shri Anna Hazare,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO Central District to provide a copy of order imposing section 144 of Cr.,"Who imposed section 144 of CrPC in Rajghat during the Anshan of Anna Hazare? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police, Police Head Quarter (PHQ) seeking information pertaining to arrest of persons at Rajghat in connection with theanshanby Shri Anna Hazare. The Public Information Officer (PIO), PHQ transferred the RTI application to the PIOs of various districts of Delhi Police. The PIO, central district provided a point wise reply. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the information provided to him regarding on some points as the information sought regarding the authority which had given the order to impose section 144 Cr. P.C. in Rajghat and the full details on amount incurred as hiring of all transportation vehicles videographers and other miscellaneous expenses incurred.","The Commission observed that the PIO, PHQ has without application of mind transferred the RTI application to the PIOs of seven districts as a result the PIOs from all the seven Districts attended the hearing, whereas the matter only concerns the Central District of Delhi Police. The CIC advised the Commissioner of Police to issue necessary instructions to the PIO, PHQ to transfer the RTI applications only to the concerned holder of information. The Commission directed the PIO Central District to provide a copy of order imposing section 144 of Cr. P. C. in Rajghat and the authority who gave the order and details of transportation hired with the list of vehicles for which payment has been made and also the amount paid." +660,CIC directs the CBI to put the details of PIO/ FAA on its website,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO that when he receives the RTI application he will dispose it off strictly in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.,"CIC directs the CBI to put the details of PIO/ FAA on its website + +Background: +The appellant had filed a complaint against the Judges of the Supreme Court of India and the High Court to the President of India and had endorsed a copy to the Director Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Later he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the CBI seeking to know the action taken on his complaint. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to the application. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that no such RTI application had been received by them. The complainant submitted that he had proof to show that he had sent his RTI application by speed post to the concerned office in the CBI and it was unlikely that they should not have been received it. He also complained that of late, the communications sent to the CBI through speed post were being returned by the postal authorities with the comment that the addressee refused to accept the envelope.",The Commission observed that it is the obligation of the PIO to accept all applications from the citizens filed under section 6 of the RTI Act and the PIO cannot refuse to accept any such application. The CIC directed the CBI to put in place a mechanism so that all such applications addressed to the PIO must be accepted without fail and acted upon as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission noted that there are other information seekers who have also made similar complaints in recent times and directed the CBI to put in its website the correct address of all the PIOs and First Appellate Authorities (FAA) of their headquarters office as well as of all the offices in India. The CIC advised the complainant to make a fresh application holding that the RTI application had not reached the PIO concerned. The Commission also directed the PIO that when he receives the RTI application he will dispose it off strictly in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. +661,Using RTI to initiate a fresh investigation for a closed case,Delhi Police,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of untraced report to the appellant and to take assistance from the appellant for identifying the accused persons listed in the aforementioned FIR.,"Using RTI to initiate a fresh investigation for a closed case + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking to know the action taken on the FIR filed by her. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that an FIR has been lodged on her complaint and the investigations were under process. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the enquiry into the matter is now over and the case has been sent as untraced and that the copy of the untraced report can be provided to the appellant. The appellant stated that she has certain leads in her possession and the Police can conduct fresh investigations into the matter based on these leads. The DCP and PIO agreed that the Police can conduct fresh investigation and the appellant is welcome to join the investigation.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of untraced report to the appellant and to take assistance from the appellant for identifying the accused persons listed in the aforementioned FIR. +662,Details of insurance claims settled through Lok Adalat using RTI,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC also held that the Public Authority is not the exclusive holder of Lok Adalat Order and the same may be obtained by the appellant from the Lok Adalat itself through the prescribed procedure.,"Details of insurance claims settled through Lok Adalat using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. seeking information in respect of claims settled through Lok Adalat after formation of the Bhopal TP Hub. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under sections8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the details sought by the appellant included the calculation sheets of the 490 odd claims, prepared by the administrative department of the Public Authority. This is third party information held with the Bhopal TP Hub and hence could not be disclosed in the absence of any Larger Public Interest. The CIC also held that the Public Authority is not the exclusive holder of Lok Adalat Order and the same may be obtained by the appellant from the Lok Adalat itself through the prescribed procedure." +663,CBI to consider all RTI requests pertaining to any allegation of corruption or human rights violation,,allegations of corruption as this would render its inclusion in the Second Schedule totally infructuous,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,153.0,"Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs.","CBI to consider all RTI requests pertaining to any allegation of corruption or human rights violation + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).  The envelope containing the RTI application was returned to him by the postal authorities with the remark that the addressee refused to accept it. Thereafter he filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC) making some demands, such as, the CIC to enquire into the refusal by the CBI to accept the envelope containing the RTI application; to enquire into the alleged disbanding of the RTI structure by the CBI after the notification of the Central Government; to direct the CBI to reinstate the RTI structure; to remand the case back to the PIO to consider within the scope of the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act; and to compensate him by an amount of Rs. 153, being the expenses incurred by him due to the refusal to accept the envelope containing the RTI application. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the information sought by him clearly falls within the proviso to section 24 since it was about the number of cases in which the CBI had sought permission/ sanction for prosecution involving allegations of corruption. The respondent submitted that the CBI was fully compliant with the demands of the RTI Act and accepted all RTI applications without any discrimination. He argued that it would not be right to hold that the CBI should entertain every RTI request seeking information on allegations of corruption as this would render its inclusion in the Second Schedule totally infructuous. He further submitted that since the CBI investigated cases involving allegations of corruption it would end up entertaining almost every RTI application and this could not be the objective of excluding certain organisations from the purview of the RTI Act. He also contented that the expression ‘allegations of corruption’ in the proviso implies such allegations against the employees of the exempt organisation only and not to every case of allegations of corruption.","The Commission observed that the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act casts an obligation on the PIO of the exempted organisation to entertain all requests for information pertaining to allegations of corruption or human rights violations. It does not make any distinction between the exempted organisations on the basis of the functions they perform nor between allegations of corruption on the basis of whether it is made against the employees of the exempt organisation or against others. The CIC further noted that this particular section does not exclude the exempt organisations from the ambit of the RTI Act completely but is a qualified exemption. Therefore, there is no escape from the fact that the CBI will have to consider all RTI requests for information which pertains to any allegations of corruption and human rights violation irrespective of the individual against whom such allegations are made. However, while the proviso casts a duty on the PIO to entertain the RTI application seeking such information, all such information can be disclosed only subject to the provisions of the RTI Act i.e. if any such information is otherwise exempt under any of the exemption provisions, there is no obligation to disclose such information. All such requests would have to be dealt with on a case to case basis and appropriate order passed. + +The Commission held that the information sought by the applicant is clearly related to allegations of corruption against various public servants. Therefore, it is covered under the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to consider the RTI request and provide the information subject to the exemption provisions of the RTI Act, if he decides not to provide any information; he must pass a speaking order citing the appropriate provisions of the RTI Act. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 153/- to the applicant stating that he has been put to loss due to the lapse on the part of the authorities in not accepting the envelope containing his RTI application." +664,Using RTI to get an issue decided in a particular manner,Delhi Police,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal holding that the RTI Act is not the forum for redressal of grievances and in case the appellant so desires he could approach the competent authority in this regard.,"Using RTI to get an issue decided in a particular manner + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking information related to the complaints of criminal offence filed by his mother with the Delhi police and the action taken thereon such as, investigation and Convening Orders related to the complaints; complete copy of the Enquiry proceedings; copy of date of proceedings; particulars of the official to bear onus the closing the case without orders of DCP etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant and informed him that after enquiry the said complaint was filed as no cognizable offence was found to have been committed in the jurisdiction of PS Nangloi. The PIO also provided the copy of the enquiry report along with relevant papers. The First Appellant Authority (FAA) informed the appellant that only such information is required to be supplied under the RTI Act which exists or is held with the public authority and the PIO was not supposed to create information or to interpret information under the RTI Act. The FAA also stated that the appellant could not claim that the issue should be decided or should have been decided in a particular manner using the RTI Act. The appellant filed the second appeal stating that his mother had moved her petitions before the SHO, Nangloi and the Superintendent of Police Rohtak for initiation of criminal action against her youngest son who is employed with Delhi Transport Corporation Depot Nangloi Delhi for his alleged involvement of grabbing her gold and property. The appellant alleged that his younger brother had started harassing his mother who remained alone after sudden death of his father and compelled her to leave her native house including all immovable property. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that available documents have already been furnished by the PIO. The complaints of the appellant have been filed after enquiry and no police action was warranted by the local Police of PS Nangloi and there is no more information which could be shared with the appellant.",The Commission observed that requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. The CIC rejected the appeal holding that the RTI Act is not the forum for redressal of grievances and in case the appellant so desires he could approach the competent authority in this regard. +665,RTI application seeking report of Committee constituted by the Government,Department of Industrial Development,,['8(1)(i)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide a copy of the report of the One Man Committee to the appellant if the Cabinet has taken a decision on the aforementioned report of the One Man Committee.,"RTI application seeking report of Committee constituted by the Government + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Industrial Development seeking copy of ‘Man Committee’ constituted by the Government to examine the demands of workers of Swadeshi Cotton Mills and Sri Bharathi Mills. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that no such record was available in the Industries Secretariat. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the appellant that under section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act, Cabinet Papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers are not to be made public until the Council of Ministers take decision on the matter and the matter is complete or over. The FAA added that the Council of Ministers have to take a final decision on the Report of the One Man Committee in view of which a copy of the report of the One Man Committee could not be supplied to the appellant till a final decision is taken by the Government of Puducherry on the Report.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide a copy of the report of the One Man Committee to the appellant if the Cabinet has taken a decision on the aforementioned report of the One Man Committee. +666,Disclosure of old records under RTI in public interest,South Delhi Municipal Corporation,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also observed that the appellant is free to file complaint under sections 18 and 19 before the Commission in case he is not satisfied with the information provided to him.,"Disclosure of old records under RTI in public interest + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the South Delhi Municipal Corporation seeking copy of order for disconnection of electricity supply in appellant’s property which was sealed as per sealing order. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that there were seven files holding the information pertaining to the property of appellant and opportunity of inspection was offered. The appellant was also asked to identify the documents of which photocopy was required and that the same would be provided after depositing the prescribed fee. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant along with his daughter have attended the office and inspected the entire file with regard to the above mentioned property and flagged 76 pages but they have refused to submit inspection report. The applicant also refused to deposit Rs. 152 as requisite fees obtaining the flagged pages as per the provisions of the Act. The respondent submitted that the appellant has never approached their office nor deposited the requisite fees. The appellant admitted that he has inspected the files pertaining to his property with reference to another RTI application and that the Commission has been misled by the respondents into believing that the information sought under the current RTI application presently being heard by the Commission is held therein. The appellant submitted that this information is not held in the files stated by him and pleaded for the requested information to be provided to him. The appellant also submitted that this property is 25 years old and on account of it being sealed, no repair or maintenance has taken place resulting in its becoming an unsafe building which causes safety concerns for those living in its neighborhood.",The Commission held that there is a larger public interest in disclosure of the requested information as it concerns the safety of all those who are living around the building. The Commission directed the PIO to put in special effort to locate the old files pertaining to the property listed in the RTI application and provide the same (including file notings wide which the matter was examined) to the appellant. The Commission also observed that the appellant is free to file complaint under sections 18 and 19 before the Commission in case he is not satisfied with the information provided to him. +667,Can a contract between public authority and its extended branch be disclosed under RTI?,,,['8(1)(e)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to provide the details in respect of official contract between Indore Regional Office and TPA for the mentioned period after following the procedure under section 10 of the RTI Act and severing the portions, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the TPA.","Can a contract between public authority and its extended branch be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. seeking details in respect of official contract between Indore Regional Office and TPA for a period of two years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that it is the right of the ensured to know the nature of services to which he is entitled through the TPA who is the extended arm of the Insurance Company. The CIC however held that the commercial interest of the TPA must be taken into due consideration before disclosing any contractual information under the RTI Act.  The Commission directed the PIO to provide the details in respect of official contract between Indore Regional Office and TPA for the mentioned period after following the procedure under section 10 of the RTI Act and severing the portions, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the TPA." +668,"Penalty of 10,500/- imposed for delay on account of shortage of staff and workload",,a partnership deed of two persons with a particular firm along with the copy of tender and agreement,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,10500.0,,"The Commission observed that no reasonable grounds has been offered by the PIO for not providing timely information and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,500/- on the PIO on account of a delay of 42 days in providing the information to the appellant.","Penalty of 10,500/- imposed for delay on account of shortage of staff and workload + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) seeking information about a partnership deed of two persons with a particular firm along with the copy of tender and agreement. He also sought several other details regarding the firm and their members. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise reply as per the information available with the public authority. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he has not been provided correct and complete information in response to his RTI application. He also contended that the reply from the PIO was received after almost two & half months and fees of Rs. 22/- had been wrongly demanded for providing certain documents in violation of section 7(6) of the RTI Act. He further alleged that because of gross irregularities in the award of tenders by the respondents, the PIOs did not furnish the complete and correct information. He requested that an inspection of the records may be allowed and he should be permitted to take photocopies/ extracts there from. The PIO agreed to allow inspection of records but pointed that the files are under the control of GM BSNL Deoria whose assistance is also necessary in the matter.","The Commission directed the PIO, Deoria to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application and to take photocopies free of cost up to 50 pages. The Commission also directed that the sum of Rs. 32/- (Rs. 22/- wrongly charged for providing photocopy plus Rs.10/- money order cost) should be refunded to the appellant. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act the CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO holding that the concerned PIO has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty by not furnishing the complete and correct information. + +During the hearing of the show cause, the PIO stated that complete information has been furnished and the appellant has also inspected the relevant records. The PIO further explained that the delay in furnishing of reply was on account of acute staff shortage, pressure of work and that the information had to be collected from various sections. On being asked by the Commission, the PIO was unable to explain why an interim reply covering partial information could not be sent to the appellant within the mandated time of 30 days.  The Commission observed that no reasonable grounds has been offered by the PIO for not providing timely information and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,500/- on the PIO on account of a delay of 42 days in providing the information to the appellant." +669,CIC - PIO should give forthright response to RTI queries,,the donations made by the Prime Minister (PM) on humanitarian grounds and to various temples and religious places,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission however stated that the PIO should have been more forthright in his response rather than indirectly saying that the Prime Minister of India is not in the business of going around temples and religious places giving donations out of the state exchequer.,"CIC - PIO should give forthright response to RTI queries + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking information regarding the donations made by the Prime Minister (PM) on humanitarian grounds and to various temples and religious places. He also wanted to know about the total number of state guests since the year 2004 and the total cost incurred on them. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant is in the habit of seeking disparate items of information in single RTI applications quite often on vague issues. The Commission further noted that the appellant has not cared to specify what he means by donation or humanitarian grounds leaving it to the imagination of the PIO. The Commission however stated that the PIO should have been more forthright in his response rather than indirectly saying that the Prime Minister of India is not in the business of going around temples and religious places giving donations out of the state exchequer. +670,Can the marks given by interview committee for promotion be disclosed under RTI?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the names of the interview committee members, total interview marks awarded to the appellant by the interview committee members and final grades/marks awarded in the ACR of the appellant.","Can the marks given by interview committee for promotion be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the United India Insurance Company Ltd. seeking details of Promotional Exercise, 2011 for SCS Staff Promotion to the Cadre of Admin Officer.The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under sections 8 (1)(e),8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.and8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the names of the interview committee members, total interview marks awarded to the appellant by the interview committee members and final grades/marks awarded in the ACR of the appellant." +671,Can details of grant-in-aid given to KRIBHCO & Gramin Vikas Trust be disclosed under RTI?,Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers and the Department of Fertilizers,some points regarding grant-in-aid given to KRIBHCO/ Gramin Vikas Trust (GVT),[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the First Appellant Authority (FAA) to give specific reply to the appellant in this regard.,"Can details of grant-in-aid given to KRIBHCO & Gramin Vikas Trust be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers and the Department of Fertilizers seeking information on some points regarding grant-in-aid given to KRIBHCO/ Gramin Vikas Trust (GVT). The Public Information Officer (PIO) sought assistance from the KRIBHCO and GVT. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the requisite information was not available in the Department and the GVT took time to trace its records. On receipt of information containing documents up to 134 pages the appellant was requested to deposit Rs. 268/- towards the cost of documents. The appellant requested the PIO to provide him the documents free of cost as the stipulated time limit prescribed under the RTI Act was surpassed, accordingly the required documents and information was provided to the appellant. The appellant further stated that he had not been provided relevant information regarding copy of proposal for grant-in-aid for each of the grant-in-aid given, as submitted by KRIBHCO. In response the PIO informed the appellant that no grant-in-aid was given to KRIBHCO by Department of Fertilizers. However, funds under Indo-UK Fertilizer Development Programme (Externally Aided Scheme) were given to KRIBHCO for Rainfed Farming Project.",The Commission observed that the appellant sought copies of proposals for grant-in-aid for each of the grant-in-aid submitted by KRIBHCO and the PIO has not addressed the specific query. The Commission directed the First Appellant Authority (FAA) to give specific reply to the appellant in this regard. +672,Seeking information about the personal file and service book using RTI,PEC University of Technology,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC also directed the PIO to provide a copy of the eligibility rules for grant of two advanced increments to the appellant and to inform him whether two persons referred to by the appellant in his RTI application, were found eligible and qualified for the two advanced increments as per the aforementioned rules.","Seeking information about the personal file and service book using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the PEC University of Technology seeking details of his personal file and service books. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied to disclose the information stating that it did not qualify within the meaning of section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide specific information including file noting and all correspondence pertaining to the processing of the case of appellant wherein it was concluded that he was ineligible for the grant of two advanced increments as per UGC letter referred to therein which was implemented. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide a copy of the eligibility rules for grant of two advanced increments to the appellant and to inform him whether two persons referred to by the appellant in his RTI application, were found eligible and qualified for the two advanced increments as per the aforementioned rules." +673,Information about employees appointed through employment exchange was sought under RTI,,appointments made by PAPSCO,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the mode of recruitment of the need based employees to the appellant.,"Information about employees appointed through employment exchange was sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Puducherry Agro Products Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (PAPSCO) seeking information regarding appointments made by PAPSCO. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point-wise information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he has not been provided reply regarding the total number of permanent employees who have been appointed through Employment Exchange or any other mode in PAPSCO and details of their regularization. In response the PIO provided a list of employees with their date of appointment but it was not mentioned in the list whether they are permanent employees or not whether they have been recruited through Employment Exchange or through any other mode. The appellant also sought to know as to what is the mode of recruitment of need based employees; who makes appointment; under what authority he makes appointment and whether any G.O. authorize such engagement/appointment. In reply the respondent PIO provided the appellant with a copy of the Minutes of Board meeting wherein it is stated that the MD is empowered to engage labour on voucher payment. The appellant insisted to know the mode of recruitment of need based employees.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide the total number of permanent employees who have been appointed through Employment Exchange or any other mode in PAPSCO and details of their regularization. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the mode of recruitment of the need based employees to the appellant. +674,Can audit reports of registered firms be obtained from the Registrar of the Societies?,"Minto Road Puja Samiti, Minto Raod Kali Mandir",,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also observed that since the details of the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Registrar of the Society are not available in the records of the Bench of the Commission the General Secretary of the Samiti was requested to forward this order along with the appellant’s RTI application to the concerned PIO of the Registrar of the Society for compliance.,"Can audit reports of registered firms be obtained from the Registrar of the Societies? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Minto Road Puja Samiti, Minto Raod Kali Mandir seeking information such as year wise details of amount collected as donation and subscription from the public as well as devotees for the year 2005 to 2011. The appellant also sought for copies of order of the Income Tax Department granting exemption under section 80(G) of the Income Tax Act with copies of audit report etc. The General Secretary of the Samiti informed the applicant that the Samiti did not come under the purview of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the representatives of the Samiti submitted that they did not receive any funding from the Government and the Samiti is run by the donation given by the devotees. They also clarified that no tax exemption has been granted to them by the Income Tax department and only the donors who donate funds for the Samiti receive some tax exemption. They further mentioned that they are a registered firm with the Registrar of the Societies and accordingly are obliged to submit audit reports to the Registrar of the Society.","The Commission held that the copies of the audit reports which the Samiti has to mandatorily submit to the Registrar of the Societies can be shared with the appellant through the Registrar of the Society which is a public authority under the RTI Act. The CIC also ruled that the factual information regarding tax exemption may also be shared with the appellant. The Commission directed the PIO, Registrar of the Societies to peruse the appellant’s RTI application and dispose of the same as per the provisions of the RTI. The Commission also observed that since the details of the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Registrar of the Society are not available in the records of the Bench of the Commission the General Secretary of the Samiti was requested to forward this order along with the appellant’s RTI application to the concerned PIO of the Registrar of the Society for compliance." +675,Responsibility of deemed PIO to reply to RTI application,Directorate of Education,"the procedure for selection of Zonal Cricket Teams of Education Department Delhi of school boys under the categories of U/14, U/16 and U/19",[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"The Commission also directed the ADE (Sports) to furnish the information requested by the appellant and to show cause as to why penalty under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.should not be imposed for not responding to the RTI application transferred to him, thereby obstructing the supply of information to the appellant.","Responsibility of deemed PIO to reply to RTI application + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Education seeking information regarding the procedure for selection of Zonal Cricket Teams of Education Department Delhi of school boys under the categories of U/14, U/16 and U/19. He also sought copy of the selection procedure and other information pertaining to Zone 28. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI application to all the DDEs. The PIO, District West A transferred the RTI application to ADE (Sports, Chattarsal Stadium). The PIO, DDE(C/ND) replied to the RTI application enclosing the information furnished by E.O, Zone 26. The applicant then filed the second appeal stating that the Sports Branch and Central District who are most closely connected have not provided the desired information especially with regard to Zone 28.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO/DDE (Central/New Delhi) to furnish the information sought with regard to Zone 28 to the appellant and to show cause as to why penalty under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.should not be imposed upon him for not furnishing the information within the mandatory period. The Commission also directed the ADE (Sports) to furnish the information requested by the appellant and to show cause as to why penalty under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.should not be imposed for not responding to the RTI application transferred to him, thereby obstructing the supply of information to the appellant. + +Comment + +While fulfilling his duty under the RTI Act, the PIO can transfer the RTI application to one of his colleagues who holds the information under section 5(4). In all such conditions, the colleague becomes the deemed PIO and has to share all the responsibilities of the PIO. He is even liable for penalty in case of delay in supply of information or malafide denial." +676,Can information regarding judicial proceedings be obtained through RTI?,Tis Hazari Court,whether the Tis Hazari Court has taken any action to check whether the Court’s order directing that lady should supply rent receipts to applicant has been complied with etc,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission agreed with the submissions of the respondent that the matter was related to judicial proceedings and no information could be disclosed and advised the appellant to follow the procedure laid down by the Court for obtaining certified copies of documents as indicated by the PIO.,"Can information regarding judicial proceedings be obtained through RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Tis Hazari Court seeking certain information with reference to suit No. 597/2007; Mamta Rani Vs Goutam Bhowmick. He wanted to know in particular whether at the time of proceedings, the Court had validated the ownership of a lady in respect of the said property and whether the Court had validated consumer details appearing on the various bills. He also sought the reasons as to why the Court had decided that property rent has to be paid to that lady even after the Criminal Court (Saket) had decided that lady is not the owner of the said property. The appellant also wanted to know whether the Tis Hazari Court has taken any action to check whether the Court’s order directing that lady should supply rent receipts to applicant has been complied with etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information sought by him relates to a judicial proceeding and that he can obtain certified copies of desired documents through proper channel, as laid down by the Court. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the appellant is seeking information is sub-judice and that the appellant may obtain the copies of desired documents as per the court’s procedure. The appellant stated that he also wanted to obtain a copy of the sale deed of the said property based on which he was evicted from his house and this information has been denied to him on the ground of non availability. He questioned on what basis he was forced to leave his house. The appellant also reiterated his request for validation of a number of documents which are a part of the Court proceedings. The respondent stated that it is for the judicial authority concerned to decide whether documents submitted with the Court by the parties are valid or not and that this information can be obtained by the appellant after following the court procedure that has been laid down.","The Commission agreed with the submissions of the respondent that the matter was related to judicial proceedings and no information could be disclosed and advised the appellant to follow the procedure laid down by the Court for obtaining certified copies of documents as indicated by the PIO. + +Comments + +It has often been argued that if there are two options available to an individual to obtain information, it is up to him to use the option which is convenient to him. Further, it has been argued that if the fee chargeable is more and the procedure prescribed is circuitous, it amounts to overriding the RTI Act. A clear view is yet to emerge on this issue." +677,Questioning the externment order passed by Delhi Police using RTI,Delhi Police,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant.,"Questioning the externment order passed by Delhi Police using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking to know the power under which his son has been served an externment order by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police under section 47 and 50 of the D.P. Act 1978. The respondent stated that a copy of the order has been provided to the appellant along with all relevant documents and the reasons for the order have also been clearly stated in the order of Additional Commissioner of Police. The two cases against appellant’s son have only been referred in order to prove his antecedents/ criminal activities. Subsequently Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police West District has passed externment order against appellant’s son. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant contented as to how the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police West District has passed the bound down order when his son has been involved in cases within the jurisdiction of Haryana Police and moreover he has also been acquitted in these two cases. The respondent stated that copies of the D.P. Act 1978 as well as copies of the orders of the competent authority are already with the appellant wherein reasons for bound down order have been stated and that they are not obliged under the RTI Act to interpret the rules or to provide reasons other than what has been recorded in the aforementioned orders.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that if the appellant is aggrieved with the orders passed by the respondent he may take up the matter with the competent authority. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant. +678,Is the information regarding the Arms Policy 2010 liable to be disclosed under RTI?,Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),the basis on which the executive instructions have been issued by the respondent,['8(1)(a)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission further directed the PIO to provide copies of letters received from the State Governments.,"Is the information regarding the Arms Policy 2010 liable to be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking copy of file where Government policy for arms license 2010 was approved in 2010 with the copies of all letters received from State Governments after issue of Arms Policy in 2010. The appellant also asked as to which State Government’s employee have issued the same arms policy under their own signature and if yes under which rule. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act. With respect to the information as to which State Government’s employee has issued the same arms policy under their own signature, the PIO stated that the information is not available. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the Commission at the outset observed that the PIO and the FAA/ MHA have passed cryptic, non-speaking orders. It has time and again been emphasized by the Commission that whenever a request for information is declined under any of the provisions of the RTI Act, reasons have to be provided for the same to justify denial of information. The respondent submitted that the file notings dealt with Policy and has sensitive information based on which the Government of India has come to the conclusion that the Policy of issue of all India arms license has to be restricted. The appellant stated that he should be provided information that he has requested in the aforementioned RTI application since none of the exemptions provisions are applicable and he also wanted to know the basis on which the executive instructions have been issued by the respondent.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the file notings in which the Arms Policy 2010 has been issued after applying the provisions of section 10 of the RTI Act and severing those portions of the note sheet which he considers detrimental to the security of the State. The Commission observed that the appellant has merely requested copies of letters received from State Governments on the Arms Policy, which could be provided as it is not a third party information which would harm the competitive position of the third party. The Commission further directed the PIO to provide copies of letters received from the State Governments." +679,Can Central government authorities transfer RTI application to the State Government?,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The Commission directed the Secretary of the Department to revise the present arrangement and unless the RTI application contains unmanageably large number of queries, spread over the entire department, the effort must be to compile the information centrally after sourcing it from individual divisions and then to provide information to the information seeker.","Can Central government authorities transfer RTI application to the State Government? + +Background: +The appellant referred to a news item under the caption 'Congress attacks corrupt Anna', and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking to know if this was in the knowledge of the Prime Minister or the PMO and if yes, the action taken against Anna Hazare.  His application was transferred to the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT). The Public Information Officer (PIO), DoPT informed the appellant that they had no idea if the PM was aware about this particular news item and advised the appellant to approach the State Government of Maharashtra in the matter since that government had set up the Justice PB Sawant Commission to enquire into the charges against Anna Hazare. The appellant filed the first appeal stating that if the Central Government did not have the required information, they should have transferred his application to the respective State Government. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that as per the guidelines issued by the Department, the PIO was not obliged to transfer any RTI application to any public authority under the State Government. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that the guidelines issued by the Department could not exceed or nullify the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act which clearly mandated the PIO to transfer RTI application to another public authority to which the subject matter was more closely connected. He also submitted that he had received a response from the PIO of the PMO in which he was informed that the report sent by Sri Manish Tewari to the PM had been sent to the Secretary, DoPT to place it before the MoS, thus the Department should have some information to disclose in the matter. The respondents submitted that they did not have any information with them in recorded form about any possible action taken against Anna Hazare in this matter. The respondents also confirmed that they did not have any file or record to show how the said Commission had been set up or what the recommendations of the Commission were and if any action had been taken thereon by any authority.","The Commission directed the PIO, DoPT to inform the appellant if any action had been taken by the Department on the basis of the Sri Manish Tewari report forwarded to them by the PMO. The CIC also observed that there cannot be any absolute position as to whether the PIO was obliged under section 6(3) of the RTI Act to transfer the RTI application to the State Government of Maharashtra. The decision to transfer any RTI application to an authority outside the Central Government would have to depend largely on the particular case. The CIC also held that if there is anything on record to suggest that the subject matter is definitely concerned with a state public authority, there is no ban under the RTI Act in transferring the RTI application to that public authority, contrary to whatever the DoPT circular might say. But, this cannot be a rule. The Commission further noted that the DoPT has appointed a large number of PIOs and the RTI applications containing more than one item of information are being split by the RTI Cell of the Department among many of these PIOs to respond directly to the information seeker. As a result the PIO representing the individual division of the Department responds to the information seeker mechanically by stating that the information is not available or by providing only part information. The Commission directed the Secretary of the Department to revise the present arrangement and unless the RTI application contains unmanageably large number of queries, spread over the entire department, the effort must be to compile the information centrally after sourcing it from individual divisions and then to provide information to the information seeker." +680,Seeking information regarding alleged medical negligence using RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the queries in the RTI application were in the nature of seeking reasons and explanations from the respondent which was not fall within the ambit of information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","Seeking information regarding alleged medical negligence using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police in which he made certain allegations of medical negligence against Kalra Hospital and Bhagat Hospital. A number of queries were raised by the appellant pertaining to allegation of wrong diagnosis in respect of a lady patient by these two hospitals. He also sought the action taken on the complaint filed by him before the SHO of Kalra Hospital and Bhagat Hospital. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that most of the queries raised by the appellant did not come within the ambit of information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. He informed the appellant that after the enquiry, the said complaints have been recommended to be filed as no police action was warranted. The PIO requested the appellant to obtain a copy of the enquiry report after depositing the requisite fee. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the Delhi Medical Council (DMC) which is the appropriate forum for taking up cases for medical negligence has also held that prima-facie no case of medical negligence is made out in the treatment administered to that patient at Bhagat Hospital and Kalra Hospital.","The Commission observed that information as per record can only be provided to the appellant under the RTI Act. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the queries in the RTI application were in the nature of seeking reasons and explanations from the respondent which was not fall within the ambit of information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act." +681,Information regarding the land which was in possession of BSF was sought under RTI,Border Security Force (BSF),a land which was in the possession and control of the BSF for the last 40-50 years,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the information sought by the appellant does not pertain to any violation of human rights and allegation of corruption, therefore, does not fall under Proviso (I) to section 24 of the RTI Act.","Information regarding the land which was in possession of BSF was sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Border Security Force (BSF) seeking information pertaining to a land which was in the possession and control of the BSF for the last 40-50 years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that since the appellant had not provided Khasara numbers etc. of the said land it was not possible to provide information to her queries. The PIO also informed that the information sought by her is not available with them and the appellant was requested to approach the Revenue Department in this regard. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant was very vague and did not contain specification in regard to the land. The BSF is an exempted security organization listed in the second schedule of the RTI Act and therefore not amenable to any provisions of the RTI Act by virtue of section 24 of the Act and the information sought did not pertain to allegations of corruption or human rights violation","The Commission observed that the BSF is an exempted organization listed under Schedule II of the RTI Act and therefore, is not amenable to any provision contained in the RTI Act by virtue of Section 24 of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the information sought by the appellant does not pertain to any violation of human rights and allegation of corruption, therefore, does not fall under Proviso (I) to section 24 of the RTI Act." +682,Seeking police verification of a sweeper employed at a temple under RTI,Delhi Police,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The PIO was directed to provide a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant.,"Seeking police verification of a sweeper employed at a temple under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Delhi Police seeking details regarding police verification of a sweeper employed in the Sanatan Dharam Mandir, Nehru Nagar. He also asked the PIO for information regarding the action taken on a complaint filed by a lady for theft of utensils from the Mandir. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the police verification has been carried out about the sweeper and at that time he was residing in the Nehru Nagar Jhuggies. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the management of the temple which earlier was with the appellant is now in the hands of others and the present employer of the said temple provided voter ID card to the sweeper and on the same grounds the police verification was carried out. The respondent also stated that appellant seems to be questioning the nature of police verification that has been carried out by the police which did not fall within the ambit of information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. Regarding the complaint filed by the lady regarding theft of utensils from the temple the respondent submitted that the police enquiry has been carried out into the complaint and no case of theft was established. The appellant submitted that it was a case of theft since the locks had been tampered with. The appellant complained about the nature of enquiry carried out by the local police.",The Commission observed that the RTI Act is not the forum for redressal of grievances. The appellant is advised that he may take up the matter with the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. The PIO was directed to provide a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant. +683,PIO has to give evidence to support his reasons for delay in providing information under RTI,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the Roznamcha/Duty Roster in respect of the above mentioned Head Constable and Constables.,"PIO has to give evidence to support his reasons for delay in providing information under RTI + +Background: +In pursuance of Central Information Commission’s (CIC) previous order vide which show-cause notice was issued to the PIO. He appeared before the Commission and submitted that the delay in responding to the RTI application on the ground that at that time he was in-charge of operations (Anti- Terrorist Cell of Chandigarh Administration) and he was busy with law and order and security duties as there was specific threats regarding terrorist strikes in various cities including Chandigarh on the eve of Independence Day and thereafter. The appellant confirmed that he has received all the information except the duty roster of one Head Constable and three Constables and pressed for the disclosure of this information.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide documentary evidence to support his submissions regarding reasons for delay in providing information to the appellant in response to the RTI application. These documents will be perused by the Commission before taking decision regarding the matter of show cause notice. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the Roznamcha/Duty Roster in respect of the above mentioned Head Constable and Constables. +684,CIC- RTI is a cherished right and should not be misused,Export Inspection Council of India (EIC),multiple queries regarding engagement of Consultants against a certain advertisement of EIC along with various details of officers of EIA applying for the post of Joint Director,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission observed that the Right to Information is a cherished right and should not be misused and also advised the appellant to desist from filing multiple RTI applications on the same issue.,"CIC- RTI is a cherished right and should not be misused + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Export Inspection Council of India (EIC) seeking information on multiple queries regarding engagement of Consultants against a certain advertisement of EIC along with various details of officers of EIA applying for the post of Joint Director. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the information could not disclosed as the process of engagement as consultant is yet to be complete. In response to the first appeal filed by the appellant, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the reply of the PIO with the observation that the information sought for by the appellant does not serve any public interest. Further he noted that the appellant has a habit of filing applications in a large numbers, he has filed around 350 applications, forcing the department to commit its scarce resources and incur considerable cost both in terms of opportunity lost and manpower/ postal cost. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant on the same day had filed two other RTI applications with EIA Delhi and EIC for seeking information on similar context. The application was forwarded by EIA, Delhi to PIO, EIC, who in turn replied to the appellant in respect of both RTI applications. The PIO further submitted that the appellant is filing multiple applications on similar matter with different offices of the organization on the same day that has nothing to do with public interest.",The Commission observed that the information asked was disclosable information to which the exemption provisions of the RTI Act did not apply. The Commission directed the PIO to reply to the appellant on each of the points of the RTI application. The Commission observed that the Right to Information is a cherished right and should not be misused and also advised the appellant to desist from filing multiple RTI applications on the same issue. +685,CIC recommends Deputy Commissioner to take action for timely disposal of RTI applications,Estate Office,,[],UNKNOWN,,3000.0,The CIC also awarded compensation of Rs.,"CIC recommends Deputy Commissioner to take action for timely disposal of RTI applications + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Estate Office seeking details regarding notification issued by the Estate office with respect to construction of commercial building. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the required information was not available with the office. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that following her first appeal she was called for hearing on two occasions and after being made to wait for over an hour on both occasions, the hearing was deferred as the PIO was away on official duty and on account of VIP visit. Appellant also stated that after several requests, the FAA called a meeting to hear the appellant’s appeal and after the FAA’s order the PIO provided detailed information to her. The appellant further submitted that this information could have been given to her by the PIO well within 30 days of receiving her RTI application and contended that the matter was deliberately delayed in order to give benefit to some others and to cause detriment to her.",The Commission observed that an incomplete response was provided by the PIO to the appellant and that too with a delay of seven months. The CIC also noted that even the FAA took five and a half months to dispose of the appeal which as per the Act should not have taken more than 45 days.  The Commission recommended that the Deputy Commissioner should call for the records and take necessary action so that in future elements within the public authority do not connive with outsiders to give them undue advantage by withholding information and countering transparency. The CIC also awarded compensation of Rs. 3000/- to the appellant for the mental and physical harassment she had to undergo while pursuing the appeal and getting the information late. +686,Are the details of VAS providers of BSNL disclosable under RTI?,,,['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC also advised BSNL to ensure that names, designation and other particulars of officers with whom complaints could be lodged were displayed at each of its office.","Are the details of VAS providers of BSNL disclosable under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) seeking information such as, names, address and contact numbers of the companies who have contract with BSNL for providing services to the customer; are they appointed to provide the services without the customers consent; are you authorized to deduct the money from customers account; how much time you need to attend a complaint when lodged for not requesting the service? He also wanted a copy of letter of authorization to the service providers and the penalties leviable on the service providers. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information but denied the details of names, address and contact numbers of the companies and letter of authorization under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act stating that this information is related to company’s commercial activities. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he wanted the contact number and address of value added service (VAS) providers of BSNL as these service providers many times without the consent of the subscriber activate unwanted services which result in huge bills. The PIO was unable to give any reasonable justification to support the denial and agreed to furnish the information. The appellant further stated that names address and contact number of officers with whom complaints can be lodged for redressal of grievance are not displayed in most of the offices of BSNL due to which the subscriber has to run from pillar to post to register his complaint.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO furnish the information to the appellant. The CIC also advised BSNL to ensure that names, designation and other particulars of officers with whom complaints could be lodged were displayed at each of its office." +687,Can the documents sought under RTI be certified from notary?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC ruled that if the appellant is interested in getting some specific documents to be attested or certified by the PIO or the officer concerned in charge of the records in the TRIFED, he may send those copies to the PIO who can return those documents back to the appellant after getting it duly attested or certified with the seal and signature.","Can the documents sought under RTI be certified from notary? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development Federation of India Ltd. (TRIFED), seeking certified copies of a number of documents relating to his own personal file and to various Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) proceedings. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided information extending to 600 pages of documents. The appellant complained to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) that the documents were not certified. The FAA informed the appellant that the documents could be certified only through a notary provided the appellant agreed to bear the cost. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that looking to the volume of information (some 600 pages), providing certified copies would be a highly time consuming exercise and it would disproportionately divert the limited resources of the TRIFED. The respondent further submitted that their organization had not laid down any particular mechanism for certifying records and documents for the purpose of giving it to the citizens under the RTI Act and in the absence of any such procedure they were willing to get the documents certified through a notary public provided the appellant was willing to pay the charges.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that putting the signature and seal on 600 pages of documents would indeed be a very time consuming task and has the potential to disproportionately divert the resources of the organization. The Commission further stated that section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the RTI Act clearly states that the PIO will not be obliged to provide information which would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority concerned. The CIC ruled that if the appellant is interested in getting some specific documents to be attested or certified by the PIO or the officer concerned in charge of the records in the TRIFED, he may send those copies to the PIO who can return those documents back to the appellant after getting it duly attested or certified with the seal and signature." +688,PIO is not obliged to provide the information already available in public domain,"Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Department of Official Language",essential qualifications prescribed for appointment of Junior Hindi Translator,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC ruled that the respondent can only provide information as per records held by them and rejected the appeal.,"PIO is not obliged to provide the information already available in public domain + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Department of Official Language seeking information pertaining to essential qualifications prescribed for appointment of Junior Hindi Translator. The Public Information Officer (PIO), MHA transferred the RTI application to the PIO Staff Selection Commission (SSC). The PIO SSC returned back the RTI application to the PIO, MHA Department of Official Language stating that the information sought by the appellant pertained to the Gazette Notification issued by the Department of Official Language. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the appellant has sought clarification pertaining to the appointment of Junior Hindi Translators, which do not fall within the ambit of the definition of “information” as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act, 2005. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that after further investigation it was found that the appellant had sought the information by giving example of the mark-sheet of a person and sought interpretation on Schedule V and VII of the Gazette Notification issued by the Department of Official Language where essential qualifications for the post of Junior Hindi Translator has been provided. The information was denied to the appellant under the section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act, being third party information.",The Commission observed that the appellant has sought interpretation on the essential qualifications for appointment to the post of Junior Hindi Translator. The essential qualifications were already available in the public domain i.e. Gazette Notification issued by the Department of Official Language. The CIC held that the respondents were not expected under the RTI Act to provide any interpretation on the information provided. The CIC ruled that the respondent can only provide information as per records held by them and rejected the appeal. +689,Information should be provided free of cost if the period of 30 days is surpassed,,a particular mobile number such as when and to whom it was first issued; when its service was started and subsequently stopped and what are the reasons behind its suspension,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The Commission also warned the PIO to exercise due care to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under section 20 may be initiated in future.,"Information should be provided free of cost if the period of 30 days is surpassed + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) Telephone Exchange seeking information regarding a particular mobile number such as when and to whom it was first issued; when its service was started and subsequently stopped and what are the reasons behind its suspension. The appellant also sought detailed information of the call history of that mobile number and the copies of all the bills issued to the subscriber of the mobile. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the applicant that the matter pertains to third party hence no information could be provided to him. However after first appeal Rs.24/- was demanded as further fee in order to provide the information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that the information related to a third party and only when his consent was received, they requested the appellant to deposit Rs.24/- for supply of information which, however, was not deposited by the appellant.  The appellant argued that since the prescribed time limit had been exceeded he should have been provided the information free of cost.",The Commission agreed with the submissions of the appellant and directed the PIO to furnish the information requested by him in his RTI application free of cost. The Commission also warned the PIO to exercise due care to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under section 20 may be initiated in future. +690,Is Directorate of Education compelled to obtain information from private schools?,Directorate of Education,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission held that there was no information available with the Public Authority that can be considered for disclosure and rejected the appeal.,"Is Directorate of Education compelled to obtain information from private schools? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Education seeking current and earlier residential address of his daughter in the school records; from which bus stand she is picked up and dropped by the school transport and by whom and by which means the school fee is being paid etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to the application. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) rejected the first appeal stating that the information sought by the appellant is about a Public School and is not being maintained in the office. The FAA also stated that due to marital discord between the appellant and his wife the matter was sub-judice in the court and hence the information may be treated as third party information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the school in which the child is studying is not covered under RTI Act since it is an unaided private school and hence no address of any school students and details of transport provided by the school to the child are available in their records as they are not expected to keep this kind of information.",The Commission held that there was no information available with the Public Authority that can be considered for disclosure and rejected the appeal. +691,CIC directs Punjab & Haryana High Court to computerize the records,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC advised the public authority concerned to identify the classes of information which are usually needed by the public and proactively disclose those through its website with adequate user friendly search facilities so that there would be little need for public to seek such information under RTI.,"CIC directs Punjab & Haryana High Court to computerize the records + +Background: +The appellant filed six applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking variety of information such as details of pending cases before the High Court, legal aid provided by the High Court Legal Services Committee etc.The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information in response to all the applications.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the photocopy of the rules governing the provision of legal aid to the citizens with the number of special order cases which had been fixed for hearing on priority during the period mentioned in the RTI application. The Commission also directed for disclosure of number of cases which had been found missing along with the number of cases reconstituted; the total number of applications received during the period mentioned in the RTI application for legal aid and the number of cases in which legal aid was provided including the total financial cost of that. The CIC observed that the remaining information sought by the appellant cannot be provided either because the same was not available in material form or because it would disproportionately divert the resources of the High Court. The CIC further noted that as far as possible the records should be computerized or stored digitally in a manner that makes the retrieval easy. The CIC advised the public authority concerned to identify the classes of information which are usually needed by the public and proactively disclose those through its website with adequate user friendly search facilities so that there would be little need for public to seek such information under RTI. +692,Fee with RTI application should be paid only through the prescribed mode,,a Wi-Fi connection for which he had submitted the due amount but even after 6 months the Wi-Fi connection has not been provided,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that relevant information has been provided to appellant.,"Fee with RTI application should be paid only through the prescribed mode + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) seeking information regarding a Wi-Fi connection for which he had submitted the due amount but even after 6 months the Wi-Fi connection has not been provided. The Public Information Officer (PIO) rejected the application stating that the appellant has submitted a 10 rupee note with RTI application which is not accepted under the provisions of the RTI act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant had sought a Wi-Fi connection but the product was not available at that time, being aggrieved he filed an RTI application initially along with Rs.10/- currency note as fee which was returned to him. Subsequently he paid the fee by way of cheque and point wise reply was sent to him.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that relevant information has been provided to appellant. + +Comment + +The RTI Act has prescribed the mode of payment of the application fee and the applicants should strictly adhere to it, so as to avoid the rejection of the application." +693,Is the PIO obliged to attest the documents provided under RTI?,Directorate of Education,whether the period of CCL applied for be granted after splitting the period in two kinds of leave,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the rule regarding whether the period of CCL applied for be granted after splitting the period in two kinds of leave and if there is no such rule is available on records to inform the appellant accordingly.,"Is the PIO obliged to attest the documents provided under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Education seeking information against some points including the name of leave sanctioning authority in case of child care leave (CCL) to school employees, number of the teachers who had applied for CCL with zone wise details of the teachers who were denied CCL and the reasons for rejecting the application for childcare leave. He also wanted to know whether the period of CCL applied for be granted after splitting the period in two kinds of leave. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. The applicant filed first appeal stating that he has received response from the PIO but the enclosures are not attested. He also stated that information against some points has not been given and that the reasons for rejecting the application for childcare leave are not correct. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing the before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant wanted to know the reason for not granting CCL and whether the period of CCL applied for be granted after splitting the period in two kinds of leave.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant records dealing with the applications for child care leave and provide the copies of file notings indicating the reasons for not granting the CCL to the applicant. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the rule regarding whether the period of CCL applied for be granted after splitting the period in two kinds of leave and if there is no such rule is available on records to inform the appellant accordingly. +694,PIO has to explain the reasons for delay in providing the information under RTI,,"pay scales of specific employees, arrear payments received by them etc",[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,11500.0,,The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs.,"PIO has to explain the reasons for delay in providing the information under RTI + +Background: +The applicant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information relating to pay scales of specific employees, arrear payments received by them etc. The PIO furnished some information; the applicant was not satisfied and after a failed First Appeal approached the Central Information Commission (CIC).  The Commission held that complete information has been furnished to the appellant and directed the PIO to show-cause why a penalty should not be imposed on him for not providing the information within the stipulated period of one month. Later the Commission received a petition from the appellant stating that incomplete information had been received against some points of his RTI queries. Subsequently another hearing was called for and during the adjudication of the matter at that stage, the appellant submitted that he had received the complete information but wanted further clarification on the replies that have been provided. The Commission ruled that available information has been provided by the respondents to the appellant and that now the matter can only be sorted out in a one to one discussion between the appellant and the PIO. The Commission directed the PIO to hold a personal hearing with the appellant and to sort out the issue related to arrear payments.","The Commission observed that the PIO followed the directions given by the CIC however he failed to give any explanation for the delay in furnishing of the information. The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,500 upon the then PIO due to delay of 46 days in providing the information." +695,CIC can issue directions only to public authority to which RTI application is filed,,as to what action was taken on that and the response given by the Home Ministry in this regard,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission advised the appellant to file a RTI application before the PIO of the MHA if he wants to know about the action taken on his representation.,"CIC can issue directions only to public authority to which RTI application is filed + +Background: +The appellant had sent a representation to the President of India seeking Z Plus security cover for Baba Ramdev. He later filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat and wanted to know as to what action was taken on that and the response given by the Home Ministry in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the said representation had been forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for further necessary action and that no reply had been received from the MHA in this regard. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that MHA should at least inform him about whatever action they had taken on the said representation.",The Commission held that they cannot direct the PIO of MHA to disclose any such information as the information had not been sought from the MHA. The Commission advised the appellant to file a RTI application before the PIO of the MHA if he wants to know about the action taken on his representation. +696,Enquiry report of third party is held in fiduciary capacity,Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India,report of the committee set up to enquire into the financial irregularities of the Administrative Officer (AO),['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal.,"Enquiry report of third party is held in fiduciary capacity + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking information pertaining to report of the committee set up to enquire into the financial irregularities of the Administrative Officer (AO). The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) the respondent submitted that the subject matter of the RTI application pertains to procedural lapse and enquiry instituted to look into the matter which has no relationship with the appellant and the appellant had not established any larger public interest in disclosure of the requested information which pertains to third party.",The Commission rejected the appeal. +697,Can information regarding Keyman Insurance Policies be disclosed under RTI?,,Keyman Insurance taken in by LIC,"['8(1)(e)', '8(1)(d)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal holding that the contention of the appellant, that the issue of larger public interest involving tax evasion and siphoning of funds by Key persons, is devoid of any merit.","Can information regarding Keyman Insurance Policies be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed five identical applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with various offices of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking information regarding Keyman Insurance taken in by LIC. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the RTI Act. The Central Information Commission (CIC), noted that three more identical RTI applications of the same date were filed with three different Zonal Offices of LIC, and the appeals of which were heard by the Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner and vide order dated 28.9.2011, the information was denied under sections8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant contended that these policies are assigned in favour of Key persons at around 15% of the amount paid by the Company resulting in tax evasion and siphoning of funds by Key persons. The information is being sought to protect the interest of minority shareholders and it was the issue of strong public interest. The respondents stated that the information pertaining to Keyman Insurance Policies is of commercial confidence and is held in a fiduciary capacity hence exempted under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. They also submitted that LIC does not maintain the data on Keyman Insurance Policies separately and it would be impossible to cull out the information from a data bank of 47 crore policies and would disproportionately divert resources under section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the Act. The appellant then requested that if it is not possible to extract the data as asked by him, he may be provided information regarding policies which have an annual premium of more than Rs.5 lakh of endowment policies. The public authority submitted that it was not possible to extract even this data without sifting through 47 crore policies.","The Commission observed that the issue of tax evasion in respect of Keyman Insurance Policies has been discussed in detail by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Rajan Nanda. The Court has held that every assessee has the right to plan its affairs in such a manner which may result in payment of least tax possible, albeit, in conformity with the provisions of the Act. It is also permissible to the assessee to take advantage of the gaping holes in the provisions of the Act. The job of the Court is to simply look at the provisions of the Act and to see whether these provisions allow the assessee to arrange their affairs to ensure lesser payment of tax. If that is permissible, no further scrutiny is required and this would not amount to tax evasion. The Commission rejected the appeal holding that the contention of the appellant, that the issue of larger public interest involving tax evasion and siphoning of funds by Key persons, is devoid of any merit." +698,PIO has to establish as to how the disclosure will impede the investigation,Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India,the charge sheets issued to two persons who were the applicant's senior and subordinate at the same time,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the requested information to the appellant.,"PIO has to establish as to how the disclosure will impede the investigation + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking information pertaining to the charge sheets issued to two persons who were the applicant's senior and subordinate at the same time. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that the final orders pertaining to the abovementioned charge sheets were still pending and disclosure of the requested information would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Applicant preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority in which he stated that information sought by him is related to the disclosure of charge sheets only and not to any matter of enquiry proceedings, findings of PO/IO or any matter pertaining to final order etc. The FAA rejected the appeal stating that the reference charge sheets were still pending for final orders as well as the enquiry related to the appellant was also under process and the enquiries for which information has been sought are related to each other as all these disciplinary proceedings are part of same vigilance case. Thus information sought may impede the process of investigation or apprehension. + +Proceeding + +The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to send written submission to establish how the disclosure of sought information will impede the process of investigation. The PIO submitted that this being the cluster of cases many of the employees were involved with separate angles and the information which is sought may or may not be fully or partially applicable while deciding action against each employee. He also stated that at this stage the inquiry of the case is complete but the matter is still pending with the disciplinary authority.",The CIC observed that the PIO had not established as to how the disclosure of the charge sheets issued to the two above mentioned persons can in any way influence the judgment of the competent authority with whom the matter is now pending for final orders. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the requested information to the appellant. +699,Can PIO be compelled under RTI to provide information which does not exists?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission observed that the public authority had given a categorical denial and the CIC cannot compel the PIO to provide any information which does not exists with the public authority.,"Can PIO be compelled under RTI to provide information which does not exists? + +Background: +The appellant referred to a news report and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Lok Sabha Secretariat. He sought information relating to a particular house located on 6 Krishna Menon Marg. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that this particular house was not in the Lok Sabha Pool and that they did not have any information in this regard. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the office of the Speaker should have the desired information if not the Lok Sabha Secretariat. The respondent submitted that the office of the Speaker was part of the Lok Sabha secretariat and the desired information was not held by them. He also contended that they did not know who else would have such information. The appellant argued that since the Lok Sabha Secretariat had issued a Press Note informing about the prayer in this particular house it would be unlikely that they would not have any information about this house. The respondent submitted that they had no information about the house as it was not part of the Lok Sabha Pool and the publication in Press Note need not indicate that the Lok Sabha Secretariat had any information about 6 Krishna Menon Marg.",The Commission observed that the public authority had given a categorical denial and the CIC cannot compel the PIO to provide any information which does not exists with the public authority. +700,CIC - citizen should use the right given under RTI with great responsibility,Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission further held that RTI Act should not to be misused for settling scores between employees and Management and cherished rights given to the citizen should be used with great responsibility.,"CIC - citizen should use the right given under RTI with great responsibility + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking details with respect to action taken on resolution of LIC officers through. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the queries did not come under section2(j)“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; +(iii) taking certified samples of material; +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +The PIO admitted that the appellant had made 10 representations as listed in his RTI applications.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide copy of the service guidelines and specific and full information regarding disposal of each of the representations made by the appellant. The Commission also noted that the applicant had filed 35 representations and 14 appeals covering issues of discord between herself and the Management and in some of the applications, issues raised are not only frivolous and vexatious but are in bad taste and unbecoming of a serving employee. The CIC advised the appellant to desist for using such language. The Commission further held that RTI Act should not to be misused for settling scores between employees and Management and cherished rights given to the citizen should be used with great responsibility." +701,Seeking copy of note sheet related to prosecution by CBI through RTI,,some queries in respect of a case booked against M/s,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission stated that the PIO has obtained the comments of the investigating agency and replied to the appellant.,"Seeking copy of note sheet related to prosecution by CBI through RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax seeking information on some queries in respect of a case booked against M/s. Maikaal Fibres. He sought certain annexures, copies of Memorandum issued, the copy of show cause notice issued along with copy of relevant AE-2 issued in the matter; with the copies of all correspondence made with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) along with copy of relevant Note sheet pages and also a copy of Note sheet under which sanction was given in the matter to CBI along with copy of sanction order. The Public Information Officer (PIO) sought the assistance from the Superintendent (Legal), Superintendent (Vigilance) and Assistant Commissioner (Audit) under section 5(4) of the RTI Act and provided part information. Regarding the correspondence and note sheet, the PIO claimed exemption under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act stating that disciplinary proceedings against some officials of the Department were in progress. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that the information sought by the appellant pertained to third party information and directed the PIO to obtain the comments of the third party i.e. CBI by invoking section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act. He held that the PIO should thereafter take a decision in the matter regarding disclosure of information as well as on the applicability of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that partial compliance of the order of FAA was done and correspondence with CBI Draft Sanction Order and Sanction Order were provided to the appellant. Only the note sheets of the file remained to be disclosed for which the CBI invoked section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act as it would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders.","The Commission observed that in compliance with the FAA’s order the PIO provided information i.e. correspondence with CBI (two letters) Draft Sanction Order and Sanction Order. As far as the copy of note sheet was concerned the Commission held that the respondent have no disclosure obligation under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act as the information if provided could impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The CIC added that the question of noncompliance of the order of the FAA by the PIO did not arise since the FAA had directed the PIO to dispose of the matter regarding providing of copies of note sheets to the appellant after seeking an opinion from the CBI being the investigating agency whether the information exempted under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;or any other section of the RTI Act. The Commission stated that the PIO has obtained the comments of the investigating agency and replied to the appellant." +702,PIO is not obliged to compile information under the RTI Act,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission also held that the appellant knows very well that the charges against him are that he had torn the pages of the tally book and that this information falls outside the ambit of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","PIO is not obliged to compile information under the RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant claimed that SF5 was issued to him on the charge that he had torn some pages from the tally book and that last page showed that the book had two hundred pages. He stated that the tally book is now in the possession of vigilance branch since 2002.  He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Western Railway and wanted to know as to when the vigilance branch came to know that machine numbered pages of tally book have been torn; how many other tally books which are in the possession of the vigilance branch pages are missing and what are the page Nos.; what action had been initiated by the Vigilance branch once they came to know about the missing pages ; whether  the pages of tally book were intact or torn when it was seized by the vigilance. He also wanted copy of the rule under which a vigilance case had been made against him when the pages of tally book were already torn – and not torn by him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that it did not fall under the definition of information as given under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that there are three or four tally books but they do not know how many pages were torn. For rest of the information the respondent stated that information sought is not available on record.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that since the information is not available with the public authority the same cannot be provided. The CIC directed the PIO to invite the appellant to inspect the tally books so that he can compile the information as to how many other tally books which are in the possession of the vigilance branch pages are missing and what are the page nos. The Commission also held that the appellant knows very well that the charges against him are that he had torn the pages of the tally book and that this information falls outside the ambit of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act." +703,Details of properties left behind in Pakistan by the refugees were sought under RTI,Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),properties left behind in Pakistan by the displaced persons and as to where these persons are now residing in India,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission accepted the submissions of the respondent and rejected the appeal.,"Details of properties left behind in Pakistan by the refugees were sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking information regarding properties left behind in Pakistan by the displaced persons and as to where these persons are now residing in India. The appellant requested for complete details of persons who left India and have settled in Pakistan during partition of India, along with place of living. He referred to some people and wanted to know if they were still alive and if not, their date of death along with the death certificates, details of their successor and permanent address. The Public Information Officer (PIO) requested the appellant to provide the Claim Index Number and CAF number of the claimant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that if the appellant is ready to give Claim Index Number/ CAF number they would be in a position to trace the file. The respondent submitted that there were around 13.0 lakh files and it is not possible to trace out the file without the Claim Index Number.",The Commission accepted the submissions of the respondent and rejected the appeal. +704,The grounds for dissatisfaction with the information provided should be mentioned in the RTI appeal,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"For rest of the queries, the CIC held that the information has been provided to the appellant.","The grounds for dissatisfaction with the information provided should be mentioned in the RTI appeal + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with Office of the Salt Commissioner seeking information related to packaging, quality, loading of the salt through goods-train, iodine content in the salt etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and for remaining queries, he stated that the appellant has sought interpretation which did not fall within the ambit of information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. + +While filing the second appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he was not satisfied with the reply provided by the respondent but he did not establish the grounds on which he was not satisfied with the information provided to him.","The CIC considered the submissions of the parties and perused the relevant documents on file. The Commission observed that the appellant has sought specific information regarding the iodine content in the salt and directed the PIO to provide specific reply to this query to the appellant. For rest of the queries, the CIC held that the information has been provided to the appellant." +705,Seeking allotment of accommodation in all guesthouses for three years under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the appellant to communicate the specific information he wants regarding the transit/guest houses in respect of which information regarding allotment is sought.,"Seeking allotment of accommodation in all guesthouses for three years under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. seeking details in respect of the Transit Houses/Guest Houses duly maintained by the company. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. The PIO however denied apart information stating that it was very voluminous. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the company maintains large number of transit/guest houses across the country and to provide information regarding allotment of accommodation in all these guesthouses for the period of three years would severely strain the resources of the public authority and divert the employees from attending to the regular work.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the appellant to communicate the specific information he wants regarding the transit/guest houses in respect of which information regarding allotment is sought. The PIO will then allow opportunity of inspection of the concerned allotment registers to the appellant. +706,Fixed / moveable assets and experience certificate are personal information under RTI,,,"['8(1)(h)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission held that the movable assets and Income Tax statement of the other person cannot been supplied as it is personal in nature and is barred from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","Fixed / moveable assets and experience certificate are personal information under RTI + +Background: +The appellant had applied for allotment of Kisan Sewa Kendra at location Pakhopali, District Gopalganj but was not selected. Later he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking copies of the fixed and moveable assets, income tax statements and experience certificate filed by the successful candidate. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the disclosure of information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.","During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that the enquiry has been completed. The Commission held that the movable assets and Income Tax statement of the other person cannot been supplied as it is personal in nature and is barred from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act." +707,"Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- levied for refusal to accept the RTI application",,some civil contractors,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,25000.0,,"25,000/-.The Commission also directed the PIO to furnish the complete information to the appellant or if the appellant so desires, allow him to inspect the relevant records relating to his five RTI applications","Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- levied for refusal to accept the RTI application + +Background: +The appellant filed five applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) seeking information regarding some civil contractors. The Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) returned the applications on the ground that fee of RTI was not in order due to incorrect address of the payee on the postal order and asked the appellant to submit the said applications with correct payee address. The appellant then addressed a letter to the Public Information Officer (PIO) requesting him to intimate the “correct address of the payee” however no reply was given. The First Appellate Authority too did not pass any order regarding the first appeal filed by the appellant.Proceedings + +During the first hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the CIC observed that as per section 5(3) of the RTI Act, the APIO was bound to render reasonable assistance to the appellant but he failed to do so. The Commission also observed that the DoPT has issued consolidated updated guidelines on the RTI Act to help all stake holders in dealing with RTI matters. All the postal orders enclosed with the five RTI applications were in the name of AO, BSNL and the PIO could not have refused the same in terms of the above guidelines. The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the complete and correct information as requested by the appellant in his 05 RTI applications. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI act, the Commission issued a show-cause notice to the concerned PIO to explain whether he had any reasonable cause for refusing to accept the RTI applications. + +During the second hearing before the CIC, the PIO was unable to give any satisfactory reply and admitted that refusal on his part to receive the RTI applications were not in accordance with the RTI rules. As regards non-supply of information the PIO pleaded that the information sought is very voluminous and there was acute shortage of staff and hence the same could not be furnished.","The Commission noted that the IPOs filed by the appellant were in accordance with the RTI rules and that the refusal of the said RTI applications by the PIO is a gross violation of the RTI Act. The Commission observed that the burden of proving that denial of information was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per section19(5)In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.of the RTI Act. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission levied a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.The Commission also directed the PIO to furnish the complete information to the appellant or if the appellant so desires, allow him to inspect the relevant records relating to his five RTI applications" +708,Can the letter received from the third party objecting to providing information be disclosed?,Southern Railway,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission however, directed the PIO to provide the copies of the objection letters received from the third parties to the appellant.","Can the letter received from the third party objecting to providing information be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Southern Railway seeking the travel details of two people for the period 2009 to 2012 such as the details of booking, cancellation and mode of booking /cancellation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the information pertains to third party and that the third party’s submission is being called for. The appellant filed the first appeal and submitted that one of the people was his wife and the other was his wife’s relative. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the applicant once again that information belongs to third party and that it cannot be disclosed as both the third parties have denied the disclosure. The FAA also stated that the disclosure has no relation with any public activity or interest. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that information was denied under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act and that the disclosure has no relation with any public interest or activity. The respondent also stated that the third parties had requested that information related to their travel not be disclosed to the appellant as it is personal in nature. The appellant, at this stage, sought the copies of the letters received from the third parties, denying the disclosure of information.","The Commission accepted the averments of the FAA and rejected the appeal. The Commission however, directed the PIO to provide the copies of the objection letters received from the third parties to the appellant. + +Comments + +The letters written by the third party is a new piece of information which can be sought by the applicant. The PIO should take a decision depending upon the facts of the case and the exemption provisions." +709,Can CIC interfere with the procedure laid down by for disclosure of particular information?,India Meteorological Department,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"Comments + +The RTI Act gives the power to the CIC to give recommendations for any changes in the practices which are not in consonance with the Act.","Can CIC interfere with the procedure laid down by for disclosure of particular information? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the India Meteorological Department seeking information related to the earthquakes that have hit Delhi form 2004 to till date such as, the exact dates, time, scale, intensity, duration, place of epicenter etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that significant earthquake data has been put in the Department’s website from 2006 onwards and that can be accessed by anyone. He also submitted that minor earthquakes data has not been put on the website and this can be disclosed only when the requester gives an undertaking to the Department that said data will not be used for commercial purposes or for insurance claims and shall not be passed on to a third party, whether Indian or foreign. The respondent explained that there is a certain sensitivity attached with this data as it has indirect bearing on the national security.","The Commission observed that this information needs to be shared with the global community for taking preventive action to save life and property and that denial of such data in the cloak of secrecy cannot be said to be justified. The CIC held that the volume of data regarding minor earthquakes is rather large and unrestricted disclosure of this data would put undue strain on the resources of the Department. The Commission also noted that the appellant has not appeared before the Commission to canvass his case which is indicative of his indifference towards the issues raised by him. The CIC was not inclined to interfere with the procedure laid down by the Department and held that the appellant is at liberty to access the Department’s website for significant earthquakes data. If he is interested in seeking minor earthquakes data, he is required to give a certificate of undertaking as devised by the Department. + +Comments + +The RTI Act gives the power to the CIC to give recommendations for any changes in the practices which are not in consonance with the Act." +710,RTI Query - Can service tax be levied on open car parking space?,,some points regarding service tax being charged by AGC Reality Pvt,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that complete requisite information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent.,"RTI Query - Can service tax be levied on open car parking space? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax seeking information on some points regarding service tax being charged by AGC Reality Pvt. Ltd. towards the flat booked by him in Group Housing Project. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that M/s. AGC Reality Pvt. Ltd. was not registered in the jurisdiction of the public authority. The PIO transferred the RTI application of the appellant to the concerned Division i.e. Service Tax Commissionerate, Division-I under the provisions of section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The PIO in reply to some other points, wherein the appellant had sought information regarding service tax to be levied on construction activities done by the builder, referred the appellant to the provisions of Construction of Residential Complex Service as defined under section 65(105[zzzh]) of the Finance Act 1994, which was available on the department’s official website. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant contented that he has not been given correct response in reply to his request regarding service tax to be charge for “open car parking space”. He referred to a Circular issued by the department wherein it is stated that charges for providing parking space have been specifically excluded from the scope of this service. He thus argued that service charge is not leviable on ‘open car parking space’. The PIO stated that the appellant has been informed that the open Car Parking charges shall also form part of the service namely “Construction of Residential Complex Service” as defined u/s 65[105][zzzh] of the Finance Act 1994. The current Service Tax is 10.3% on this service as stated above. In some cases builder may show service tax charges on the unabated value of basic sale price @ 2.575%. The respondent stated that correct information has been provided to the appellant.",The Commission rejected the appeal observing that complete requisite information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. +711,Seeking information about railway sleeper manufacturing under RTI,Central Railway Headquarters,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Therefore, the CIC directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect all records related to his present request and to provide with copies of documents which the appellant wishes to obtain from the inspected records.","Seeking information about railway sleeper manufacturing under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Railway Headquarters seeking the details of the place of manufacturing of sleepers, number of sleepers brought from the Nagpur Division and expenses incurred towards transportation either by Railway or by Road. The appellant referred to some additional work order submitted by a sleeper manufacturer for manufacturing and supplying the sleepers in the factory where the appellant’s client worked. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the required information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that they had provided the available information to the appellant and the appellant alleged that the respondent is suppressing the information from him.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has doubts regarding the information provided. Therefore, the CIC directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect all records related to his present request and to provide with copies of documents which the appellant wishes to obtain from the inspected records." +712,CIC directs Public Authority to explain the non- adjudication of RTI appeal by FAA,Northern Railway,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,5000.0,The Commission also sought a report from the Public Authority explaining the non - address of the issue by the FAA and reporting compliance of the above direction.,"CIC directs Public Authority to explain the non- adjudication of RTI appeal by FAA + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Northern Railway, seeking the cause of sudden stoppage of the family pension received by her on account her deceased father who was an employee of the Northern Railway. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the applicant that for the receiving family pension by any unmarried family member who has attained the age of 25 years, complete set of documents were required to be submitted at the DRM Office for continuation of the family pension payments. The applicant stated that she placed all the documents on record and contended that despite passage of reasonable amount of time no payment of pension so far has been done to her. Aggrieved with non- receipt of remedy, the applicant filed a first appeal. However no order was passed by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) forcing her to file second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC).","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the case has not been adjudicated by the FAA which compelled the applicant to approach the Commission and undergo the harassment. The Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant for the detriment suffered by her. The Commission directed the Public Authority to recover the amount of compensation from the officer who is responsible for the delay. The CIC also held that no information has been sought by the appellant in second appeal before the Commission rather the applicant has sought remedy of her grievance related to stoppage of family pension which do not fall within the purview of RTI Act. The Commission recommended the FAA to look into the documents submitted by the applicant and resolve the issue. The Commission also sought a report from the Public Authority explaining the non - address of the issue by the FAA and reporting compliance of the above direction." +713,The annexure to be forwarded to the charged officer need not be signed by the disciplinary authority,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal holding that the public authority can only provide information which is held by them in material form.,"The annexure to be forwarded to the charged officer need not be signed by the disciplinary authority + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs in which he referred to G.I. MHA O.M. No. 234/18/65, AVD (II), dated 5.3.1966 that on the advice of the Law Ministry that the annexure to be forwarded to the charged officer/official need not be signed by the disciplinary authority AVD (II). He submitted that by accepting the above advice of the Ministry of Law as correct tantamount to permitting any official to sign the annexure. The appellant requested the PIO to clarify certain issues such as, What will be the fate of annexure, if the same are issued unsigned; do the annexure have some value, in the eyes of Law if the same are unsigned; Will the charge sheet be valid, in the eyes of law; What will be the fate of the inquiry on such like unsigned annexure; Are there any GOI instruction on this issue; and is there any judicial authority on this issue. + +The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the Advice Section of the Ministry has informed that he has not mentioned any file number in which the above mentioned advice was stated to have been given by the Department. The PIO further stated that from the issues raised it is not possible for them to ascertain as to whether any advice has ever been tendered by this Ministry or the context/ reference in which it has been tendered. The PIO further stated that files seeking legal opinion are received in their section from various Ministries/ Departments of the GOI and after recording the opinions on the concerned file, the same are returned to the referring Ministries /Departments. The PIO added that the information requested by the appellant appears to be in the nature of seeking advice and the Ministry does not provide advice to private individuals. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the appellant had sought clarifications on a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA’s) ADV (II) which was tantamount to seeking legal advice and the same was not covered under the definition of information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has sought the advice/opinion of the respondent, which does not fall within the ambit of information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected the appeal holding that the public authority can only provide information which is held by them in material form." +714,Is a PIO obliged to provide the weeded out records under RTI?,Superintendent of Post Offices Department of Posts,to whom this money order was delivered and photocopy of the receipt with signature of recipient if it is preserved,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,250.0,"In terms of section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the CIC awarded compensation of Rs.250/- to the appellant and directed the PIO to provide a photocopy of voucher as requested by the appellant.","Is a PIO obliged to provide the weeded out records under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Superintendent of Post Offices Department of Posts seeking information with respect to a money order which was misplaced and a new money order that was issued instead. With respect to new money order, the appellant wanted to know to whom this money order was delivered and photocopy of the receipt with signature of recipient if it is preserved. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that records related to money-orders were kept for 18 months only and hence providing information was not possible. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated he has been informed by the PIO that relevant records have been weeded out and as such it was not possible to furnish the information. He further stated that he had filed another RTI application asking for a copy of voucher of payment of MIS interest and the demanded a fee of Rs. 2/- for supply of photocopy PIO after a delay of almost three months. Though he deposited the fee, but still no information was provided.","The Commission observed that the relevant records with reference to the appellant’s RTI application had been weeded out and hence it was not possible to supply the information. As regards the another RTI application, the Commission ruled that the PIO should have furnished copy of voucher of MIS interest payment free of cost as the time limit of 30 days for disposal of request had been exceeded. The CIC held that non-supply of information within time limit prescribed in the act and wrong demand of further fee has caused detriment to the applicant. In terms of section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the CIC awarded compensation of Rs.250/- to the appellant and directed the PIO to provide a photocopy of voucher as requested by the appellant." +715,Seeking affidavits for rate contract registration with DGS&D under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosing such information.,"Seeking affidavits for rate contract registration with DGS&D under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate General of Supplies & Disposals (DGS&D) requesting for attested copies of Annexure 3A/3B and affidavits relating to registration submitted by M/s HCL Info Systems Ltd. and M/s Wipro Ltd InfoTech Group. Both these companies were registered with DGS&D for the purpose of rate contract. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that it was a third party information and that both the parties did not give their approval to disclose the information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the information sought by the appellant could not be provided as it was personal and confidential information. The third parties were of the view that providing such information would harm their competitive position so the information should not be disclosed to the appellant.",The Commission observed that the respondent did not have any obligation to disclose information that might harm the commercial confidence and competitive position of the third party. The CIC rejected the appeal stating that the appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosing such information. +716,Can the dates on which a public officer availed leaves be disclosed under RTI?,United India Insurance Company Limited,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission directed the respondents to provide the dates on which the leave was availed by the above mentioned Development officer to the appellant.,"Can the dates on which a public officer availed leaves be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the United India Insurance Company Limited seeking details regarding attendance of Development Officer. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied disclosing information claiming it to be third party information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) provided information pertaining to the number of days of leave availed by the Development Officer. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he is seeking information in terms of the dates on which the leave was availed by the mentioned Development officer. The respondent submitted that the information pertains to the personal information of the third party.","The CIC observed that the information sought i.e. the dates on which the leave was availed by the above mentioned officer is “personal information” which is in relation to the Public Activity of the ‘Development officer’ and thus it may be disclosed under the RTI Act. The Commission referred to a previous Delhi High Court judgment [UPSC v. R. K Jain inWP 1243/2011 dated 13/7/2012], wherein the court has observed that ‘Public activity’ are those activities which are performed by the person in discharge of a public duty and there is an inherent public interest involved in the discharge of such activities, as all public duties are expected to be discharged in public interest. Consequently, information of a person which is related to, or has a bearing on his public activities, is not exempt from disclosure under the scheme and provisions of the Act, whose primary object is to ensure an informed citizenry and transparency of information and also to contain corruption. The Commission directed the respondents to provide the dates on which the leave was availed by the above mentioned Development officer to the appellant. + +Comments + +Section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act bars the disclosure of personal information only if such information has no relationship to any public activity or to public interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual." +717,Can registration and recognition details of hospital be disclosed under RTI?,Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission dismissed the appeal stating that they did not find any reason to interfere in the rest of the replies of the respondent.,"Can registration and recognition details of hospital be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (BHEL) seeking information pertaining to Kasturba Hospital run by BHEL, list of banned medicines published by World Health Organisation (WHO) India, their side effects, hippocratic oath, provisions for criminal action on its violation and process to apply for the same. The appellant also sought guidelines by Indian Medical Council for Indoor and OPD patient treatment and regarding symptoms and ailments of patients. The appellant further wanted to know the bifurcation of medicines according to the source – chemical, mineral, herbal and animal, list of generic names of medicines source wise, source wise list of medicine in market substitute medicines with their standard/ popular names etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied to the appellant. In the second appeal filed before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the information sought has been hidden to protect the autocracy of hospital staff and adamant attitude of doctors in BHEL hospital, corruption in purchase and distribution of substandard medicines resulting in harassment of employees. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant is employee of BHEL hence the information supplied to him under the RTI Act was already available to him through the intranet facility of the company. The respondent also stated that the appellant is in the habit of raising vague queries under the RTI Act just to show his importance amongst other employees. The respondent further stated that there did not appear any public purpose in any of the information sought by him.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide documents pertaining to registration and recognition of the aforementioned hospital to the appellant and if the hospital was not registered the appellant should be informed accordingly. The Commission dismissed the appeal stating that they did not find any reason to interfere in the rest of the replies of the respondent. +718,Should SEBI access information from the private entity to provide it to the appellant under RTI?,Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI),their complaint against M/s Pantaloon Retail India Ltd,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to revisit both the RTI applications and to find out if there is any information materially held by the SEBI.,"Should SEBI access information from the private entity to provide it to the appellant under RTI? + +Background: +The appellants filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) seeking information relating to their complaint against M/s Pantaloon Retail India Ltd. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that for some of the queries they did not have any information and nor did they collect such information from regulated entities in the normal course of their work. For rest of the queries he stated that they were in the nature of seeking clarification or opinion.",The Central Information Commission observed that the SEBI can collect information from any regulated entity only for specific objectives as provided under the SEBI Act or any other law which empowers it to collect such information. The objectives outlined in the SEBI Act do not include accessing of information from a regulated entity for providing to any information seeker under the right to information. The SEBI cannot be compelled to access any such information from the private entity only to provide it to the appellant. The Commission also held that if any of the information is being held otherwise by the SEBI the same should be disclosed subject to the normal exemption provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Commission directed the PIO to revisit both the RTI applications and to find out if there is any information materially held by the SEBI. In case they have any of this information in their possession it should be provided to the appellant and if they do not have any such information in material form with them they should inform the appellant accordingly. +719,Can the annual income of LIC Agent be sought under RTI?,Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission accepted the arguments put forth by the PIO and rejected the appeal.,"Can the annual income of LIC Agent be sought under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking details in respect of the annual income of a particular LIC Agent. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied to provide the third party information under sections8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that the agent was not an employee of the Corporation but was only their agent who was not given any salary but was only given commission on the insurance business procured by him. He also stated that the third party had not given his consent for the disclosure of information that was personal to him. The PIO further submitted that the appellant had not established any larger public interest in disclosure of personal information pertaining to the third party.",The Commission accepted the arguments put forth by the PIO and rejected the appeal. +720,Seeking eligibility for age relaxation under RTI,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission held that that if the information is available in the website of the Department, the PIO should inform the appellant about that and also provide a copy of these guidelines to him.","Seeking eligibility for age relaxation under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel &Training (DoPT) seeking about his eligibility for age relaxation in certain particular circumstances. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the RTI request was in the nature of seeking clarification and that he was not required under the RTI Act to provide any such clarification. He however stated that if the department where he was working would make a reference to the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) officially on this issue appropriate advice could be tendered in file. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that a consolidated guideline on the subject containing all government instructions in this regard was already available in the website of the Department.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the RTI application was indeed in the nature of seeking clarification on the eligibility of age relaxation. The PIO could not be expected to provide any such opinion. The Commission held that that if the information is available in the website of the Department, the PIO should inform the appellant about that and also provide a copy of these guidelines to him." +721,Compensation awarded due to delay in getting information already available on website,,,[],UNKNOWN,,3000.0,"Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs.","Compensation awarded due to delay in getting information already available on website + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with Department of Social Welfare (DSW) seeking information related to the pension being given to disabled people, widows and senior citizens in a given format. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the records were available as per the constituency and not colony wise. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that most of the information being sought by the appellant was already available in public domain at two websites and details of beneficiaries could be identified from the addresses against beneficiary that have already been uploaded. The respondent also stated that the details on the site did not contain the Phone Nos. sought by the appellant and that compiling the same will disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. The appellant argued that if the PIO had informed about the availability of information on the website he would not have taken the trouble to file the first and second appeals and wait for a year to get the information.","The Commission advised the appellant to refer to the two websites for the information required by him. The Commission also observed that the PIO did not inform the appellant about the fact that the information is available on the website and has thus caused financial detriment to the appellant as well as considerable amount of mental harassment to him as he had to file the first and second appeals. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 3000/- to the appellant." +722,PIO directed to obtain the information which was required to be maintained,Directorate of Education,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The Commission further held that if it is mandatory for the Public Authority to maintain such information in respect of some/all categories of schools, the PIO should obtain the information from the schools and provide the same to the appellant.","PIO directed to obtain the information which was required to be maintained + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate of Education seeking copies of various policies, rules etc. in respect of admission of children to aided and private recognized schools along with the policies related to school uniforms in schools under Government of Delhi. The appellant also sought the list of private recognized schools which were allotted land by Government Agencies, whether Delhi School Education Act and the rules under the Act allow the cultural diversity and freedom of expression of children in the form of dress that the children are allowed to wear. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the applicant that the information sought is voluminous and returned the application to the applicant with a request to prioritize his requirement. Later he requested the applicant to deposit Rs 22/- for 11 pages of information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), regarding the provisions related to the admission of children, respondent submitted that the question was rather vague since the rules for admissions vary for different classes and also from school to school. Further regarding the appellant’s queries related to uniform & dress policy for school children; activities undertaken by the Delhi Government Education Department to promote national integration and whether the NCT of Government of Delhi conducts secularism audit of schools to promote national integration and unity in diversity, the respondents stated that they do not have the sought information in their records and nor there are any rules available regarding any of these queries.","Regarding the information related to the admission of children which are to be complied with by the aided and private recognized schools, the CIC directed the appellant to seek specific information following which the PIO will furnish the information as available in the records. + +The Commission also directed the PIO to provide copy of admission criteria in respect of any of the schools mentioned in the RTI Application as available in records to the appellant. In case such records do not exist the applicant may be informed accordingly. The Commission further held that if it is mandatory for the Public Authority to maintain such information in respect of some/all categories of schools, the PIO should obtain the information from the schools and provide the same to the appellant." +723,CIC directs Secretary Ministry of Culture to impart RTI training to its officials,Ministry of Culture,the actions taken by Government of India to retain these things,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"The Commission warned the Ministry of Culture officials and the person who wrongly transferred the same to National Museum instead of holders of information with Archaeological Survey of India & Ministry of External Affair,s to exercise due care to ensure that provisions of the RTI Act are scrupulously observed failing which penal proceedings under section 20 may be initiated in future.","CIC directs Secretary Ministry of Culture to impart RTI training to its officials + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Culture seeking information such as where are Diamond Kohinoor, Tukhtee-Touse and Mayur Singhasion at this time. The appellant also sought certified copy of gift deeds if those things were gifted and asked whether those things have been robbed or not. The appellant further wanted to know the actions taken by Government of India to retain these things. The Public Information Officer (PIO) gave point wise reply and stated that national museum did not have Kohinoor diamond in its collection. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that the PIO National Museum provided incorrect information. Subsequently he received a letter from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) stating that Kohinoor diamond is fixed as the crown jewel of the British Royal Family & takhtee-touse and Mayur Sinhasan were not traceable and that Kohinoor was gifted to queen Victoria however copy of gift deed was not available. He has also been intimated by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) that they have been informed by the Commonwealth Office of United Kingdom (UK) that Government of India had requested for return of Kohinoor diamond in 1947, 1953 and 1983, it was not known what form these requests took or whether they were made on a formal basis.","The Commission observed that the relevant information as per records has been provided to appellant. The Commission also stated that the PIO of Ministry of Culture routinely transfers RTI applications to the PIOs of some other departments under the Ministry without bothering to ascertain whether the subject matter pertains to the said departments or not leading to delay and furnishing of incorrect information. The CIC further added that the Secretary, Ministry of Culture should look into the matter and take appropriate steps to put in place a credible system for disposal of RTI applications and also impart suitable training to its officials in handling of RTI matters.  The Commission warned the Ministry of Culture officials and the person who wrongly transferred the same to National Museum instead of holders of information with Archaeological Survey of India & Ministry of External Affair,s to exercise due care to ensure that provisions of the RTI Act are scrupulously observed failing which penal proceedings under section 20 may be initiated in future." +724,What is the constitutional status of the Chairperson of UPA in relation to PM?,,about the position of the Chairperson of the UPA in relation to the Prime Minister of India especially under the Constitution and many other related information,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no information to be disclosed in the case within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.","What is the constitutional status of the Chairperson of UPA in relation to PM? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister Office (PMO) and she wanted to know about the position of the Chairperson of the UPA in relation to the Prime Minister of India especially under the Constitution and many other related information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) referred to an earlier decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) [CIC/SM/A/2011/001553] and advised the appellant that the desired information was held in other Ministries and Departments and that she should file the application with the concerned public authority. Later on the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO transferred the RTI requests to several other Ministries.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that any Ministry in the Government of India would not have any information in a recorded form on any of the queries raised by the appellant. The CIC noted that information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act refers only to material records whereas most of the queries of the appellant are rhetorical in nature. The Commission stated that the query regarding the constitutional status of the Chairperson of the UPA cannot be answered by anyone in the government because it is unlikely that there is any record in which her status under the Constitution of India would be described in any manner. Similarly, the query regarding the publishing of advertisements by the Government of India with the photograph of the Chairperson of the UPA and the cost incurred on such advertisements is unlikely to be answered by any particular Ministry of the Government of India since nowhere such information could be compiled or the cost on including one single photograph in an advertisement containing many other photographs and text can be segregated. It should be borne in mind that the Right to Information (RTI) Act does not provide any solution to rhetorical or emotional questions; it gives right to the citizens to secure only facts from the government authorities. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no information to be disclosed in the case within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act." +725,Can compensation be awarded for untraceable records?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,5000.0,"The Commission directed the PIO to put in extra effort to locate the copy of the said request letter and provide the same to the appellant, in case the PIO could not provide the appellant with the attested copy of the request letter, the public authority will pay compensation of Rs.","Can compensation be awarded for untraceable records? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking details in respect of the transfer orders issued against the appellant. The Public Information Officers (PIO) informed the appellant that no such information is available with the Public Authority. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that they could not provide a copy of the request letter submitted by the appellant requesting for transfer to Meerut as the matter was six years old and the letter could not be traced. The PIO confirmed that normally a copy of the request letter for transfer by the employee is placed in the personal file of the employee and there was no such copy of the request letter from the appellant requesting for transfer to Meerut in his personal file. The appellant submitted that he had never submitted any request letter for transfer to Meerut. The appellant submitted that the Senior Divisional Manager had signed his transfer orders and he was not the competent authority to sign the same. The PIO confirmed the averments of the appellant as being correct and submitted that only in exceptional cases the senior divisional manager would have signed the transfer order of an employee of the rank held by the appellant. The PIO further stated that now the Corporation has computerized the process and transfer requests are taken online and recorded electronically in the P form.","The Commission stated that it was normal practice to place a copy of the transfer request in the personal file of the employee making such request. The Commission observed that no credible explanation was provided by the PIO for not being able to locate a copy of transfer request letter in the personal file of the appellant. The Commission directed the PIO to put in extra effort to locate the copy of the said request letter and provide the same to the appellant, in case the PIO could not provide the appellant with the attested copy of the request letter, the public authority will pay compensation of Rs. 5000 to the appellant." +726,Can the family details of a government employee be disclosed under RTI?,,"documents on the basis of which a particular employee was appointed along with his salary, family details etc",['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission further stated that information pertaining to the family details of the party were not disposable as per the provisions of section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","Can the family details of a government employee be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India seeking information regarding documents on the basis of which a particular employee was appointed along with his salary, family details etc. He also sought the copy of the rules which prescribe the maximum period for which an employee of the Corporation can serve in the same branch. The Public Information Officers (PIO) denied disclosure of the requested information after taking action as prescribed under section 11 of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide information pertaining to the educational qualifications, name of institution and the year of passing out by the appellant as this formed the basis for gaining employment with the Corporation after meeting the required criteria. The CIC also held that the information pertaining to the salary paid to the appellant is also disclosable as he is holding the post of HGA in the Corporation. The Commission further stated that information pertaining to the family details of the party were not disposable as per the provisions of section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act." +727,Can PIO seek a proof of citizenship from the RTI applicant?,Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),his nationality stating that the information under the RTI Act can only be sought by Indian nationals,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to pass a speaking order on the RTI application of the appellant.,"Can PIO seek a proof of citizenship from the RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking the action taken on his complaint regarding a person (Australian national), his indulgence in criminal activities and cancellation of visa etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) wrote to the appellant seeking information about his nationality stating that the information under the RTI Act can only be sought by Indian nationals. The appellant disclosed his identity as an Indian citizen.  Thereafter, the PIO forwarded the appellant’s application to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttrakhand for taking further action in the matter as the subject matter of the application pertained to the sale of property of a NGO.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) perused the PIO’s letter addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttrakhand and observed that the letter neither forwards the RTI application nor a copy of the complaint filed by the appellant. In fact it was only the confirmation from the appellant that he is a citizen of India in reply to the MHA’s letter requesting him to inform about his citizenship. The Commission directed the PIO to pass a speaking order on the RTI application of the appellant. + +Comment + +Only Indian citizens have the right to seek information under the RTI Act. Ordinarily a proof of citizenship is not required to file an application under the RTI Act but if the PIO has doubts regarding the nationality of the applicant the PIO can seek a proof of citizenship from the applicant. This should, however, be in the rarest of rare cases and the PIO should have sufficient grounds for his doubts." +728,Should an employee’s ST status be verified at each promotion?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission directed that the copy of file noting based on which the above requirement had been notified should be sent to the appellant.,"Should an employee’s ST status be verified at each promotion? + +Background: +The appellant was advised by his office for verification of his Schedule Tribe (ST) status not only at the time of entry into the service but also at the time of his promotion. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) seeking to know if his office was right in demanding such verification again and again. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that as per the circular issued by the Central Government such verification at each upturn of an employee was necessary. He also enclosed a copy of the relevant circular. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that it was not very clear why the authorities should insist on verifying the ST status again and again. The respondent clarified that there was no specific circular or office memorandum outlining the justification for seeking such verification at each upturn of the employee. The respondent further explained that it could be because the ST status of an employee could change in case the tribute to which the concerned employee belonged stood de-notified in-between and so there was need to get the status verified each time the employee concerned was promoted.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that it would be useful to refer to the file in which the circular requiring verification at each upturn had been issued. The Commission directed that the copy of file noting based on which the above requirement had been notified should be sent to the appellant. +729,Who authorised the possession of old Fort and Ashok column of Koshambi by Indian Army?,Ministry of Culture,"the Old Fort built by Mughal Emperor Akhbar and Ashok column of Koshambi situated in Allahabad at Sangam, which is under the possession of Indian Army",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the aforesaid notification to the appellant and transfer such part of RTI application to the Indian Army which relates to them.,"Who authorised the possession of old Fort and Ashok column of Koshambi by Indian Army? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Culture seeking information regarding the Old Fort built by Mughal Emperor Akhbar and Ashok column of Koshambi situated in Allahabad at Sangam, which is under the possession of Indian Army. He wanted to know as to who authorized this possession, who is responsible for loss to Ministry of Culture, whether any rent is paid to Ministry of Culture etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI application to the PIO, Archeological Survey of India (ASI), who furnished a point wise reply. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he has not been provided proper information in response to his RTI application. The PIO stated that whatever information is available on record has been furnished. He also clarified that the Indian army is the custodian of the Fort at Sangam, Allahabad; Ashoka Pillar situated inside the Fort has been notified as a protected monument by the Government of India and as such Archaeological Survey of India, Ministry of Culture is responsible for its maintenance. The appellant requested that a copy of the aforesaid notification may be provided to him and that the PIO may be requested to transfer his RTI application under section 6(3) of RTI Act to the Indian Army for providing certain information which relates to them.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the aforesaid notification to the appellant and transfer such part of RTI application to the Indian Army which relates to them. +730,Can specimen signatures of officials be sought under RTI?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The CIC rejected the appeal holding that the information sought by the appellant did not comply with the definition of information as given in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act and therefore it could not be furnished.","Can specimen signatures of officials be sought under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the East Central Railway General Manager’s Office seeking the specimen signatures of certain officials. The Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information stating that there was no provision for maintaining signatures of officials in the records of the Public Authority. They also requested the appellant to inspect the signatures of various officials as available on letters and notings.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the specimen signatures were not expected to be maintained in the records of the Public Authority. The CIC rejected the appeal holding that the information sought by the appellant did not comply with the definition of information as given in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act and therefore it could not be furnished." +731,Allegations of corruption or human rights violation have to substantiated with evidence,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the desired information was not covered under the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act.,"Allegations of corruption or human rights violation have to substantiated with evidence + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The appellant referred to some preliminary enquiry conducted by the CBI and sought the copies of the inquiry report and other related documents. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information on the ground that the CBI had been included in the second schedule to the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that CBI was obliged to provide this information as per the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act since this matter related to an allegation of corruption. He also submitted that the information sought related to the violation of his own human rights as the enquiry by the CBI had resulted in de-recognition of his institution which greatly affected the source of his livelihood and that of several others. The respondent submitted that the subject of the preliminary enquiry was not regarding any allegation of corruption but only about violation of some rules and procedures and the CBI had not deemed it necessary to file any first information report in the case and to conduct any further enquiry or institute any criminal prosecution.","The Commission agreed with the PIO and added that it was not the case of any allegation of corruption nor of any human rights violation, it was a simple case of a CBI enquiry into some allegations of violation and infringement of rules and procedures by the AICTE in recognizing an educational institution. The CIC further stated that CBI did not find any credible evidence of allegations of corruption in the case and so decided not to go ahead with any criminal investigation and prosecution. The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the desired information was not covered under the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act. + +Comment + +Whenever proviso to section 24 is invoked, it is the responsibility of the appellant to substantiate the charges of corruption or human rights violation with evidence." +732,Guidelines for fixing the selling price of commemorative coin sets sought under RTI,India Government Mint,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the photocopy of any record or document including the file noting which would show the methodology adopted by the Mint for fixing the selling price of the Commemorative Coins.,"Guidelines for fixing the selling price of commemorative coin sets sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the India Government Mint seeking information regarding the wide variation in the pricing of the Commemorative Coin sets (Proof Sets) produced by the India Government Mint in commemoration of the occasion of the 150th Birth Anniversary of Rabindranath Tagore. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided all the information except the copy of the methodology or guideline adopted by the Mint for fixing the selling price of proof sets stating that such information is related to trade secret and commercial confidence.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that such information could not be treated as in the nature of trade secret or commercial confidence. The India Government Mint is a public authority of the Central Government and has the freedom to market the Commemorative coins produced by it at any price it thinks fit. The Commission also observed that the public should know about the methodology it adopts for pricing such products. The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the photocopy of any record or document including the file noting which would show the methodology adopted by the Mint for fixing the selling price of the Commemorative Coins. +733,Can the PIO deny the request of RTI applicant to inspect the documents?,Income Tax Department,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant has been provided.,"Can the PIO deny the request of RTI applicant to inspect the documents? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax Department seeking a copy of report sent to Commissioner Income Tax (CIT) (Vig), Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) and the inspection of concerned file. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a point wise response to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he has not been allowed inspection of file as requested by him. The PIO submitted that photo copies of relevant pages of the file were sent to the appellant and that the inspection was not allowed as the file contained various other correspondences which were not related to the appellant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant has been provided. +734,Can a fitness certificate given by employee at the time of joining duty be disclosed under RTI?,,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission further held that the queries related to the medical condition of the employee should not be disclosed as they has the potential of causing unwarranted invasion of his privacy and such information was exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of RTI Act.","Can a fitness certificate given by employee at the time of joining duty be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) seeking details about the leave status of an employee. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided most of the information except some personal information relating to the medical condition of the employee concerned.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that without disclosing the copy of the representation made by the mother of the employee, the PIO can confirm whether any such representation had been made. Similarly without disclosing the copy of the medical certificate furnished by the employee concerned the PIO can confirm whether the employee had submitted a fitness certificate at the time of joining duty at the end of his leave. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the aforesaid information to the appellant. The Commission further held that the queries related to the medical condition of the employee should not be disclosed as they has the potential of causing unwarranted invasion of his privacy and such information was exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of RTI Act. + +Comments + +A recent Supreme Court judgment clarifies the concept of privacy. Link athttp://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/sc-income-tax-returns-and-performance-are-peronsal-2406" +735,Can CAT direct the All India Radio to grant a promotion to the appellant?,,if CAT could direct the All India Radio (AIR) to give him promotion on some statutory amendment of a certain recruitment rule,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the PIO had very rightly referred the appellant to the relevant rules under which he could always approach the CAT for redressing his grievance.,"Can CAT direct the All India Radio to grant a promotion to the appellant? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). He wanted to know if CAT could direct the All India Radio (AIR) to give him promotion on some statutory amendment of a certain recruitment rule. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that he could make an application to the CAT under its rules for the redressal of his grievance if the matter fell within its jurisdiction. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) also denied the information observing that it was not the duty of the PIO to respond to hypothetical questions nor could he offer any interpretation. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information commission (CIC), the appellant argued that that he was entitled to get the advice of the PIO since the definition of information given in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act included opinion and advice.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) stated that the opinion and advice appearing in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;refer to any such opinion or advice which the public authority might have obtained and which form part of the records; these expressions did not refer to any opinion or advices which did not already exist. The Commission further held that under the RTI Act, the citizen cannot seek the opinion or advice of the PIO on any matter unless such opinion or advice already exists with the public authority. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the PIO had very rightly referred the appellant to the relevant rules under which he could always approach the CAT for redressing his grievance." +736,Citizens should not be deprived of information due to multiplicity of PIOs within a single Public Authority,,the various actions taken by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) consequent to the terrorist attacks in various parts of India including Mumbai,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission asked the competent authority within the Ministry to take a look at this problem and take remedial steps so that the citizens are not deprived of the desired information on account of the multiplicity of PIOs.,"Citizens should not be deprived of information due to multiplicity of PIOs within a single Public Authority + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking information regarding the various actions taken by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) consequent to the terrorist attacks in various parts of India including Mumbai. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the PMO provided some information and transferred the remaining queries to the PIO of the MHA. One of the PIO of MHA provided part information while some other PIO sent some more information later after the receipt of the notice from the Central Information Commission (CIC). + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant insisted that he should be provided with the entire information both by the PMO and MHA. The CIC observed that most of the queries were such that there cannot be any record or document available in any Government Ministry with any answer to those queries. The Commission noted that one such query was about the number of deaths of innocent persons on account of fake encounters and the amount of compensation paid in such cases, this query was full of personal opinion and bias on the part of the appellant. The Commission also added that unless the Government has any statistics centrally compiled, listing cases of deaths of innocent persons due to fake encounters and the consequent compensation paid in such cases and the PIO could not provide any such information. Similar is the nature of most of the other queries.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the public authority which may have some related information was the MHA and directed the PIO of MHA to appropriately distribute the queries among the PIOs within the Ministry to find out if there is any recorded information on any of these queries in any form. If there was any such record available, the same must be sent to the appellant. The Commission further noted that the PIO of the PMO had transferred the RTI queries to the MHA way back when the RTI application had been originally received. Unfortunately, at the MHA only one of the PIOs dealt with it and provided some information. The rest of the queries relating to several other sections of the Ministry remained unanswered. The Commission further stated that this seems to have happened because there is no centralised arrangement in a big ministry like the MHA to monitor the response to multiple queries contained in any single RTI application. The Commission asked the competent authority within the Ministry to take a look at this problem and take remedial steps so that the citizens are not deprived of the desired information on account of the multiplicity of PIOs." +737,RTI application seeking information regarding quality of drinking water,,"quality of drinking water + +Background: +The appellant had written three letters to the Chief Minister and to the Chairman, Delhi Jal Board (DJB) seeking safe and quality drinking water",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to include in the affidavit, the dates on which the water quality was tested and the places where samples were taken from as also the water quality test reports to the appellant.","RTI application seeking information regarding quality of drinking water + +Background: +The appellant had written three letters to the Chief Minister and to the Chairman, Delhi Jal Board (DJB) seeking safe and quality drinking water. In this connection, he filed Right to Information (RTI) application seeking the status report on the action taken on the three letters by DJB, the number of complaints received by DJB and action taken on them, whether it is a fact that sewer lines are full from House and are not flowing and get emptied, the action taken against the officer responsible for the lapses on proper maintenance of sewer lines, whether any desilting was carried out in the sewer lines from house after receipt of the complaints etc.. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that as reported by Executive Engineer (EE) (NW) III field staff is already on the job and trying to remove hidden contamination. The FAA directs the EE to look into the matter personally to sort out the problem at the earliest. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that there was no information in the records about the three letters. The appellant insisted that the information provided by the respondent in respect of the work that they have done after receiving the complaints is incorrect. The appellant held that no work has been undertaken in the area as recorded by the FAA. The respondent stated that the maintenance work was taken up and that it was done after some complaints were received. + +The appellant stated that he had received another reply from the EE, informing him that quality of water was checked in the presence of the concerned officer in the area and that all the samples were found to be alright. The appellant stated that this contention of the EE was incorrect and that the water remains contaminated and not fit for consumption.","The Commission held that as there was no information in the records about the three letters so no information could be provided to the appellant. The CIC directed the PIO to inform the appellant formally in writing about the non availability of the letters in the records and also clarify that action was taken based on other complaints received from the residents of the said area. The Commission observed that it would be in the interest of the appellant if the respondent affirm their position in an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the appellant stating that work was undertaken in the said area while enclosing documentary evidence in respect of the work undertaken, dates and officials who were responsible for completion of work. The Commission directed the PIO to include in the affidavit, the dates on which the water quality was tested and the places where samples were taken from as also the water quality test reports to the appellant." +738,Can investigation report of CBI regarding a vigilance matter be disclosed under RTI?,Central Vigilance Commission (CVC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the copies of the remaining documents.,"Can investigation report of CBI regarding a vigilance matter be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), seeking copies of a number of documents relating to a particular case including the copy of the report of the SP Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the reports sent by the Director General, Vigilance of the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) and the comments of the Anticorruption Branch of the CBI. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the existence of some of these documents and he also denied disclosing the available information on the ground that the disclosure of such records would impede the process of prosecution. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information commission (CIC), the appellant argued that he had been informed by the office of the Commissioner of Customs that the copy of the report of the SP CBI had been disclosed by the Ministry itself to some other individuals accused in the very same case. The appellant also stated that there was no reason why this should not be disclosed to him pointing out that the remaining documents had been furnished by the respective government authorities had been provided to the parties concerned. The appellant also submitted that all the documents that he had sought were now available to other parties. The respondent submitted that they had consulted both the CBI and the CBEC in the matter since the desired documents originated from those organizations and both these had objected to the disclosure of this information, on the ground that the prosecution was still on. The respondent also argued that the report of the SP CBI contained not only the details of the evidence collected in the particular case but also the detailed analyses and evaluation of that evidence including the strategy to be adopted by the CBI for prosecuting the case. Respondent further submitted that the disclosure of this document would reveal the strategy of the CBI and would impede the prosecution of the offenders.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the copies of these documents should not be denied to the appellant as they have already been disclosed to some other parties in this case.  The Commission however, agreed with the respondent that the disclosure of the report of the SP CBI might have an adverse effect on the prosecution of offenders but the same could not be said about the other documents. The CIC directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the copies of the remaining documents." +739,Tracing the missing records for providing to a RTI appellant,Life Insurance Corporation (LIC),action taken on his complaint pertaining to a particular LIC policy,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to obtain the permanent record pertaining to the reason for terminating agency code of that former agent of the Company and provide the same to the appellant.,"Tracing the missing records for providing to a RTI appellant + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) seeking information regarding action taken on his complaint pertaining to a particular LIC policy. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and in respect of others, he informed that the relevant records were not available. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that based on his complaint regarding being defrauded by agent of the LIC of India, an inquiry had been instituted and he wanted to know the outcome of the enquiry. The PIO submitted that the enquiry was constituted in 2002 by Shahjehanpur branch and the papers were not traceable after lapse of so many years. PIO further admitted that the agency code of the said agent had since been terminated and also confirmed that such information regarding termination of agency code is permanent record and is required to be permanently retained by the Company. The PIO confirmed that the Senior Divisional manager was the competent authority to terminate agency code.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to obtain the permanent record pertaining to the reason for terminating agency code of that former agent of the Company and provide the same to the appellant. +740,Using RTI for getting a correcting a wrong entry in the pension papers,Northern Railway Accounts Branch,the processing and the action taken on his representation regarding the wrong entry of date of birth of his wife in the revised pension order,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The CIC further added that the appellant was an elderly person, and since the wrong date of birth has been entered without giving much thought to it, it was advised that the respondents look into the appellant’s problem and taken necessary action.","Using RTI for getting a correcting a wrong entry in the pension papers + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Northern Railway Accounts Branch seeking information about the processing and the action taken on his representation regarding the wrong entry of date of birth of his wife in the revised pension order. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the case file is untraceable and requested the applicant to provide the proof of date of birth of his wife so that necessary correction can be made. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that at the time of revision of pension pursuant to recommendation of 6th CPC they had called upon the pensioners to submit the proof of their date of birth and the appellant had submitted a copy of voter ID card of his wife, showing the age to be 65 years based on which they had calculated the date of birth of the appellant’s wife. The appellant stated that the voter ID was submitted as residence proof and not as a proof of the date of birth and that the respondent should have obtained the same from the old pension papers and that they should not have changed the date of birth on their own. The respondents stated that they have since traced the concerned file and they are willing to make the necessary correction in the record if the appellant provides them proof of date of birth of his wife. The appellant stated that the old pension papers are already available with them based on which they can make necessary correction.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant have certain grievance against the Public authority for entering the wrong date of birth of his wife in the revised pension order which could not be sorted out under the RTI Act. The CIC further added that the appellant was an elderly person, and since the wrong date of birth has been entered without giving much thought to it, it was advised that the respondents look into the appellant’s problem and taken necessary action. The appellant was also advised to cooperate with the respondents." +741,Addressing the issue of reinstatement of services through RTI,Ministry of Railways,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission further recommended that the Member, Electrical, Railway Board, New Delhi should examine the appellant’s case and take a decision on the matter as per the direction given by the President’s Secretariat.","Addressing the issue of reinstatement of services through RTI + +Background: +The appellant had filed a mercy petition to the President of India regarding the reinstatement of his services. Later, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Railways seeking the action taken by the public authority on the letters received from the President’s Secretariat in response to his mercy petition. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the applicant that letters received from the President’s Secretariat have been sent to the General Manager (Personnel), Northern Railway for necessary action. He also transferred the appellant’s RTI application to the PIO, Northern Railway, New Delhi for response. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), it was submitted by the respondent that the appellant’s RTI application had been finally transferred to the PIO, Northern Railway, Delhi Division, for response since the appellant was working in Delhi Division. The appellant stated that the President’s Secretariat had twice sent the letters with a direction that a decision should be taken on his mercy petition. The appellant stated that no decision has been taken so far by the public authority. The appellant mentioned that the authority competent to take decision on this matter is the Member, Electrical, and Railway Board.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO, Northern Railway, Delhi Division to provide a suitable reply to the appellant. The CIC also directed the PIO to place the appellant’s mercy petition along with other relevant documents before the Member, Electrical, Railway Board, Delhi for a decision. The Commission further recommended that the Member, Electrical, Railway Board, New Delhi should examine the appellant’s case and take a decision on the matter as per the direction given by the President’s Secretariat." +742,Separate RTI applications to be filed if the information is scattered with more than one Public Authority,General Administration Department,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to furnish a copy of the RR as sought by the appellant.,"Separate RTI applications to be filed if the information is scattered with more than one Public Authority + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the General Administration Department seeking information against twenty seven points regarding drivers of Delhi Government such as, whether their post is technical or not, age limit for filling up posts of drivers, their duties in special grade, information related to their promotion, whether a Grade D employee can drive Government vehicles if regular drivers are available etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that the requisite information supplied by the PIO in respect of his own office is complete and that the applicant was at liberty to approach the concerned PIOs of various departments of Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) to obtain the entire information on these issues. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that that his RTI application was not transferred to other Departments for furnishing the information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to DoPT circular (http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt-742) and advised the appellant to seek information from the PIOs of different Departments of Government of Delhi by filing fresh RTI applications with each of the concerned PIOs. The Commission directed the PIO to formally inform the appellant in writing that that the post of Driver is not ‘technical’ and that there is no such information on record that stipulates that duty of the driver is determined by seniority; as well as no time frame is specified within which the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) should meet to discuss issues related to promotion of drivers; no such information regarding any facilities being provided to the Association of Drivers is available on record. The Commission also directed the PIO to furnish a copy of the RR as sought by the appellant. + +Comments + +The earlier circulars of the DoPT are also relevant for such situations which are given.http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt-798andhttp://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/dopt-814" +743,"Under RTI, can the information related to the investigation be disclosed to the accused?",,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The further held that if the PIO decides not to disclose the information he must pass a speaking order and inform the appellant suitably.,"Under RTI, can the information related to the investigation be disclosed to the accused? + +Background: +The appellant was an accused in the Mumbai bomb blast case. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) seeking a number of information including the copies of the letter sent by both the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) and the Maharashtra Government to the PMO in connection with this case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that the disclosure of the information would impede the process of prosecution of the offenders. PIO however, provided the copies of a larger number of other documents. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the prosecution had already closed its case before the court and the disclosure of the information at this stage could not have any adverse effect on the prosecution. The respondent submitted that while the prosecution might have closed its court before the court, the prosecution could not be said to be over until the matter was finally decided by the court of law and they still held that the disclosure of the information might not be in the interest of prosecution of the offenders.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the response of the PIO was based on some input from the appropriate agency as the prosecution was in progress when the original RTI application had been filed. The Commission further ruled that since now the prosecution was complete the PIO should revisit the RTI request and based on whatever input it thinks fit, decide if the copies of the letters received from the ATS and the Maharashtra Government in this case should be disclosed. The further held that if the PIO decides not to disclose the information he must pass a speaking order and inform the appellant suitably." +744,Can the emoluments of a person be disclosed to his estranged wife?,,"the emoluments of her estranged husband such as his salary, commission amount, incentives and any other payments made to him during the financial year 2010 – 2011",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,10000.0,"Under section 19(8)(b), the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs.","Can the emoluments of a person be disclosed to his estranged wife? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information regarding the emoluments of her estranged husband such as his salary, commission amount, incentives and any other payments made to him during the financial year 2010 – 2011. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the breakup of payments made under different heads indicating a total income of Rs.16,63,571/- during the said period which after income tax deduction came to Rs.13,71,132/-. The appellant filed the first appeal stating that the name of the person whose details have been given was not mentioned and also there was no office stamp on the PIO's. The First Appellate Authority provided the month wise details of salary, incentives and other perks paid to the appellant’s husband. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the information provided by the FAA in chart form was misleading as it showed net amount paid after income tax deductions to be Rs.84,767/- and the incentive bonus of Rs. 12,72,535. 68, prize money of Rs. 9975/-, wage arrears and other income etc. was deliberately not included in the column ‘Net Paid’ so as to reflect lower amount of income of her husband during the financial year 2010 – 2011. She submitted that this deliberate action is further reflected in the fact that under the column ‘Gross’ only the salary component has been totaled whereas under the IT deducted column, the total amount of tax deducted on all the taxable components of her husband emoluments had been given thereby providing a very skewed and misleading picture of the earnings of appellant’s husband during financial year 2010-2011. She informed the information was needed for receiving maintenance through court order for her minor daughter.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has established larger public interest in disclosure of the requested information with regard to protecting the interests of her minor daughter. The Commission directed the PIO to provide affidavit to the Commission reflecting the true and correct emoluments of the appellant’s husband for the period mentioned above which will include his salary, incentive bonus, other income etcetera to reflect the gross income and true net amount paid to him after deduction of income tax for financial year 2010-11 with copy to the appellant. Under section 19(8)(b), the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant for harassment and mental anguish caused to her on account of misleading and incomplete information provided by the PIO." +745,Copy of letters written by DGCEI sought under RTI,Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI),,"['8(1)(g)', '8(1)(h)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant is exempt from disclosure under sections8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;&8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.","Copy of letters written by DGCEI sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI) seeking copies of letters written by DGCEI recommending his transfer from out of Bhopal. He requested all the documents, evidences, copy of note sheet, copy of complaint etc. in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) referred to an earlier order of the Commission [CIC/SM/A/2011/000804/SS] and denied the information on the ground that the information, if disclosed, would reveal the name and identity of the complainant/ informer as well as the names of the officials involved in the investigation in this matter. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent informed that the complaint into the involvement of the appellant along with some other officers in the case of huge duty evasion of Central Excise against cigarette manufacturers of Bhopal is still under investigation by the DGCEI. Therefore, the information cannot be disclosed under the provisions of section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;& section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant is exempt from disclosure under sections8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;&8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act." +746,RTI query - Can markers and dyes be used in Automotive Diesel Fuel?,Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal noting that the appellant was not present to canvass his case and the respondent has amply clarified the position.,"RTI query - Can markers and dyes be used in Automotive Diesel Fuel? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) seeking information related to the use of markers in Automotive Diesel Fuel. The appellant contented that vide notification dated 12.1.2007, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has withdrawn the use of marker but the use of dyes still continues. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a point-wise reply. During the hearing before the Central Information commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that dyes were prescribed in the Standard by IS 1460 in 1995. This standard remained operative till 2005 when the BIS revised the standard permitting use of both dyes and marker in Automotive Diesel Fuel. The respondent submitted that a copy of the appeal memo was not given to them and thus they were unable to respond to it appropriately. The CIC handed over the copy of the appeal memo to the respondents and adjourned the matter. The Commission also observed that the appellant has raised complicated policy issues and from the perusal of the material on record, it is not very clear as to what information he is seeking from the Bureau of Indian standards. The Commission also asked the appellant to personally appear before the Commission for the second hearing to canvass his case. + +Proceeding + +During the second hearing before the CIC the respondent explained that the BIS had prescribed IS:1460 permitting use of marker or dye in automotive diesel fuel in 2005. This procedure is adopted for tracing out adulteration in the diesel. Later the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas had issued the notification according to which if the marker is used by the Refinery then it should be such that no traces of marker are left in the fuel. The respondent also clarified that the BIS is an autonomous body and is not a part of the Government of India and that the Ministry has the authority to prescribe a standard which can be at variance with the standard prescribed by BIS. The appellant while filing the second appeal has contended that IOCL is misusing the BIS logo in issuing test reports as per IS:1460. The respondent stated that this allegation is not correct as even Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) is using the standard prescribed by BIS and it cannot be said to be the misuse of BIS logo.",The Commission rejected the appeal noting that the appellant was not present to canvass his case and the respondent has amply clarified the position. +747,CBI cannot refuse to consider the RTI application filed before 9 June 2011,Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),,['8(1)(h)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the views of the respondent and rejected the appeal observing that the sought information is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act as at this stage it has the potential to impede either investigation into the case or prosecution of any offender.","CBI cannot refuse to consider the RTI application filed before 9 June 2011 + +Background: +A prisoner at the Mumbai Central Prison filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking copies of a number of documents such as, Lock up Diary entry, Case Diary entry and Station Diary entries in respect of himself when he was placed in the police lockup. The Public Information Officer (PIO) had refused to disclose any such information on the ground that the CBI had since been placed in the second schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing, the Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the RTI application is dated 19 May 2011 while the CBI was included in the Second Schedule with effect from 9 June 2011. Therefore, the CBI cannot refuse to consider the RTI application only on the ground that it had since been included in the Second Schedule. The respondent submitted that the appellant was an accused in the Kandahar Plane Hijack case and had been sentenced to life imprisonment. The CBI is still in the process of investigating into this case because several other accused persons have not been apprehended till now and thus the disclosure of the desired information would impede the investigation under way.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the views of the respondent and rejected the appeal observing that the sought information is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act as at this stage it has the potential to impede either investigation into the case or prosecution of any offender." +748,Stricture against the Allahabad High Court for its handling of RTI application,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC observed that the High Court is looked upon by the citizens as a model institution upholding the majesty of law and they would be disappointed if it is found to be wanting in implementing such a popular law as the Right to Information (RTI) Act.,"Stricture against the Allahabad High Court for its handling of RTI application + +Background: +The appellant requested the Ministry of Law and Justice to inform him about the action taken on a certain complaint he had made against Mr. SC Kulshrestha, ADJ through in his RTI application. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Ministry belatedly transferred the application to his counterpart in the Allahabad High Court. On the advice of the PIO, the appellant deposited the prescribed application fee. However, the PIO took a considerable time before informing him about the action taken on the said complaint. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant objected to the considerable delay at every stage in providing him the information. He had also serious problems with the manner in which his complaint had been disposed of by the High Court. On being asked to explain the delay, the respondent submitted that it was not deliberate and a lot of time was taken, first, because the information was held by the Administrative Judge in the Lucknow Bench and, secondly, because the information, once received from the Lucknow Bench had to be placed before the Committee of Judges as per the practice followed in the Allahabad High Court.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) stated that the delay in the Allahabad High Court in disposing of RTI applications is a matter of concern and has been pointed in the past in many such orders. The procedure has to be streamlined so that the statutory timelines are not exceeded. The CIC did not intend to impose any penalty in the PIO for the delay in this case and hoped that the competent authority in the High Court would revisit the entire procedure and streamline it in order to avoid such inconvenience to the information seekers and the breach of the statutory timelines. The CIC observed that the High Court is looked upon by the citizens as a model institution upholding the majesty of law and they would be disappointed if it is found to be wanting in implementing such a popular law as the Right to Information (RTI) Act. +749,Can progressive mine closure plan be disclosed under the RTI Act?,Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM),,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant is not disclosable part of Mining Plan, and attracts the provisions of section 11(1), section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act, 2005.","Can progressive mine closure plan be disclosed under the RTI Act? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) seeking copies of progressive mine closure Plan submitted by Ashapura Mine Chem Ltd. in respect of Velas Sakhari Mine site. The Public Information Officer (PIO) referred to an earlier order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) and informed the appellant that the Progressive Mine Closure Plan is not part of the disclosable information of the Mining Plan and thus cannot be disclosed. + +Proceeding + +The appellant in his written submission filed before the Commission stated that reference to Ministry of Mines is not viewed as correct by some in the Ministry as well as by CIC in the earlier judgment and that this aspect should be resolved preferably by a full bench.  The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that their earlier order on the 13 appeals filed by Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas, Shri Milind B. Nijsure, Shri Ashok G. Naik, Shri R.Y. Kutumbe Vs. Indian Bureau of Mines has allowed following parts of the Mining Plan disclosable to the appellants – “(i) ‘General information’, and ‘Location and accessibility’ in Chapter 1 & 2 in Introductory Notes of the Mining Plan; (ii) ‘Mine Drainage’, ‘Skating of Mineral rejects and Disposal of waste’, ‘Use of Mineral’ and ‘Other information’ in Chapters 6, 7, 8 and 9 respectively of the Part ‘A’ of the Mining Plan; and (iii) ‘Environmental Management Plan’ in Chapter 11 of Part ‘B’ of the Mining Plan.”","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant is not disclosable part of Mining Plan, and attracts the provisions of section 11(1), section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act, 2005." +750,"Seeking information regarding visits of the Director, CBI to the PMO under RTI",,"visits of the Director, CBI to the PMO under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)",[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC further noted that neither the news report quoted by the appellant in his RTI application nor the application itself states any particular date of the reported visit.,"Seeking information regarding visits of the Director, CBI to the PMO under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). He referred to a news item published in the India today and sought the details about the reported visit of the Director, CBI to the Prime Minister Office (PMO) and other details about his meetings with various people there. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that he could not give any information or comment, based on media reports. He also pointed out that the CBI was now included in the Second Schedule of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and thus the provisions of the Act would not apply to the CBI.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information sought could not be provided because it was hypothetical and based on a news report. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the PIO cannot confirm and elucidate on a visit of the Director CBI to the PMO unless the details of the visit are recorded in any minutes maintained in the CBI. The CIC further noted that neither the news report quoted by the appellant in his RTI application nor the application itself states any particular date of the reported visit. In the absence of any specific date, the PIO could not surmise or speculate on any possible visit of the Director CBI to the PMO." +751,Details of the action taken against the architect for illegal construction,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to provide specific information related to the office order.,"Details of the action taken against the architect for illegal construction + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding a construction not done as per sanctioned plan like the action taken against the architect, the name of officers who issued notice to the architect, reasons for non-issuance of the notice if any and the copy of inspection report by Junior Engineer (JE), Assistant Engineer (AE) and Senior Engineer (SE). The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise reply but the appellant was not satisfied with the PIO reply. During the hearing the appellant pointed out that there is an office order which mandates that in case building is being constructed without supervision the construction should be stopped and a show cause should be issued to the architect.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the PIO has not given categorical reply and was therefore directed to give a specific reply to the appellant about the action taken against the architect and if no action has been taken against the architect this should be clearly stated. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide specific information related to the office order. +752,Information regarding a matter cannot be denied just because the case is sub-judice,Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),,"['8(1)(h)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission further ruled that the file noting in respect of those individuals who had been let off by the CBI and the copy of the complaint based on which the CBI had initiated the entire enquiry should not be disclosed as it is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.","Information regarding a matter cannot be denied just because the case is sub-judice + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking various aspects of the investigation being conducted by it into the IPO/ Shares Scam. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act stating that the cases registered by the CBI were before a trial court and the disclosure of the information would adversely affect the prosecution.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that any information sought regarding a pending matter cannot be denied just because the case is sub-judice. The Commission also ruled that disclosing the names of the persons charge-sheeted, the amount of money recovered, if any, the provisions of law under which the accused have been charge sheeted or similar other information cannot have any adverse effect on the prosecution of the offenders. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the factual information in respect of each of the queries put up in the RTI application. The Commission further ruled that the file noting in respect of those individuals who had been let off by the CBI and the copy of the complaint based on which the CBI had initiated the entire enquiry should not be disclosed as it is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act." +753,Applicant should be specific and leave nothing to the surmise and speculation of the PIO,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the sought information holding that it was not covered by any of the exemption provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.,"Applicant should be specific and leave nothing to the surmise and speculation of the PIO + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to information (RTI) Act seeking information in relation to the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for recruitment of Junior Hindi Translators held in 2010. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and denied the rest on the ground that it was third party information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the Commission observed that some of the queries raised by the appellant in the RTI application were not very clear. For example, the appellant did not given any details of the candidates whose attendance sheet was sought or the details of the candidates whose candidature had been rejected. In the absence of any such details, it was not possible for the PIO to locate the information. The Commission observed that the information seeker has a duty to be as specific as possible in describing the information she wants and cannot leave it to the surmise and speculation of the PIO.  The appellant pointed out that this information was related to those candidates who had been invited for the interview, some of whom had been rejected on one ground or the other. The appellant also wanted a copy each of the attendance sheet maintained by the SSC of the candidates who had been invited for the interview, the list of candidates rejected and not allowed to appear in the interview and the Recruitment Rules for the post.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the sought information holding that it was not covered by any of the exemption provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. +754,RTI reveals that Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules do not have preamble,,the Collegium of Judges which had framed the Rules and Orders presently in use by the High Court with a copy of the draft rules,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal holding that there is no such document containing the desired information and the PIO cannot be compelled to invent one.,"RTI reveals that Punjab & Haryana High Court Rules do not have preamble + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to information (RTI) Act with the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking information about the Collegium of Judges which had framed the Rules and Orders presently in use by the High Court with a copy of the draft rules. He also wanted the preamble and the objects and the reasons especially in respect of chapter 12 of volume 1 of the High Court Rules and Orders dealing with execution of decrees. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that they did not have the desired information with them since the rules had been framed long back in 1919 when the High Court was located in Lahore and they did not have any such records from which the desired information could be found out. The PIO also denied the preamble and the objects and reasons stating that the Rules did not have any of these. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that that these documents must be provided to him because without the preamble and the objects and reasons, these Rules did not make much sense. The respondent reiterated that he did not have any such document with them and thus nothing of the kind could be given to the appellant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the issue is whether the High Court has in its possession any material record relating to the information sought. The Commission rejected the appeal holding that there is no such document containing the desired information and the PIO cannot be compelled to invent one. +755,Can reasons for detention of employee and his family members be sought under RTI?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that disclosure of sought information is not possible since the same is not available in the records of the Public Authority.,"Can reasons for detention of employee and his family members be sought under RTI? + +Background: +The applicant had filed a complaint with Central Organisation for Modernisation of Workshops (COFMOW) seeking to know whether an employee of the Public Authority had informed his office about the reasons for him, his wife and his sister in law being detained in Tihar Jail for three months during 2010. Later, he filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking the action taken on his complaint. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the application to Northern Railway under section 6(3) of the RTI Act as the information sought by the appellant pertained to the period when the said person was employed at Northern Railway. The PIO, Northern Railway however transferred the RTI Application back to the O/o FA & CAO, COFMOW stating that the information about the said person can be provided by the COFMOW since the person was posted there at present. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) too informed the appellant that the information sought can only be provided by Northern Railway. + +Proceedings + +The appellant informed the Central Information Commission (CIC) that he has received incomplete information since he has not been informed whether the said person had informed the office about the detention of his wife and sister in law including reasons for their detention. The respondent explained that the information sought by the appellant was not available in the records of the Public Authority and that this type of information is not expected to be maintained by the Public Authority since there is no rule which stipulates that a Government employee needs to inform the office about detention of his family members in prison if the family members are not employees of the Public Authority.",The Commission rejected the appeal observing that disclosure of sought information is not possible since the same is not available in the records of the Public Authority. +756,Disclosure of expenditure made on each MP during the last Budget Session of Parliament,Rajya Sabha Secretariat,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission accepted the suggestion given by the respondent for the inspection of the relevant data.,"Disclosure of expenditure made on each MP during the last Budget Session of Parliament + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to In formation (RTI) Act with the Rajya Sabha Secretariat seeking the details of all the expenditure made on each Member of Parliament (MP) during the last Budget Session of Parliament, such as the travelling cost, salary, boarding and lodging, personal assistance, stationery and all other expenditure as per entitlement and reimbursement norms. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided only the copy of a pamphlet which contained the entitlement of each MP, Rajya Sabha. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing, before the Central Information commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the details of the expenditure incurred on each Member of the Parliament under various heads should be available in the public domain so that the citizens could find out if the expenditure incurred on the MPs was commensurate with their entitlements. The respondent submitted that the information about only a few of the entitlements of an MP, such as, the salary and office expenses allowance were available in a cumulative and compiled form and no other centralised or compiled data was available, MP wise, for the remaining entitlements. The respondent further explained that although an MP presented a TA bill on completion of a particular tour, the expenditure reimbursed on that tour was not extracted from the TA bills into a centralised data base and, therefore, if any one were to find out about the TA reimbursement to an MP, he would have to go through individual bills. The respondent offered that the appellant could inspect the individual record of an MP if he so wished in order to find out the expenditure incurred on various entitlements.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that after the promulgation of the RTI Act,  each public authority is expected to maintain data in a form that it would be easily available to the members of the public. The Commission noted that it is surprising to see that an institution like Rajya Sabha has not maintained such data in a centralised and digital platform even after 7 years of implementation of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to place this order before the Secretary General of the Rajya Sabha and advised the competent authority to initiate steps to ensure compilation of such data preferably in a digital format so that it would be easy to access all data regarding the expenditure and entitlement of MPs on a regular basis. The CIC also stated that the Rajya Sabha must upload every month all the expenses incurred on every MP on its website so that people need not have to resort to RTI in order to know about such expenditures. The Commission accepted the suggestion given by the respondent for the inspection of the relevant data." +757,Can information regarding balance sheets of a company be disclosed under RTI?,Income Tax Department,balance sheets of a particular company,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,Commissioner of Income Tax in F.No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00555].,"Can information regarding balance sheets of a company be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax Department seeking information regarding balance sheets of a particular company. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.stating that it was personal information relating to third party and the third party had opposed giving information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that balance sheet is a public document as defined in the Companies Act and hence it should be provided to him.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal holding that the income tax returns and other financial assets of the third party are exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act unless a larger public interest is involved. + +Comments + +Though it has not been pointed out by the CIC, it appears that the case refers to the balance sheet of a private entity as in cases where the documents are already in public domain, there would be no reason to deny the information. In many cases [Mr. Krishan Kumar v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies in Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003380/10993], the CIC has directed to provide attested photocopies of the audited balance sheet. The CIC has consistently held that disclosure of the Balance Sheet of a third party without the third party’s concurrence is wholly unjustified [Shri Anjani Kumar Chiripal v. Commissioner of Income Tax in F.No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00555]." +758,Demanding fee for information which has not been sought by the applicant,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Further, the Commission advised the PIO to exercise care in future to ensure that timely and complete information as per records is furnished to RTI applicants.","Demanding fee for information which has not been sought by the applicant + +Background: +The appellant sought some information regarding the bill payment to Vocational Training Programme (V.T.P.) and assessing body. The Public Information Officer (PIO) gave certain information and asked the appellant to deposit amount of the xerox since the requisite information contained 5 – 10 thousand pages. On appeal, the First appellate Authority ruled that it is impractical to count the number of pages immediately & give exact amount of coping charges. However, charges may be approximately Rs. 20,000/- which may vary depending upon the number of pages to be copied during the passing of information to applicant. + +Proceedings + +The appellant stated that he had requested for providinglistof VTPs whose bills have been paid and the amount thereof and list of those VTPs whose bills were pending and amount thereof, however the PIO had demanded exorbitant amount for providing photocopies of the records which was never requested by him. The PIO stated that payment of 287 bills of various VTPs had been made and thereafter the relevant records have been sent to the State Directorate for further action as the matter was under investigation.","The Central Information Commission directed the PIO to supply the list 287 VTPs whose bills have been paid and amount thereof with the further direction to supply the list of those VTPs whose bills have been sent to State Directorate. Further, the Commission advised the PIO to exercise care in future to ensure that timely and complete information as per records is furnished to RTI applicants." +759,A citizen has a right to know under RTI as to who is the receiver of a subsidy,North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Limited (NEDFCL),the projects assisted by NEDFCL since 1996 to 1997 in general and about the products manufactured by some 12 companies in particular,['8(1)(d)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The commission also directed the PIO to communicate the names of the product or products manufactured by each such unit to the appellant.,"A citizen has a right to know under RTI as to who is the receiver of a subsidy + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the North Eastern Development Finance Corporation Limited (NEDFCL) seeking information about the projects assisted by NEDFCL since 1996 to 1997 in general and about the products manufactured by some 12 companies in particular. He also wanted to know the names of all the industrial units which had been provided transport subsidy for transporting Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) between 2001- 2010 and particularly about the transport subsidy claimed by two particular companies between 2002 to 2008. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information but refused the details under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act holding that they were obliged to maintain the secrecy of the account of their constituents. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant emphasised for obtaining the details of the promoters along with their contact address and about the products manufactured by these units. The respondent submitted that the details such as the names and contact addresses of the promoters was in the nature of personal information and could not be disclosed as it would lead to unwarranted invasion of their privacy. The appellant pointed out that these units were assisted by the Corporation with loans and that they also received various forms of subsidy from both the Central and State Governments thus they could not be treated at the same level as any other borrower from any financial institution. He referred to many CIC decisions of the past to argue that some minimum details about the recipients of the state subsidy must be placed in the public domain.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the public has a right to know as to who is the receiver of any form of subsidy. The Commission observed that if all or some of these units have received any type of subsidy in cash or in kind including concessional loan, the details about the promoters such as their names and contact addresses and the name of the product being manufactured by them cannot be treated as personal information or commercial confidence. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the entire list of promoters for each of the units assisted by the Corporation and who are in receipt of any form of subsidy from any government agency. The commission also directed the PIO to communicate the names of the product or products manufactured by each such unit to the appellant." +760,The societies that receive substantial funds from the governments are covered under RTI,Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the Institution of Electronics and Telecommunications Engineers was not a public authority in terms of section2(h)“public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted +(a) by or under the Constitution; +(b) by any other law made by Parliament; +(c) by any other law made by State Legislature; +(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- +(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; +(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;of the RTI Act.","The societies that receive substantial funds from the governments are covered under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to information (RTI) Act seeking information with the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) seeking some information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the RTI application to the AR Bureau. The concerned PIO there informed the appellant that the information was not held by their section and that the Institute of Electronics & Telecommunication Engineers, had been requested to provide the information and the same would be communicated once received. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO of MHRD submitted a written response stating that MHRD is in receipt of a letter from the Secretary General of the Institute of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineers (IETE) which clarifies that the institute is a professional society registered under the Societies Act XXI-1860 and did not receive any funds from the Central or State governments. The PIO also submitted that it is funded by subscriptions given by its members and privately managed. The institute claimed that it did not come under the purview of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the Institution of Electronics and Telecommunications Engineers was not a public authority in terms of section2(h)“public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted +(a) by or under the Constitution; +(b) by any other law made by Parliament; +(c) by any other law made by State Legislature; +(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- +(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; +(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;of the RTI Act." +761,Non-appearance of PIO on the hearing by CIC before imposing penalty,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,25000.0,,"Comments + +A PIO must use the opportunity of personal hearing provided by the CIC to defend the action taken by him and provide the reasons for delay, if any.","Non-appearance of PIO on the hearing by CIC before imposing penalty + +Background: +In response to show cause notice of even number, the Public Information Officer (PIO) has failed to present himself before the Central Information Commission (CIC) and this was the third time that show cause notice has been issued in this matter as previously the PIO had come with the wrong file and was given this opportunity to be heard. The appellant stated that he has received full and complete information after 16 months.","The Commission noted that the PIO was given more than one opportunity to provide explanation before the Commission before imposition of penalty for not having provided information to the appellant for more than 16 months i.e. delayed information by 471 days. Therefore, the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the PIO to be deducted at a rate of Rs. 5000/- per month from his pension. + +Comments + +A PIO must use the opportunity of personal hearing provided by the CIC to defend the action taken by him and provide the reasons for delay, if any. Failure to do so is liable to be interpreted as malafide denial of information." +762,In which kind of cases is the CBI expected to provide the information to a RTI applicant?,,,[],REMANDED,,,"In earlier decisions, the CIC has taken a view that only those cases are covered under the proviso to section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:where allegation of corruption is against the CBI officials.","In which kind of cases is the CBI expected to provide the information to a RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant sought the copies of a number of records relating to some case instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against some other persons through his RTI application. The Public Information Officer (PIO) had refused to disclose any information on the plea that the CBI had been placed in the second schedule to the Right to Information (RTI) Act and, therefore, the provisions of the Act would no longer apply to the CBI. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the information he sought by him related to a case of corruption and, therefore, he was entitled to get the information as per the proviso to section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:of the RTI Act. The respondent argued that the appellant had no right to get any information not only because the CBI was now included in the second schedule but also because the desired information did not relate to any case of corruption against the CBI officials.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted the claim of the appellant that the desired information pertains to allegations of corruption. The CIC directed the PIO to revisit the RTI request in the 20 days and find out first if it is indeed so. If the PIO found that the desired information pertains to any allegations of corruption as defined under relevant laws of the land, then he must pass a fresh speaking order either providing the information or denying it under any of the exemption provisions of the RTI Act. The CIC added that the appellant would have the opportunity to resort to first and second appeal, in case he is dissatisfied with the decision of the PIO. + +Comments + +The CIC has refrained from defining what the proviso to section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:of the RTI Act means – does it include all cases of corruption under investigation by CBI or it means only the cases where CBI officials themselves are involved in corruption. In earlier decisions, the CIC has taken a view that only those cases are covered under the proviso to section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:where allegation of corruption is against the CBI officials." +763,CIC cannot direct disclosure of any information while deciding a complaint filed u/s 18,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission disposed the appeal under section 18 as the desired information does not concern life or liberty within the meaning of the proviso to Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act.,"CIC cannot direct disclosure of any information while deciding a complaint filed u/s 18 + +Background: +An application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was disposed of by the Cabinet Secretariat by transferring the same under section 6(3) of RTI Act to the Ministry of Defence under intimation to the applicant. The appellant filed a complaint under section 18 of the RTI Act before the Central Information Commission (CIC) seeking directions to the Cabinet Secretariat to furnish the file records/ documents/ reports requested for in the original RTI application within 48 hours and argued that the desired information was essential for the exercise of his right to effective appeal/ review.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) did not find merit in the arguments offered by the complainant in favor of his claim for getting information within 48 hours in terms of the provisions of the proviso to Section7(1)Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:of the RTI Act. The CIC observed that it is not clear how that information concerns anybody’s life or liberty, a precondition for disclosing the information within 48 hours. The Commission referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the civil appeal nos.10787, 10788 of 2011, where it was held that the CIC cannot direct disclose any information while dealing with any complaint case under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act. The Commission disposed the appeal under section 18 as the desired information does not concern life or liberty within the meaning of the proviso to Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act." +764,Information regarding the bank’s commitment towards their customer sought under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information of the amount spent under the head welfare measures during the period 2006 to 2011 to the appellant.,"Information regarding the bank’s commitment towards their customer sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought some information regarding the customer’s rights and the Indian bank commitment for their customers and other information such as: + +The Public Information Officer (PIO) supplied the information except from the employee health care query claiming that the details sought were vague in nature.","The appellant argued that the details regarding the amount spent on health care of the bank employees is a matter of public money so must be disclosed. The respondent stated that in the accounting there is no separate head for health care of employees and the amount spent for this are included in the account head “welfare measures”. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information of the amount spent under the head welfare measures during the period 2006 to 2011 to the appellant. + +Comments + +The nature of queries shows that they were likely to be of some commercial use to the applicant. RTI Act has been in use by those who need some information for their professional use." +765,Can the names of reporting and reviewing officers of ACR be disclosed under RTI?,,his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for 15 years,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,Such appeals before the CIC are avoidable.,"Can the names of reporting and reviewing officers of ACR be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to information (RTI) Act seeking information regarding his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for 15 years. He wanted to know whether the adverse remarks were conveyed to him, the names of the reporting and reviewing officers etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant was not present. However, in his appeal he pleaded for disclosure of the names of the reporting and reviewing officers which had been severed under the provisions of section 10 of the Act and were not provided to him. The PIO submitted that the severance had been done in order to avoid any acrimony of the appellant with the reporting and reviewing officers. The appellant submitted that he requires having knowledge of the names of the reporting and reviewing officers so as to fully satisfy himself that only authorized officers have reported and reviewed his performance. He also submitted that he was never communicated the 'below average' grading given to him which is contrary to the information provided to him by the PIO.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) did not agree with the response of the PIO and stated that the appellant is already aware of the identities of reporting and reviewing officer. The Commission directed the PIO to provide information regarding the names of the reporting and reviewing officers in respect of all the ACRs provided to the appellant.  The Commissions advised the appellant to take recourse to the grievance redress forum offered by his Company to redress his grievance regarding the 'below average' grading given to him. + +Comments + +When copies of ACR/ APAR are being routinely provided to the government officers following the Dev Dutt judgment of the Supreme Court, the stand of the PIO show gross ignorance of law. Such appeals before the CIC are avoidable." +766,Using RTI to know the reasons for being left out in the empanelment list of IPS Officers,Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to provide the appellant with reasons as available in record, whereby decision was taken to leave out the appellant in the empanelment list of IPS Officers.","Using RTI to know the reasons for being left out in the empanelment list of IPS Officers + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking to know the reasons for being left out in the empanelment list of IPS Officers for the year 1994- 95 when all his APRs were outstanding. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that as per DoPT’s O.M. No. 1/7/2009-IR dated 1.6.2009 the information sought in the RTI application cannot be classified as ‘information’ and the same cannot be provided + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he has been left out in the empanelment list of IPS Officers for the year 1994-95 by the MHA, whereas his juniors who were figuring at S. No. 492, 493, 494, 495 and 496 in the said list have been empanelled. He argued that he should be provided the reasons for being left out from empanelment list when all his APRs are ‘Outstanding’. The respondent submitted that the decision for promotion of IPS Officers is taken in the meeting of the CPEB.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the meetings of the CPEB are a matter of official record and so are other documents when such decisions are taken. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the appellant with reasons as available in record, whereby decision was taken to leave out the appellant in the empanelment list of IPS Officers." +767,Information about words used in the reply to the first RTI application,,the definition of some words/ phrases mentioned by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in the order in relation to another RTI application filed by him,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Comments + +In this case, the CIC has directed the disclosure of information sought in previous application, which was not the subject matter of the second appeal.","Information about words used in the reply to the first RTI application + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information regarding the definition of some words/ phrases mentioned by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) in the order in relation to another RTI application filed by him. He also sought the relevant rule of the RTI Act for depositing prescribed fee. He further asked about the date of receipt of a letter, phone numbers of the Public Information Officer’s (PIO) office & that of the office of the Post Master General (PMG) and the definition of prescribed fee. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to the application. The FAA informed that instead of filling a second appeal to the Commission, the appellant filed another RTI application asking for some imaginary information or trying to redress his grievance. The FAA also stated that the PIO can only furnish the information which is held by or under the control of public authority. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he had not been provided proper information to his RTI application and charges have been wrongly demanded for furnishing the information requested in his earlier RTI application. The PIO stated that the information on record has been furnished to the appellant and charges have been demanded for supply of documents as directed by the FAA in his earlier order. The Commission referred to a previous order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of CBSE & Anr. V/s Aditya Bandopadyay & ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011), wherein, the court has held that, “…..Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.”","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that in most of the queries the appellant has sought definition of certain words/ phrases and the opinion of the PIO. The Commission also observed that the FAA has erred in directing the PIO to collect charges for supply of documents in violation of section 7(6) of the RTI Act which stipulates providing of information free of charge where a public authority has failed to comply with the time limit specified in section 7(1).  The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information sought by the appellant in his previous RTI application, free of cost. The PIO was also advised to exercise due care to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicants as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under section 20 may be initiated in future. + +Comments + +In this case, the CIC has directed the disclosure of information sought in previous application, which was not the subject matter of the second appeal." +768,Are the contents of Tax Evasion Petition disclosable under RTI after the investigation is over?,,a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) filed by him,"['8(1)(j)', '8(1)(e)', '8(1)(g)']",INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also added that copy of the investigation report as sought by the appellant is not required to be given.,"Are the contents of Tax Evasion Petition disclosable under RTI after the investigation is over? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to information (RTI) Act with Income Tax Department seeking information regarding a Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) filed by him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section 8(1)(j), section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act stating that this was third party information and the third party has objected the disclosure of their personal information. He also informed that the third party had stated that the appellant is his son-in-law and as he had mistreated his daughter, the matter was pending before the court and no personal information should be disclosed to him.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to earlier orders (Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2011/003539, 000554 and 000555 dated March 19, 2012) and held that once investigation by the competent agency has been completed on TEPs, the appellant should be informed whether the inputs provided by him were found to be true/partially true/false. The Commission directed the PIO to disclose the broad outcome of the TEP to the appellant. The CIC also added that copy of the investigation report as sought by the appellant is not required to be given." +769,Delay in RTI appeal attributed to one officer posted against four vacancies,Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF),establishment of 2 X 600 MW thermal power plant,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,10000.0,,"Comments + +The CIC has not taken note of the alleged delay on the part PIO of MoEF in transferring the application.","Delay in RTI appeal attributed to one officer posted against four vacancies + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) seeking information regarding establishment of 2 X 600 MW thermal power plant. He wanted the copy of application with annexure received in Ministry for forestry clearance and correspondence with State Government if any. The Public Information officer (PIO) informed the applicant that as the matter of RTI application pertains to the Regional Office (Central), Bhopal and the application has been transferred to them under section 6(3) of the RTI Act for furnishing the requisite information. He further stated that perhaps due to incorrect recording of the address of the appellant, a copy of the letter endorsed to him has not been received by him. The PIO attached the copy of the Ministry’s letter addressed to Regional Office, Bhopal whereby the appellant’s corrected address was intimated to them. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he has received the complete information from PIO, Regional Office Bhopal. The Commission held that the PIO at Regional Office Bhopal is guilty of not furnishing complete information within the time specified under section7(1)Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:of the RTI Act and issued a show cause notice to him to explain as to why penalty should not be levied on him under section 20 of the RTI Act.  During the second hearing before the CIC when the hearing for imposition of penalty was done, the PIO at Regional Office Bhopal stated that the application was transferred late to him and reached him on 24/01/2012. He submitted that the he had replied on 28/02/2012 asking the appellant to deposit the additional fee of Rs.780/- for getting 390 pages of information. The appellant protested that the demand for fees was illegal since more than 30 days had passed since he filed the RTI Application. The PIO further stated in his written submission that there was a delay of 04 days since he was on some site inspection. Further, he was the only Indian Forest Service Officer posted in Regional Office Bhopal against the sanction strength of 04 officers and hence he was overloaded with work.","The Central Information commission (CIC) observed that the PIO has failed to understand that he was raising a completely unjustified demand for additional fee from the appellant. The Commission also stated that the delay could have been condoned if he had sent the information after a lapse of 04 days or even 10 days. The delay has occurred largely because he has failed to send the information free of cost once the period of 30 days was over. The commission noted that he sent the information on 10/04/2012 i.e. after a delay of 40 days and has failed to give any reasonable cause for this delay.  Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the PIO. + +Comments + +The CIC has not taken note of the alleged delay on the part PIO of MoEF in transferring the application. Further, it appears from the reply of the PIO that he had little knowledge or understanding of the RTI Act and ought to have sought the additional fee within 30 days or should have supplied information free of cost thereafter. It raises the question whether delay attributed to overload of work needs to be considered before imposing any penalty." +770,Inspection of original challan filed by police/ traffic police under RTI,"Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi",,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the complete information to the appellant as sought by him in his RTI application.,"Inspection of original challan filed by police/ traffic police under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act with the Karkardooma Courts, New Delhi seeking information against five points in respect of the challans that were produced before the court on various dates, which were filed by the police/ traffic police. He also wanted to inspect the documents in which the Delhi police personnel have filled in columns 1 and 2 in respect of the original challans which have been deposited in the court. The Public Information Officer (PIO) enclosed the required information. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) gave an opportunity for hearing wherein the respondents submitted that they had supplied part of the desired information. However, some of the information i.e. inspection of registers/ documents were hit by Rule 7(vi) of the DDC, RIR, 2008 and hence could not be supplied. The Rule 7(vi) refers to ‘The information to be sought relates to judicial proceedings or judicial functions or the matters incidental or ancillary thereto’. The FAA directed the PIO to supply part of the information to the Applicant in a consolidated form. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant contented that till the time the challans are placed before the presiding Judge, they cannot be considered as part of judicial proceedings. The respondents explained that challans are brought to the court on the dates mentioned and are disposed of by the judge on the same day. Hence there is no pending case and therefore the minute they are brought to the Court they are considered as part of the judicial proceedings. The appellant stated that the purpose for which he is seeking the information is to prove that a number of challans do not actually reach the court and are not disposed of by the Judge since the officials outside the Court ensure that they are lost after taking bribe. He further stated that he wants to inspect the register so as to ascertain how many cases are pending and since when. The respondent referred to two rules being followed by the Court: + +Rule 8(vii) The Public Information Officer or the Assistant Public Information Officer, shall always keep in mind, while dealing with an application relating to courts that Section4(1)(d)Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.of the Act does not apply to judicial proceedings conducted by a court or a tribunal as it refers to only administrative and quasi-judicial decisions. + +Rule 8(xii) Where the Public Information Officer or the Assistant Public Information Officer, intends to disclose the information covered by Section8(2)Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.of the Act, he or she shall do so only with the permission of the District judge.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the supply of information sought by the appellant will in no way affect the decision to be taken by the Judge and cannot be considered as part of judicial proceedings. The Commission further stated that such information must definitely be allowed to be disclosed in public interest especially in the light of the appellant’s contention that there are individuals waiting outside the Court who are willing to take money for obstructing the challan from being produced before the Judge. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the complete information to the appellant as sought by him in his RTI application. +771,Disclosure of education details of employees under RTI can harm the commercial interest,,"a contract given to his brother, by the railways for construction of a new bridge across river Palar for the proposed new line between Tindivanam and Nagari",['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the disclosure of the information has no relation with any public activity or interest.,"Disclosure of education details of employees under RTI can harm the commercial interest + +Background: +The appellant sought information about a contract given to his brother, by the railways for construction of a new bridge across river Palar for the proposed new line between Tindivanam and Nagari. The Public Information Officer (PIO) gave a point wise reply to the applicant. He denied the copies of extension application submitted by the contractor, key personnel addresses and details of educational qualifications of personnel working for the contractor stating that the third party has objected to its disclosure.  During the hearing, the representative of the third party submitted the documents demanded by the appellant and stated that they contain technical details of construction, the disclosure of which would reveal the technology being adopted by the firm and thus would adversely affect their position in the market. He further stated that the appellant has already managed to take away 6 to 7 workers of his firm who were highly qualified and that providing the educational qualifications of the personnel being employed by him (third party) for the construction of the bridge will only help the appellant to identify more skilled personnel working for his firm and tempt them with higher offers.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the disclosure of the documents sought by the appellant may harm the competitive position of the third party in the market. Such information falls under the exemption category of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the disclosure of the information has no relation with any public activity or interest." +772,Is the answer sheet to be sought within existing regulations of the University?,Punjab University,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the application of the inspection of the answer books is time barred as per the University regulations thus the same cannot be provided.,"Is the answer sheet to be sought within existing regulations of the University? + +Background: +The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Punjab University seeking inspection of his answer books for B A –II examination held in September 2010 and April 2011 in the subject of English. The Public Information Officer (PIO) asked the appellant to deposit the fee of Rs. 500/- to seek information as per the decision of the Senate. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) passed a speaking order informing the appellant that as per the University regulations, application to see the answer book will be received by the University within 10 days from the date on which the result is declared by the University and appellant has failed to apply within the prescribed time frame of the University. Hence, the information cannot be disclosed to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant has delayed in submitting the application to inspect his answer books as per the University regulations. It was further submitted that the University is conducting over 550 Examination per year and setting over 10,000 question papers annually. Disclosure of answer sheets as per the RTI applicant’s convenience at any time after the examinations result would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the disclosure of answer sheets is allowed under the RTI Act, but such right has to be exercised within the existing regulations of the University (Public Authority). The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the application of the inspection of the answer books is time barred as per the University regulations thus the same cannot be provided. + +Comments + +Does setting such artificial limits for seeking information amounts to overriding the RTI Act? Such artificial and stringent limitation can be truly claimed as against the spirit of the RTI Act." +773,Steps taken for implementation of Corrupt Public Servants (Forfeiture of Property) Bill and Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the information as asked by the appellant subject to the provisions of section 10 of RTI Act.,"Steps taken for implementation of Corrupt Public Servants (Forfeiture of Property) Bill and Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act + +Background: +The appellant referred to Administrative Reforms Commission’s (ARC) fourth report in which recommendations were made for a Corrupt Public Servants (Forfeiture of Property) Bill and implementation of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988. He sought the information about the steps taken regarding enactment of Corrupt Public Servants (Forfeiture of Property) Bill, Steps taken by government for implementation of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act and inspection of all the related files. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the enactment of the Bill does not fall in the domain of this division and the Benami Transactions Act is proposed to be revised. The PIO further denied the perusal of files under section 8(1) of the RTI Act claiming that they pertain to a sensitive legislative matter under process and would prejudicially affect the strategic and economic interests of the sovereign. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the information sought related to the measures taken by the government for implementation of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 in the wake of the recommendations of the ARC report on ‘Ethics in Governance’. The PIO submitted that they have been unable to provide any information at the point of time when the RTI was filed as they were in the process of drafting a new Bill relating to Benami Transactions which has since been sent to Parliament in August 2011.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) felt it is understandable that as the legislative process was on at the time of filing of RTI, and hence no information relating to the draft Bill could have been shared. The Commission upheld the contention of the appellant that the PIO could have provided information relating to the measures taken by the government to implement the 1988 Act from the date of submission of the ARC report to the date of filing of the RTI. Referring to section4(1)(c)Every public authority shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;of the RTI Act, the Commission  noted that it makes it incumbent on every public authority to publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public.  The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the information as asked by the appellant subject to the provisions of section 10 of RTI Act." +774,Seeking action taken on complaint relating to tax evasion under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the DGIT (Inv) is an excluded organization in terms of Section 24 of the RTI Act.,"Seeking action taken on complaint relating to tax evasion under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking the progress made on his complaints relating to tax evasion by eleven people and the action taken against them. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the office of Joint Director, Income Tax (Investigation) is a part of the office of DG IT (Investigatin) which is excluded organization in terms of section 24 of the RTI Act, hence the information cannot be provided. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the appellant that the TEP received in their office has been taken on record and the same will be dealt with as per rules in this regard. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that on the complaint received by the appellant, the department had taken this as a case of tax evasion and all issues mentioned in the application were being looked into. The enquiries in the matter were in progress. He also referred to a previous decision of CIC dt 21.7.2008 (Appeal CIC/AT/A/2007/01271, 01275, 01559, 01560 and 01561) S.P.Goyal Vs DG-IT (Investigation) in support of his contention that the office of DG (Inv) is an excluded organization under section 24 of the RTI Act and hence they are not required to provide information as sought by the appellant. The appellant referred to the CIC decision in the case of Shri M.P. Padmanabhan Vs Income Tax Department, Kannur (File No.CIC/LS/A/2009/000802 dt 3.6.10) and to para 3 of CIC decision in the case of Shri B.B. Singh Vs DG-IT (Inv) Lucknow (file no. CIC/LS/A/2009/01014 dt 1.1.10).",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that some kind of a feedback has been provided to the appellant as the FAA had already informed the appellant that the TEP received in their office has been taken on record and the same will be dealt with as per rules in this regard. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the DGIT (Inv) is an excluded organization in terms of Section 24 of the RTI Act. +775,What can citizens expect from petitions to the president of India?,,the action taken on a petition filed to the president of India,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission added that such announcements, from time to time, would educate the citizens about what to expect when they send any petition or complaint to the President of India.","What can citizens expect from petitions to the president of India? + +Background: +The appellant wanted to know about the action taken on a petition filed to the president of India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the same had been forwarded to the State government of Bihar since the subject matter of the petition concerned that government and that any further enquiry about the petition should be made with the said State government.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the President’s Secretariat had taken no other action on the petition except forwarding it to the State government of Bihar and that is what the CPIO had informed. The Respondents clarified that it would not be possible for them to say if any action had been taken by the Bihar government on the above petition. Holding that as no other action had been taken, the Commission agreed there is nothing more the PIO can say in this matter and advised the Appellant to approach the State government of Bihar. + +The Commission held that if all that the President Secretariat can do is only to forward petitions received from citizens to various authorities without any further follow up action; it should clearly announce to the citizens about their limitations and not create hope which it cannot fulfil. The Commission added that such announcements, from time to time, would educate the citizens about what to expect when they send any petition or complaint to the President of India." +776,RTI request for appointment of administrator to a society,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission observed that since the grievance of the appellant has been redressed, the objective of filing the instant RTI application has been achieved.","RTI request for appointment of administrator to a society + +Background: +The appellant sought information in respect of the nomination as President based on by laws as also the title of one Mr. Pankaj Malhotra who was member of the Society – Navin CGHS Ltd. He also sought the rules which allow Mr. Malhotra to continue as a President without election. He further desired to know who will be the legal authority after the expiry of tenure of President of Management Committee who can sign NoCs and any other certificates. Not satisfied with the reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO), the appellant filed his first appeal. The First Appellate Authority disposed the appeal holding that the available information as per records has already been provided. However, he directed the Assistant PIO to fix a meeting with the Appellant & look into his genuine grievance. + +Proceedings + +In the second appeal, the appellant requested that the Registrar of Cooperative Society be directed by the Commission to either conduct elections or to appoint an Arbitrator (Administrator). The Commission noted that the existing Management of the Society has since been superseded by an Administrator who has been appointed till such time elections are held.","The Commission observed that since the grievance of the appellant has been redressed, the objective of filing the instant RTI application has been achieved. Hence, there is no need to pursue this matter further. + +Comments + +The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 is limited to providing information and solutions to the problems may be sought under the respective forum." +777,Free of charge copies of statement of accounts of SBI credit cards to RTI applicant,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission also issued a show-cause notice to the respondent to explain the delay in taking action and why action should not be taken against him under the RTI Act.,"Free of charge copies of statement of accounts of SBI credit cards to RTI applicant + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking copies of statement of accounts for the credit card account from the inception of the card till current date; information regarding cost/ fee levied by the company from the cardholder for procuring copies of the statement of accounts for (a) monthly statement of accounts; and complete set of statement of accounts for the entire period of the credit card. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the application to the Vice President (Customer Service), SBI Cards & Payment Services Limited under intimation to the appellant. The appellant did not receive any further reply within the timeframe.  On appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that State Bank of India (SBI) Cards & Payment Services Limited was a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its own legal identity and unconnected with the SBI. The FAA informed that the SBI did not deal with credit card matters and did not owe any responsibility for supplying information/document. He also referred to an earlier decision of the Commission of 2007, wherein it was stated that either the SBI Cards by itself or SBI itself could be declared to be the public authority for the services in question. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), both the respondent and the appellant were not present. However, the representative of SBI Cards stated that the information which was being sought by the appellant related to the procuring of duplicate copies of statement of accounts. He informed that for the initial or original statement of accounts, SBI Cards do not charge anything but, duplicate copies are made available on payment basis. He further submitted that the copies are being made available to the appellant free of charge as a onetime gesture.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that no further action is required to be taken on the RTI application as the copies of the statement of accounts sought by the appellant are being made available to him. The Commission also issued a show-cause notice to the respondent to explain the delay in taking action and why action should not be taken against him under the RTI Act. +778,Can PIO offer inspection under RTI instead of giving copies of documents?,West Central Railway,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission observed that rest of the information cannot be furnished to the appellant in compiled form and directed the PIO to arrange the inspection of relevant records for the appellant on mutually convenient dates in three lots at 3 different mutually convenient places with each lot containing records collected from 6 to 7 offices.,"Can PIO offer inspection under RTI instead of giving copies of documents? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act with the West Central Railway seeking variety of information such as, Government vehicles being used by the officials and expenses on fuel; facility of mobile phones provided to various categories of employees and the lap tops provided to the officers.  The Public Information Officer (PIO) advised the applicant to inspect the relevant records stating that the information sought by him was not centrally maintained and was voluminous in nature. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that details of the facilities of vehicles provided to the employees are not maintained in one place. They further stated that they have around 19 offices and each office has several units which further have several subunits and officers in all of these offices/ units /subunits use government vehicles for various purposes. They further submitted that each subunit might be maintaining the details in their records. It was thus difficult to compile this information for the appellant.  The respondent was further ready to allow inspection of the relevant records as available in respective subunits/ units/offices in one place for the appellant. Regarding the information related to the facilities of mobile phones and lap tops provided to various categories of employees/officers, the respondents stated that this information would be available with the Sr. DST and can be provided to the appellant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information related to the facilities of mobile phones and lap tops to the appellant. The Commission observed that rest of the information cannot be furnished to the appellant in compiled form and directed the PIO to arrange the inspection of relevant records for the appellant on mutually convenient dates in three lots at 3 different mutually convenient places with each lot containing records collected from 6 to 7 offices. +779,Should orders of different FAA in relation to single RTI application be appealed separately?,Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA),,[],UNKNOWN,,,"For rest of information, the Commission advised the appellant to file separate appeals before the Commission against each of the public authorities.","Should orders of different FAA in relation to single RTI application be appealed separately? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) seeking the inputs received by MHA from all the States/ Union Territories (UTs) pertaining to human trafficking. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the MHA had issued an advisory to all the States/ UTs and has also forwarded the same to him while replying to another RTI application filed by him. The PIO also stated that all the States/ UTs were advised to take action as per advisory to combat and prevent human trafficking. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the order of the PIO and also informed the appellant that Police and Public Order are State subjects as per the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India and primarily and it is the responsibility of the State Governments to prevent detect, investigate and prosecute this crime.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that requisite information relating to MHA and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant.  For rest of information, the Commission advised the appellant to file separate appeals before the Commission against each of the public authorities." +780,Information relating to competition conducted to decide on a symbol for the Rupee,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The commission also held that if the appellant is interested to inspect the relevant file, the PIO should facilitate the same.","Information relating to competition conducted to decide on a symbol for the Rupee + +Background: +The appellant sought information relating to the competition conducted by the government of India to decide on a symbol for the Indian rupee through an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part of the information but denying the rest on the ground that the proposal was under consideration before the Cabinet. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that whatever information was available at the time the RTI application had been preferred had been provided by the PIO except a few which formed part of the Cabinet papers. The respondent offered to provide all the information in as the Cabinet decision had already been implemented and the matter was over.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information which had not been provided earlier. The commission also held that if the appellant is interested to inspect the relevant file, the PIO should facilitate the same." +781,RTI application seeking details of investigation conducted by SEBI,Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI),the definition of the expressions ‘reasonable ground to believe’ and ‘person associated with securities market’,['8(1)(h)'],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"The Commission further held that if such information is not available in a compiled form for the entire period, it should at least be provided for only a period of one year i.","RTI application seeking details of investigation conducted by SEBI + +Background: +The appellant filed three applications under the Right to information (RTI) Act with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) seeking information for a period between 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2010 such as, the details of investigation conducted by SEBI into the scrips of the companies and details of the investigation conducted into the affairs of the persons associated with securities market. He also wanted to know the definition of the expressions ‘reasonable ground to believe’ and ‘person associated with securities market’. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation. Regarding the definition, it was informed that the RTI query did not amount to information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that SEBI did not maintain the desired information in the form in which it had been sought. He explained that the SEBI undertook investigations against various entities for violation of various provisions of law and all these investigations resulted either in the imposition of some penalty or in the closure of the case. He pointed out that the details of such entities was not maintained centrally and were scattered over individual cases files. In view of the long period for which the information has been sought it would not be feasible to collate and compile all the details of the entities investigated into without scrutinising individual cases files, a task which would disproportionately divert the resources of SEBI. He suggested that if the appellant is interested to know about the investigation conducted against any particular entity, it would be possible to find out the status of such a case. The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO has not made sufficient effort to provide any information and had merely refused to disclose the information by taking recourse to the exemption provision contained section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The CIC observed that statistical details about the number of cases taken up for investigation during a particular year and the number of cases in which any penalty was imposed or the case was closed should be available with the SEBI.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the cumulative statistical details about all the cases taken up for investigation including such details about the number of cases in which any penalty has been imposed and the number of cases which have been closed without any penalty. The Commission also directed to disclose the list of entities against whom penalties have been imposed and those whose cases had been closed. The Commission further held that if such information is not available in a compiled form for the entire period, it should at least be provided for only a period of one year i. e. 2009-2010." +782,Can PIO transfer the application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act within his organisation?,Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (BCCL),,['8(1)(j)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"In this case, the CIC has made an exception without giving any reasons.","Can PIO transfer the application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act within his organisation? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (BCCL) seeking details of appointment of a particular person. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that BCCL is a big organization in which 65,000 employees worked under different areas and the exercise of section 11 has not been completed in the instant case because the appellant has not provided complete details of appointed person such as his employee number, designation, place of posting etc. They also submitted that on an average 400 persons per month were provided employment in BCCL against Land Losers’ Scheme.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that information related to appointments made by the public authorities cannot be claimed to be personal third party information of anybody. The Commission however noted that the person about whom the information is being sought cannot be identified without his employment number, designation, place of posting. The Commission directed the PIO, BCCL, Headquarter to transfer the RTI application to the respective PIOs of BCCL, areas/ collieries under section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The Commission also directed that the respective PIOs would provide the information to the appellant directly whether such a person is working in their jurisdiction and details of his appointment. + +Comments + +When an application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, the responsibility of the PIO ends with the transfer and intimation of the same to the applicant. However if the application is transferred under section 5(4), PIO has to collect the information from the deemed PIO and provide it to the applicant. Usually within the same department the PIO is expected to transfer the application under section 5(4) only. In this case, the CIC has made an exception without giving any reasons." +783,"Under RTI, the account details can be provide to authorized signatories only",,,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant is exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.","Under RTI, the account details can be provide to authorized signatories only + +Background: +The appellant claimed that he represents the majority of persons who have opened an account in the name of Indian Bank Football Team Common Fund and he sought information under the Right to Information (RTI) act on behalf of this Fund. He wanted the details ofAccount Opening Form, Specimen Signature Cards, Mandate/ Resolution/ Authority, Rules and Regulations and Bye-laws of Indian Bank Football Team Common Fund obtained by Indian Bank’s Harbour Branch for opening the above said account. He also wanted the documents obtained by Indian Bank’s Harbour Branch to effect the change in the operating instruction/ authorised signatories of the above said account. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the Right to Information (RTI) act stating that the bank has got secrecy obligation to maintain customer information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the order of the PIO and stated that the appellant is neither the authorized person to operate the account as per records of the Bank nor represented by all the members of the association. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the information can be provided to the authorized signatories of the account held by the bank since it is held in a fiduciary capacity. The appellant raised certain issues about the authorised signatories with the Bank.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that Commission is not the forum to decide who the authorised signatories of the account should be. The Commission ruled that the information is not being sought by the authorized signatories and thus this Commission cannot order disclosure of the information. The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant is exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act." +784,Documents related to use of red-light on car by Director sought under RTI,,whether the Director is ex-officio Vice Chancellor,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that it is for the Director to see as-to whether or not the use of words Vice Chancellor in official communications is appropriate.,"Documents related to use of red-light on car by Director sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought copies of certain documents relating to the use of red-light on the official car by Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, (IVRI) Barreilly. He also wanted to know whether the Director is ex-officio Vice Chancellor. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that requisite information has already been supplied to the appellant as available in the official records. He submitted that the Director has stopped using red light as per the prevailing rules. Regarding the information related to whether Director is ex-officio Vice Chancellor, he submitted that the Institute is a Deemed University and so the head of the Institute can legitimately claim to be the Vice Chancellor. He added that the competent authority has not issued any notification to this effect.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that it is for the Director to see as-to whether or not the use of words Vice Chancellor in official communications is appropriate. +785,Can the information given in one forum be disclosed under RTI also?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant free of cost.,"Can the information given in one forum be disclosed under RTI also? + +Background: +The appellant stated that on the basis of complaint filed by eight customers of the Indian Overseas bank the investigation officer removed the employees. He sought the copy of complaints of those eight customers and the investigation report of the investigation done by the investigating officer. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the information while the First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed that the appellant should be allowed to inspect the records related to disciplinary and enquiry proceedings. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent stated that he has given the complete information sought by the appellant in the forum of Industrial Tribunal. The appellant stated that he has not received the information.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that since the information has already been given to the appellant in another forum there can be no objection to providing the information to the appellant in the current RTI application. The commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant free of cost. +786,Use of RTI by being the intermediaries to make a small fortune,Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (CMPFO),the payment of Provident Fund (PF) and Pension of those seven workers,['8(1)(j)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission ruled that the respondents have rightly denied the information to the appellant and directed that the requisite information be provided directly to the beneficiaries/ pensioners as listed by the appellant.,"Use of RTI by being the intermediaries to make a small fortune + +Background: +The applicant claimed that seven workers of coal mines have not received the PF and Pension dues even after considerable lapse of time after their retirement. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization (CMPFO) seeking information about the payment of Provident Fund (PF) and Pension of those seven workers. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to its previous order [in case No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01390 in the matter of Shri Dev Nandan Prasad Vs. CMPFO] where the Commission had held that it is in public interest that the information about the crediting of pension in the accounts of the third-parties be collected from the bank and provided directly to the account holders/ pensioners. The Commission was reluctant to allow this information to go into the hands of the appellant directly stating that certain applicants have used the RTI Act in order to make a small fortune for themselves by being the intermediaries on behalf of the poor and semi-literate third-parties. The Commission ruled that the respondents have rightly denied the information to the appellant and directed that the requisite information be provided directly to the beneficiaries/ pensioners as listed by the appellant. +787,Seeking details of incoming calls from BSNL under RTI Act,,the details of incoming calls received on his BSNL landline number,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to retrieve the information and furnish the same to the appellant.,"Seeking details of incoming calls from BSNL under RTI Act + +Background: +In his RTI application, the appellant sought information regarding the details of incoming calls received on his BSNL landline number. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that it is not possible to furnish the detail of incoming calls unless it was requested earlier. The appellant can avail the CLI Machine on his telephone and check incoming calls. + +Proceeding + +The PIO stated that the appellant has requested for a print out of an incoming call on his telephone number, due to technical reasons it was not possible to access the said information. This has already been advised to the appellant. The PIO added that he will once again try to retrieve the information and if accessible will provide the same to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to retrieve the information and furnish the same to the appellant. If in case it is technically not feasible to access the information, a declaration to the effect should be furnished to appellant." +788,Can the information held in sealed cover be disclosed under RTI?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the sought information to the appellant stating that in the matter at hand it is admitted that the disciplinary proceedings have already been concluded and hence we see no reason why the sealed cover cannot be opened and its contents disclosed.,"Can the information held in sealed cover be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act seeking photocopy of recommendation given in sealed cover in Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the time taken to decide the petition of the applicant dated 24/12/2009; and the DPC which approved seniority cum fitness basis after which selection on merit basis was applied. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the sealed cover was not opened because the appellant was not completely exonerated, representation is being processed for consideration and that the remaining information is not available in material form. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he had not been provided a copy of the recommendation(s) of DPC regarding his promotion which were kept in sealed cover even though the proceedings against him have been concluded. The PIO stated that the appellant had not been fully exonerated and as such the sealed cover had not been opened. The appellant contended that even in cases where disciplinary proceedings did not result in dropping of charges, the sealed cover is required to be opened. On a request by the PIO that he will study the relevant rules and revert thereafter, the commission adjourned the hearing. + +During the second hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO referred to CAT ruling dated 25/02/2008 in the matter of Shri Bal Anand vs. UOI to argue that sealed cover is not to be opened at all, if the charge-sheet culminates into a penalty.  The order states that in normal course, if there is charge-sheet pending against a person when DPC meets, his name is put in the sealed cover and it can be opened only if ultimately the said person is exonerated of the charge. In case charge-sheet culminates into a penalty then the sealed cover is not to be opened at all and person is to be considered for promotion in the next selection committee. The Commission referred to guidelines for functioning of DPC issued by Government of India, DoPT vide its Memorandum No. 20011/4/92-AIS-II dated 28/03/2000, which inter-alia include procedure to be adopted for sealed cover cases. As per these guidelines - on the conclusion of the disciplinary case the sealed cover shall be opened but its findings shall not be acted upon if a penalty is imposed on the officer. The Commission also referred to its previous order dated 04/02/2011 in file no. CIC/WB/C/2010/000016, 67, 83, 125, 175 & 333-SM. In the said order, the CIC had held that after the enactment of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, no public authority can escape disclosure of information by deciding to keep records in sealed cover. Since the RTI Act does not have any provision to exempt information from disclosure merely on the ground that it is in a sealed cover, the public authority cannot choose to deny such information. Therefore, if the desired information is kept in a sealed cover and it is not otherwise covered by any of the exemption provisions, then it must be disclosed after opening the cover. The CIC held that the assessment sheet in a DPC is a crucial document on the basis of which the DPC recommends some people to be fit for promotion and some others to be unfit and should be disclosed, at least, to those considered by the DPC.","The Commission directed the PIO to provide the sought information to the appellant stating that in the matter at hand it is admitted that the disciplinary proceedings have already been concluded and hence we see no reason why the sealed cover cannot be opened and its contents disclosed. + +Comments + +In the post RTI era, the sealed cover proceedings have lost their relevance and should either be ended or some other RTI compatible mechanism be evolved." +789,Reasons for disconnection of landline connection sought under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,200.0,"Under section 19(8) (b) of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs.","Reasons for disconnection of landline connection sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act seeking information regarding the disconnection of his landline connection such as, rule regarding action to be taken against staff for not restoring telephone connection within the prescribed time, copies of police complaints lodged for theft of cables, provision under which telephone can be disconnected without subscriber’s permission and copy of rules 416.  The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During a hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant contended that the PIO had not attested copies of documents provided to him. The PIO’s representative stated that cable thefts had been repeatedly taking place in the area where the appellant’s telephone was installed and hence there was difficulty in restoring the land line connection. He further stated that whatever information/documents the appellant still needs will be furnished to him.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant records relating to his RTI application and to take photocopies there from. The Commission observed that the PIO should attest the copies of documents provided to the appellant. Under section 19(8) (b) of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 200/- to the appellant for the detriment caused to him." +790,"Under RTI, can vigilance clearance report of third party be disclosed?",,grant of vigilance clearance for promotion of two persons,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO, Vigilance to provide copies of vigilance clearance reports to the appellant.","Under RTI, can vigilance clearance report of third party be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information regarding grant of vigilance clearance for promotion of two persons. One of them was inspector who was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) and the other one was sub-inspector (SI) who was promoted to the post of inspector. The appellant wanted to know the name and designation of the officers who granted vigilance clearance to them and a copy of vigilance clearance and recommendation letter sent to Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for their promotion. He also sought whether the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for the promotion of inspector was in sealed cover or not. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the appellant with the name and designation of the officers who granted vigilance clearance. He denied the copy of vigilance clearance report on the grounds that the information was confidential in nature. It was informed to the appellant that the appointment of Inspectors of Delhi Police to the rank of ACP (DANIPS) is being made by MHA, however the service particulars of the Inspector were sent to MHA along with his counterparts and that a Joint DE was pending against him and SOA had been served upon him on. Later the Joint DE has been withdrawn on administrative grounds and the same was communicated to MHA. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the respondent has failed to supply the vigilance clearance reports without any justification. The respondent confirmed that the DPC meetings have been held and a decision has already been taken on the vigilance clearance provided in both the cases.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO had denied the vigilance clearance reports by simply mentioning that it is confidential in nature, he has failed to quote any exemption clause to justify the grounds for denial of this information. The Commission held that since the DPC proceedings are already over and a final decision had been taken, the copies of vigilance clearance cannot be denied. The Commission directed the PIO, Vigilance to provide copies of vigilance clearance reports to the appellant." +791,Can the correspondence between SEBI and CBI be disclosed under RTI?,,,['8(1)(d)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission stated that the PIO shall only provide such details as he can find out on his own since the appellant has provided no specific references to any cases and has merely referred to a general news item.,"Can the correspondence between SEBI and CBI be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant referred to a news item published in the Indian Express of 24 February 2006, and filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). He wanted information regarding the investigation conducted both by the SEBI and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the IPO/ shares scam in Gujarat/ Maharashtra. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the correspondence with the CBI under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. For the remaining information he asked the appellant to visit the SEBI website and see all orders passed against various entities for the violation of various provisions of securities law.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO has nowhere in his order claimed that the desired information does not exist; he has only cast the responsibility of searching out the information on the appellant. The Commission held that the appellant had referred to some serious violations of the provisions of various securities law by entities in Gujarat and Maharashtra and the PIO should have tried to find out those specific cases which pertained to the reported violations and provided the relevant information to the appellant instead of asking him to scan the website and identify the relevant orders. The Commission directed the PIO to verify the relevant records of the case and to provide to the appellant the details of the cases of investigation undertaken by the SEBI into the alleged violations by various entities relating to IPO/shares in the State of Gujarat and Maharashtra around that time. The Commission stated that the PIO shall only provide such details as he can find out on his own since the appellant has provided no specific references to any cases and has merely referred to a general news item. +792,RTI application seeking information regarding declaration of a person as Bad Character,,,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the contentions of the respondent and observed that sought information is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1) (e) and 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act.,"RTI application seeking information regarding declaration of a person as Bad Character + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information in respect of crackers licenses issued by PS Narela from 2006 to 2011. He also sought photocopies of his complete file declaring him as Bad Character (BC) and criteria for declaring a person B.C. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information but denied the copy of his file of B.C under sections8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;&8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the information regarding declaration of BC cannot be provided since the B.C. file contains information such as the companion details of the BC, history of crime, information provided to the police by informers, name of associates involved in crime, details of persons providing shelter to the BC etc. which is exempted under sections8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the contentions of the respondent and observed that sought information is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1) (e) and 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act. +793,RTI query - Is ‘Talaqnama’ a valid divorce document?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also expressed hopes that the public authority will look into the grievance of the appellant and try to resolve the same at an early date as per extant rules.,"RTI query - Is ‘Talaqnama’ a valid divorce document? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act seeking whether the ‘Talaqnama’ is a valid divorce document or not and if not then the reason for the same. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the matter has been referred to the Government Counsel for the opinion regarding the validity of the Talaqnama and the reply will be forwarded to the appellant as soon as the reply is received. + +Proceeding + +During a hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that she has not been provided proper information in response to her RTI application. The PIO’s representative stated that they had taken a legal opinion and had advised the appellant that the Talaqnama submitted was not valid as it had not been signed by her and was unregistered. The appellant contended that under Muslim law even oral divorces are valid and hence there is no necessity for the Talaqnama to be registered.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to re-examine the matter and inform the appellant suitably. The Commission also expressed hopes that the public authority will look into the grievance of the appellant and try to resolve the same at an early date as per extant rules. +794,Status of the complaints against judges & Chief Justice of India sought under RTI,,the action which was eventually taken by the various branches to which the complaints against the then Chief Justice had been forwarded,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"In respect of the complaints against the then Chief Justice of India, the Commission directed the PIO to either collect the information from their respective branches and inform the appellant about the status of those complaints at present or transfer the RTI requests to the PIOs of the relevant branches to respond to the appellant directly, clearly stating the present status of those complaints along with the photocopies of all relevant documents generated in this regard, such as, the file noting and correspondence.","Status of the complaints against judges & Chief Justice of India sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act seeking the complaints received in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the Supreme Court and High Court judges including the copies of all related documents. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information about the status of the complaints received against some judges including the then Chief Justice of India. He also stated that except for the complaints against the Chief Justice of India, the rest had been examined and closed as nothing substantial was found in those. He further stated that the complaints against the then Chief Justice of India had been forwarded to the various branches of the CBI for taking necessary action. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant wanted to know about the action which was eventually taken by the various branches to which the complaints against the then Chief Justice had been forwarded. The appellant also submitted that the PIO should have provided the copies of the related documents too.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the photocopies of the file noting relating to the examination of the complaints against some of the judges and the decision to close those complaints to the appellant.  In respect of the complaints against the then Chief Justice of India, the Commission directed the PIO to either collect the information from their respective branches and inform the appellant about the status of those complaints at present or transfer the RTI requests to the PIOs of the relevant branches to respond to the appellant directly, clearly stating the present status of those complaints along with the photocopies of all relevant documents generated in this regard, such as, the file noting and correspondence." +795,RTI application seeking JE’s report that the house is ready for occupation,,"the status of house as to whether it was fit to live in or not, details of the repairs that have been undertaken in that house",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also recommended that the JE should assess the status of the house once again and inform the appellant in writing whether the flat is fit to live in or not.,"RTI application seeking JE’s report that the house is ready for occupation + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act with the Public Works Department (PWD) and wanted to know about the status of house as to whether it was fit to live in or not, details of the repairs that have been undertaken in that house. He also sought the JE’s report confirming that the house is ready for occupation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the applicant that the applicant himself had taken possession of the particular house and that separate lists of jobs undertaken in different quarters are not maintained by the Public Authority. Later on the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) he again replied and stated that the applicant had taken possession of the house only after he must have found it to be fit to live in. He also enclosed a list of repairs undertaken in the house. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stressed on obtaining the JE’s report indicating that the appellant’s quarter was fit to live in.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to furnish any such report that is available in the records from the JE clearly stating that the said Quarters are fit to live in. If such records are not available, the PIO should to categorically inform the appellant about the nonavailability of any such report. The CIC also recommended that the JE should assess the status of the house once again and inform the appellant in writing whether the flat is fit to live in or not." +796,Disclosure of insurance policies of an absconder under RTI,,two insurance policies of a person who was absconding since 6 October 2008,['8(1)(e)'],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the decision of PIO and dismissed the appeal.,"Disclosure of insurance policies of an absconder under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information pertaining to two insurance policies of a person who was absconding since 6 October 2008. He wanted to know whether the policies were still in force, name of the person who is paying the premiums and the rule under which the premium amount is received by Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he stood surety for the third party against loan taken by him for construction of house and that a monthly deduction is made from his salary as the third party had not met his obligations in respect of repayment of the said loan. Therefore, he should be provided the requested information. PIO submitted that the housing loan was not taken against the policies in respect of which information was sought and the policies were absolutely assigned to L&HP (Legal and Housing Property Finance Department) and also all rights were with LIC.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the decision of PIO and dismissed the appeal. +797,Seeking legal provisions for transferring employees not holding sensitive post under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that no further information (policy /legal provisions) in respect of transfer is available with the Public Authority.,"Seeking legal provisions for transferring employees not holding sensitive post under RTI + +Background: +The appellant had sought the legal provision and its certified true copy under which the employees not holding sensitive posts were transferred. The Public Information Officer (PIO) had enclosed the detailed information and also informed the applicant that the transfer is inevitable irrespective of whether the employee is posted at a sensitive or not.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the transfer policy as available with Public Authority has already been provided to the appellant. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that no further information (policy /legal provisions) in respect of transfer is available with the Public Authority. +798,Seeking reasons for rejection of candidature by UPSC using RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission further ruled that once the Supreme Court decides the matter pending before it, every public authority including the UPSC would have to act according to the law established by the Supreme Court.","Seeking reasons for rejection of candidature by UPSC using RTI + +Background: +The appellant had applied for the post of Deputy Director, Anthropological Survey of India. The UPSC had rejected his candidature. Later he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information related to rejection of his own candidature; about the other candidates who had applied for the post and about the members of the Interview Board. He wanted the copies of the relevant UPSC records showing the reasons for the rejection of his candidature, the experience and educational profile of other candidates and also of the members of the Interview Board. The Public information officer (PIO) provided part information and denied the rest under sections 8(1)(e),8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he was not interested in the identity of individuals but only in their academic and experience credentials. The respondent submitted that whatever information could have been disclosed had already been provided. The respondent also argued that the academic and experience details of the candidates as well as those of the board members could not be disclosed because the UPSC treated such information as personal information and even the Supreme Court of India had stayed the direction of the CIC directing disclosure of such information in several similar cases.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO had already provided the photocopies of the records regarding rejection of the candidature of the appellant. If any other file noting or document on the subject remains undisclosed the same should be provided to the appellant. The CIC also held that since the Supreme Court has put a stay on the disclosure of information which would identify the individuals concerned thus the information including the individual records, such as, educational and experience certificates of candidates cannot be disclosed until the matter is finally decided by the Supreme Court. The Commission, however, directed the PIO to provide the number of candidates possessing the minimum educational qualification prescribed including the experience; the number of candidates not possessing the minimum educational qualification and experience; the highest educational qualification of each member of the Interview Board and the highest post, academic or governmental, held by each of them. CIC also directed the PIO to not to reveal the names or any other identity markers so as to keep the individual identity protected. The Commission further ruled that once the Supreme Court decides the matter pending before it, every public authority including the UPSC would have to act according to the law established by the Supreme Court. Based on the Supreme Court decision in the case, the UPSC will deal with all such future cases and cases like the present one." +799,Disclosure of demat applications submitted by the shareholders by NSDL under RTI,,,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(e)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the sought information is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.","Disclosure of demat applications submitted by the shareholders by NSDL under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to information (RTI) Act with the National Securities Depository Ltd. (NSDL) seeking copy of the demat request received from the shareholders of the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre and other related information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the provisions of the RTI Act would not apply to their organisation. He added that the desired information could not be disclosed as it was third party commercial and confidential information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the company concerned was bound to provide such information to any citizen as per the provisions of the Companies Act and that there was no reason why NSDL should not provide such information. The respondent submitted that they did not have the information with them and they could not disclose such information as they were bound by contract with both the investors and the company concerned to keep the information in trust.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the shareholders details of any company including the demat applications submitted by individual investors are held by the NSDL in fiduciary capacity. They are contractually bound to keep the information in good faith and that they would be breaking the contractual agreement with the depositors if they start disclosing this information to anyone without their consent. The CIC also held that a public authority can disclose only the information which belongs to it and not the one that it holds on behalf of a private party. The commission further ruled that disclosure of such information can impact the commercial viability of the NSDL itself as depositors may not take the breach of contract happily and may move away their business to some other agency. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the sought information is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act." +800,CIC withdraws its previous order under RTI Act granting compensation to appellant,Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD),award of some works to a particular company by the Zonal Engineer (Electricity),[],UNKNOWN,,,"Holding that the information available has been provided to the appellant after due inspection, the Commission withdrew the compensation order and also dropped the penalty proceedings against the PIO stating that there were some factual misrepresentations in the earlier hearing.","CIC withdraws its previous order under RTI Act granting compensation to appellant + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) seeking information regarding award of some works to a particular company by the Zonal Engineer (Electricity). She wanted to know whether the work against the said order was carried out and completed on time, whether the required bills have been issued by the accounts deparment in its usual time, whether the above said bills have been submitted to Account Section in time etc. She also wanted to know whether payments have been made to the firm and the reasons if no payments were made. In addition, she wanted to know as to what action was taken by E.E. 4th Division thereafter for payment of said bills. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that information cannot be given because proper reference of the work carried out is not given in RTI application. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) ordered an inspection of records to be conducted at the office of the PIO. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he and his wife both are handicapped and find it difficult to move from place to place still he went to the office of the PIO but was not given inspection of the records. He stated that he has visited the office of the PIO five times but the records have not been shown to him. He further stated that he met Executive Engineer (Electrical) Shahdara North on all the five times but was told to come some other time but inspection of the records was never offered to him. The Commission noted that inspection has not been given to the appellant and he is pursuing the matter since he claims he has not been paid for certain jobs that he has done for MCD and the records exist for these. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in traveling five times for inspection and pursuing this appeal and getting the information late. The Commission directed the PIO to facilitate an inspection of the records by the appellant and give attested photocopies of records which the appellant wants free of cost upto 300 pages. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO to give his reasons to the Commission to show- cause why penalty should not be levied on him. + +During the second hearing before the Commission the PIO gave a written submission stating that he did not receive the notice of hearing sent by the Commission and hence could not attend the hearing. He also stated that the appellant was given an inspection of the relevant records but no relevant records could be identified. As per the directions of the Commission, he has again given an inspection of all the relevant records to the appellant and six records were identified which have been given to him. The respondent pointed out that the records related to the year 2000 and such records are not preserved in one place and have been shifted multiple times. The respondent requested the Commission to withdraw the compensation order for Rs. 5000/-.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the respondent could not appear for the hearing since he could not get the intimation and the appellant’s contentions may not have been completely right. The Commission observed that they do not have the jurisdiction over the non- payment of bills to the appellant. Holding that the information available has been provided to the appellant after due inspection, the Commission withdrew the compensation order and also dropped the penalty proceedings against the PIO stating that there were some factual misrepresentations in the earlier hearing." +801,Seeking records of the orders of Central Administrative Tribunal under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The commission advised the authorities in the CAT to institute an enquiry and fix responsibility for the loss of the records and directed the PIO to communicate to the appellant the outcome of any such enquiry.,"Seeking records of the orders of Central Administrative Tribunal under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking a variety of information related to his own case that was decided by the Cuttack bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred his RTI application to the respective PIOs of the Jaipur, Chandigarh and Allahabad benches of the CAT who in turn provided the available information regarding the uploading of their decisions in the CAT website. The PIO of the Cuttack bench provided no information by stating that the relevant case files were not traceable in spite of their repeated search. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to make a renewed effort to locate the lost case file. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that CAT had passed a wrong order and he wanted this order to be reviewed. The respondent of the Cuttack bench submitted that lot of records had been destroyed during the super cyclone which had hit coastal Odisha in the last decade and that these records might have been either destroyed or misplaced during that cyclone.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that it cannot comment on the order passed by the CAT. However the Commission showed its concern regarding the loss of the relevant records. The commission advised the authorities in the CAT to institute an enquiry and fix responsibility for the loss of the records and directed the PIO to communicate to the appellant the outcome of any such enquiry. +802,Is the annual income of LIC agent disclosable under RTI?,,,['8(1)(j)'],UNKNOWN,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that in the larger public interest of the maintenance of the minor, the information sought regarding the annual income of that agent has to be provided to the appellant.","Is the annual income of LIC agent disclosable under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information related to the agent of the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) of India. He wanted the details of the code number, club membership and the annual income of that agent. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information pertaining to the code number and club membership of the agent but denied information pertaining to annual income of the agent under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that she was the estranged wife of the third party and that this information was sought in larger public interest of obtaining maintenance for their minor daughter. The respondent submitted that the matter had already been heard by the appropriate court and that at a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as monthly maintenance for the minor daughter to be paid by the third party had been ordered by the court. Therefore there was no larger public interest in providing the requested information. The appellant submitted that the third party was not acting as per the directions of the court and that the interest of the minor child was being ignored.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that in the larger public interest of the maintenance of the minor, the information sought regarding the annual income of that agent has to be provided to the appellant." +803,Examination for the post of Jr.Trackman conducted by Railway Recruitment Cell,"East Coast Railway, Bhubaneshwar",,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the list of successful candidates along with their marks as available in the records of the Public Authority to the appellant after completion of the selection process.,"Examination for the post of Jr.Trackman conducted by Railway Recruitment Cell + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the East Coast Railway, Bhubaneshwar seeking information related to the qualified candidates in the examination held in 6.4.08 for the post of Jr.Trackman and helper II (Group D) including what the Railway Recruitment Cell (RRC) is doing about this recruitment, the maximum time limit in which RRC will complete the above recruitment process and what happens to those candidates whose age has now expired due to delay in recruitment etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a point wise reply. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that complete information has been provided to the appellant except for the list of names and addresses of all the successful candidates selected for the post. The respondent further submitted that the selection process is still going on thus the information about successful selected candidates is not available at this stage. He also stated that the selection process is expected to be completed within a month after which the information sought by the appellant can be provided to him and the list of successful candidates will also be put up on the concerned website.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the list of successful candidates along with their marks as available in the records of the Public Authority to the appellant after completion of the selection process. +804,Can the inspection of DPC proceedings be done under RTI?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,Aditya Bandopadhyay and directed the PIO to give an inspection of the DPC proceedings to the appellant in which he was considered for promotion.,"Can the inspection of DPC proceedings be done under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant was working as D.G.M. in Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) Corporate Office and he retired from service. He was considered for promotion to the rank GM but did not make the grade. Later he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act seeking PRC grades of DGMs and other allied information. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he is interested in inspecting the DPC proceedings held by SAIL for promotion of DGMs to GM rank for the years for which he was considered. The Public Information Officer (PIO) objected to this request on the ground that the appellant has not requested for inspection in the original RTI application. PIO also contended that inspection of DPC proceedings would amount to disclosure of third party information.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that DPC proceedings are disclosable to the candidates who were considered for promotion but not to third parties and that the appellant is not a third party. The Commission referred to the previous Supreme Court judgment in Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and directed the PIO to give an inspection of the DPC proceedings to the appellant in which he was considered for promotion. +805,Disclosure of SEBI notices for irregularities in obtaining Power of Attorney,,the number of brokers whom the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had served with show cause notices for irregularities in connection with the Power of Attorney obtained from the clients,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to re-examine the relevant file(s) in which the above circular had been issued and to disclose the relevant file notings and other desired documents after deleting/severing those which are in the nature of commercial confidence or which fall in any other exemption category.,"Disclosure of SEBI notices for irregularities in obtaining Power of Attorney + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information about the number of brokers whom the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) had served with show cause notices for irregularities in connection with the Power of Attorney obtained from the clients. He had also wanted to have the file notings leading to the issue of a particular circular, which was later modified. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that SEBI had not issued exclusively any show cause notice to any broker on the Power of Attorney issue. He denied the rest of the information stating that it was held in confidence and in fiduciary capacity and that this information was exempt from disclosure under sections 8(1)(d),8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the SEBI does not have any information about the number of show- cause notices issued to brokers in connection with the Power of Attorney obtained from the clients in the manner in which it had been sought. The Commission further held that considering every single record and file noting as record of commercial confidence or as held in a fiduciary capacity is stretching the limits of exemptions provided in the RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to re-examine the relevant file(s) in which the above circular had been issued and to disclose the relevant file notings and other desired documents after deleting/severing those which are in the nature of commercial confidence or which fall in any other exemption category. +806,Inspection of records relating to the land where illegal shops stand,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The CIC ruled that if the appellant wishes to see the records relating to the land where illegal shops stand, this inspection may be given.","Inspection of records relating to the land where illegal shops stand + +Background: +The applicant wanted information and action against illegal shops standing in the premises of the temple. The Public Information Officer (PIO) explained that a temple is situated outside the area of Singroli Station of National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC). The priest of the temple had opened a shop in the premises of the temple and a number of shops have come up within the premises of NTPC which has adversely affected the business of the priest’s shop. The PIO stated that the new shops are in the premises of NTPC and the appellant has been urging NTPC authorities to take action against these illegal constructions. He submitted that the Management has taken up the matter with the District Administration and the police authorities but no action has been taken so far as the matter is sub-judice in a District Court regarding these illegal constructions. He also submitted that the whole position has been explained to the appellant herein.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the matter is under litigation and so there is no need to pass any order. The CIC ruled that if the appellant wishes to see the records relating to the land where illegal shops stand, this inspection may be given." +807,Searching for orders passed by Constitution Bench of SC using RTI,Supreme Court (SC) of India,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission noted that the PIO could bring this to the notice of the competent authority in the Supreme Court to consider if it would be possible and practicable to redesign the website in this manner.,"Searching for orders passed by Constitution Bench of SC using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Supreme Court (SC) of India seeking details about the orders passed by Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court since 1950. He also indicated a format in which the desired information was to be given. The Public Information Officer (PIO) referred him to the website of the Supreme Court stating that since the orders of the Supreme Court were already available in the public domain they must be accessed from the website and could not be provided under the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pointed out that the Supreme Court website did not contain all the orders passed by the Court. The respondents pointed out that all orders passed by the Supreme Court were uploaded in the website leaving aside those which were expressly forbidden from publication. The appellant referred to an order passed by the CIC on 10 September 2009 in [CIC/SG/C/2009/000702] and submitted that he should have the choice to access the desired information in the manner he wanted and not the way the public authority would like him to. He also pointed out that all orders passed by the Supreme Court from time to time were not reported and he was mainly interested in those orders of the Constitution Benches which had not been reported. The respondents submitted that the orders passed by the Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court from time to time were not maintained separately and that these could be collected only by scrutinising all the orders passed since 1950 i. e. for a period of nearly 60 years. They submitted that this would be an extremely time consuming task. The appellant suggested for an inspection of the relevant records to which the respondents submitted that such inspection could be allowed only under rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules 1966.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information has been sought in a particular format and the Supreme Court does not maintain its orders in this format. The period for which the information has been sought is also very long. The PIO will have to scrutinise all the orders passed since 1950 in order to separate those which the appellant needs, which appears to be an impossible task and would divert the resources of the Supreme Court. The CIC held that the PIO cannot be compelled to undertake such an exercise to arrive at the desired information. + +The Commission agreed with the contention of the respondents regarding the inspection and held that the Supreme Court has laid down the procedure for inspection of judicial records including the orders passed by the Court. These Rules have been framed by the Supreme Court in exercise of powers vested in it under Article 145 of the Constitution of India. The overriding effect of the Right to Information (RTI) Act does not extend to the Constitution of India and thus the Rules framed by the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts have to be followed if the citizens want copies of judicial records. Commission further held that even if the permission could be granted to inspect the relevant records the sheer size of the records i. e. the orders passed over a period of 60 years, the inspection itself would disproportionately divert the resources of the Supreme Court as it would have to deploy some officials to supervise the inspection. Thus, the desired information cannot be disclosed either in hardcopy form or by way of inspection. + +The Commission further observed that the Supreme Court website contains the orders passed by it from time to time in a chronological order. The citizens desirous of finding about any specific classes of orders would have to search through the entire bulk of the orders to locate the specific orders they want. If it would be possible to build such features into the website so that it will be possible to classify the orders based on various criteria it would help the public greatly. The Commission noted that the PIO could bring this to the notice of the competent authority in the Supreme Court to consider if it would be possible and practicable to redesign the website in this manner." +808,RTI application seeking information regarding Rajbhasha award,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The commission directed the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to give a personal hearing to the appellant and to pass a speaking order as per provisions of law.,"RTI application seeking information regarding Rajbhasha award + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act seeking information with regard to Rajbhasha award under a particular scheme such as the Rajbhasha rules based on which certain conditions were incorporated in the letters issued by the Public Authority, the policy for announcement/disbursement of awards. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a point wise reply to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant expressed her grievance against the Public Authority for not implementing the award disbursement policy under the 20000 word plan as it exists and instead stipulating certain conditions that are not there in the policy. The appellant requested for the rules which allowed the Public Authority to include the conditions in the directives sent out by the Public Authority for implementing the policy. The respondents clarified that there are no such rules available in the records so the same cannot be provided to them.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the appellant wanted to know why certain conditions were included in the directives of the Public Authority in respect of giving awards although no such conditions have been mentioned in the policy. The commission directed the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to give a personal hearing to the appellant and to pass a speaking order as per provisions of law. +809,Disclosure of Form F of the ultrasound done by a diagnostic centre under RTI,Directorate of Health GNCT of Delhi,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission also ruled that information against other points may also be provided to the appellant.,"Disclosure of Form F of the ultrasound done by a diagnostic centre under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act with the Directorate of Health GNCT of Delhi seeking information related to a diagnostic centre such as the copies of documents submitted for renewal of registration of the centre, copy of registration certificate issued by the authority, details of ultrasound reports in which form A is included and also the copies of Rule 9(8) and Form F of all the ultrasound tests done. He also wanted information in respect of sealing of the said centre. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that it belongs to third party.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) perused the relevant sections of Pre-Conception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 and noted that the disclosure of information is extremely important in public interest as it relates to the evil practice of female foeticide in India. The Commission directed that the Form F which relates to maintenance of records in respect of pregnant woman by Genetic Clinic/Ultrasound clinic may be provided to the appellant only after severing all the information under section10(1)Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.of the RTI Act that discloses the identity of the mother (including name address and other such details) as its disclosure would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual concerned under section 8(1)(j). The Commission also ruled that information against other points may also be provided to the appellant." +810,Seeking information about delay in delivery of speed post using RTI,,"the speed post such as, number or percentage of speed posts that reached out station within 48 hours, what is the provision given in the rule if speed post reaches after 48 hrs",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information as aforesaid along with the procedure prescribed for award of compensation for late /non-delivery of speed post.,"Seeking information about delay in delivery of speed post using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act seeking information regarding the speed post such as, number or percentage of speed posts that reached out station within 48 hours, what is the provision given in the rule if speed post reaches after 48 hrs. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that arrival of speed post depends on the time of dispatch and distance of destination Post. All speed posts reach under normal conditions. The PIO also informed the applicant that the compensation to be provided shall be equal to the composite speed post charges paid. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that he wanted information regarding the normal period of delivery of speed posts to metro cities and other centres, data on how many speed posts were delivered late (beyond its normal period) and the procedure prescribed for award of compensation for late delivery. The PIO stated that they are not maintaining any data regarding late delivery of individual speed posts. The appellant then stated that at least the data on complaint(s) for late /non-delivery of speed post(s) for a period of 01/04/2012 to 30/06/2012 should be provided.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information as aforesaid along with the procedure prescribed for award of compensation for late /non-delivery of speed post. +811,Are the records vaguely referred in the RTI application liable to be traced?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that it is not possible to get any information about the relevant Supreme Court order on the basis of newspaper reports only.,"Are the records vaguely referred in the RTI application liable to be traced? + +Background: +The appellant referred to some report appearing in the newspapers and wanted to get a copy of the Supreme Court order on the said subject. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that all the orders passed by the Supreme Court could be accessed from its website and that the certified copies of such orders could be obtained from the Supreme Court Registry by moving an application under the rules and orders made in this regard. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant had referred to some report appearing in the newspapers to the effect that the Supreme Court had taken the central government to task for giving a paltry sum of pension to the widow of some army man. The respondent clarified that it would not be possible to identify any particular order of the Supreme Court on such vague details as stated in the Right to Information (RTI) application.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the appellant have to find out more details about any such order and then apply to the Supreme Court of India by adopting the procedure laid down in their respective rules and orders for getting a certified copy of the order. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that it is not possible to get any information about the relevant Supreme Court order on the basis of newspaper reports only. +812,Disclosure of tour details of a Vigilance Officer under RTI,,,['8(1)(g)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled that the information is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act.","Disclosure of tour details of a Vigilance Officer under RTI + +Background: +The appellant had sought certain information about a Vigilance Inspector of Northern Railway with copies of TA journals, details of duty passes, copy of order giving outstation duty with purpose etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) declined the disclosure of information citing exemption under section 8(1) (g) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. During the hearing, the respondent discussed the further case of RTI Act in which Commission held the decision that TA bills, tour details etc. of a vigilance officer should not be disclosed as they would reveal the source of information (informers) helping in law enforcement process the Vigilance officer is involved in. + +Proceedings + +The Respondents submitted that the disclosure of present information was denied on the basis of a circular no. 26/07/010 dated 15.07.2010 of the Railway Board which was issued following the Commission’s decisions holding that TA bills, tour details etc. of a vigilance officer should not be disclosed. They also cited the Commission’s decision in case No.CIC/AD/A/2011/000970 and CIC/AT/A/2009/00100 in this regard.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled that the information is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act." +813,Allotment and the time schedule of the book stall under RTI,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the respondent had provided the available information to the appellant and no further disclosure could be authorized.,"Allotment and the time schedule of the book stall under RTI + +Background: +The applicant wanted to obtain a copy of allotment letter and a copy of tender of a book stall at Burara Railway station with the timing of opening and closing of the book stall. The Public Information Officer (PIO) furnished the required information to the applicant informing him that as per the agreement the bookstall is to be closed during lunch time for a prescribed number of hours. The respondents stated that they did not have the records related to said allotment since the same pertains to the year 1974.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the respondent had provided the available information to the appellant and no further disclosure could be authorized. +814,Seeking information regarding illegal construction of police post using RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,CIC rejected the appeal stating that requisite reply as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant.,"Seeking information regarding illegal construction of police post using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act requesting the respondent to inform him the reasons for not allowing construction of a Gurudwara on the land which is was gifted for the construction of Gurudwara. He has desired to have a copy of the site plan, sanction of the site plan etc. for the ongoing construction of Police Post on the said land. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the said land has been allotted to Delhi Police for construction of Police Post and therefore, the construction of the Police Post is legal. The appellant filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) and submitted that the PIO has given incorrect information in respect of the land which is actually a plot gifted to the Sri Guru Nanak Satsang and which has been illegally allotted by the DDA to the Police. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Commission, the respondent submitted that copies of DDA’s NOC, allotment letter issued by DDA to Delhi Police, copy of contract awarded to U.P. Samaj Kalyan Nirman Nigam Ltd and handing over of Delhi Police Projects for construction and a copy of the site plan have been provided to the appellant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the grievance of the appellant is against the DDA for alleged illegal allotment of land to Delhi Police. The Commission advised the appellant to take up the matter with the DDA authorities. CIC rejected the appeal stating that requisite reply as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant. +815,Misrepresentation of facts regarding RTI reply before the CIC,,the numbers of Deisel and Electrical Assistants with only diploma as technical qualifications,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commissioner (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the appellant himself is not interested in pursuing the present matter.,"Misrepresentation of facts regarding RTI reply before the CIC + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act seeking information about the numbers of Deisel and Electrical Assistants with only diploma as technical qualifications. The case was decided by the Central Information Commissioner (CIC) wherein the Commission directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) to furnish a reply to the appellant within 1 week. It was also directed that in case the PIO had already sent a reply to the appellant, he should once again furnish a copy of his reply indicating the details of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). On not receiving a reply from the PIO, the appellant filed a petition with the CIC complaining that the respondents have failed to furnish the desired information to him. He also enclosed a copy of communication of the PIO by which it was informed to the appellant that he has been seeking same information again and again and that the public authority has been responding to him every time. The letter also contained the dates of the request from the appellant and the dates of the PIO’s replies. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the CIC, the appellant informed the Commission that not a single reply has been received from the Public Authority. In order to help the appellant to identify the 5 to 8 replies (as mentioned in the letter enclosed by the appellant along with the petition) sent by the Member Secretary, Railway Recruitment Board (RRB)  reply, the Commission asked the appellant to show his file which he had brought with him for the Commission’s hearing. The appellant reluctantly produced his file before the Commission for its perusal. The Commission on perusing the whole file of the appellant found various replies which the appellant was earlier denying. The Commission then questioned the appellant as to why he was suppressing the facts from the Commission and thereby making an attempt to mislead the Commission. The appellant instead of answering the Commission’s question stood up from his seat and stated that “he does not want to be heard”; “the hearing is over”. He also stated that the Commission has no right to examine his file and that he wants to leave with his file. The Commission advised the appellant to take his seat and make his submission calmly. However, the appellant refused to listen to the Commission and walked out.","The Central Information Commissioner (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the appellant himself is not interested in pursuing the present matter. + +Comments + +Misrepresentation of facts amounts to misuse of the law and should not be resorted to by the applicants." +816,Seeking information regarding collapse of house using RTI,,"collapse of house using RTI + +Background: +The appellant alleged collapse of his house when a foundation was being dug in the adjoining plot",[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) found that requisite information as per record and permissible under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has already been provided to the appellant and also found no reason to interfere with the replies of the respondent.,"Seeking information regarding collapse of house using RTI + +Background: +The appellant alleged collapse of his house when a foundation was being dug in the adjoining plot. He sought action taken report on his complaint regarding intentional destruction of his house and theft of TV, Fridge, and Bricks etc against certain persons. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that a case FIR has already been registered for digging a foundation without taking proper precautions and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been put in the Court and the matter is pending trial in the competent Court. No further police action is required. After the order of the First Appellate Authority, the PIO informed that no household goods were taken into possession by the Police in the aforementioned FIR.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) found that requisite information as per record and permissible under the Right to Information (RTI) Act has already been provided to the appellant and also found no reason to interfere with the replies of the respondent. +817,An individual should file the RTI application himself,,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission added that if the concerned individual were to file the RTI application himself, the Commission’s decision would have been different.","An individual should file the RTI application himself + +Background: +The appellant sought certified copies of letters conveying consent of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) given to Petroleum Conservation Research Association (PCRA) in respect of certain officers. The Public Information Officer informed the appellant that requested information could not be disclosed to him under section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the name of one person of IOCL has been mentioned in the appeal, who was on deputation to PCRA and has now been prematurely repatriated to IOCL. The Commission held that the appellant sought the third party information for which he has not been able to establish any larger public interest. Therefore, holding that there is no apparent infirmity in the decision of the PIO, the CIC rejected the appeal. The Commission added that if the concerned individual were to file the RTI application himself, the Commission’s decision would have been different." +818,Should delta endotoxin level in biolarvicide products be mentioned on their certificate of registration?,,pesticides such as whether it was mandatory in the year 1995 and 2000 for all biolarvicide product(s) to have delta endotoxin and spore count mentioned on their certificate(s) of registration,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) broadly agreed with the appellant and directed the PIO to respond to these queries in clear and categorical terms subject to the appellant producing a copy of any such certificate of registration issued by the public authority as referred to by the appellant.,"Should delta endotoxin level in biolarvicide products be mentioned on their certificate of registration? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding pesticides such as whether it was mandatory in the year 1995 and 2000 for all biolarvicide product(s) to have delta endotoxin and spore count mentioned on their certificate(s) of registration. He also wanted to know whether this mandatory level of delta endotoxin has now been limited with a new threshold limit in the year 2010 with 2% delta endotoxin minimum. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the applicant that the new guidelines for registration of bio-pesticide would be applicable from the 1st January, 2011 as decided by the Registration Committee in its 314th meeting. He also stated that registration of products of bio-pesticides would continue as per old guidelines, as these have been registered after satisfying the requirement on different parameters like chemistry, toxicity, bio-efficacy and packaging and processing. He further informed that the change in delta-endotoxin content (2% minimum) would be applicable for new registrants. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO has not categorically responded to the queries raised by him.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) broadly agreed with the appellant and directed the PIO to respond to these queries in clear and categorical terms subject to the appellant producing a copy of any such certificate of registration issued by the public authority as referred to by the appellant. +819,Using RTI to know the basis for defining medical terms for Medi-claim policy,,,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the contentions of the respondent and rejected the appeal.,"Using RTI to know the basis for defining medical terms for Medi-claim policy + +Background: +The appellant submitted an application under Right to Information (RTI) act with the New India Assurance Company Limited seeking information regarding which books / laws/ acts/ regulations are taken as authority by the Company for defining medical and other terms not covered under clause 3 of Medi-claim policy (2007) along with the interpretative rules framed for the above mentioned policy. He also asked for the file number under which the said policy was framed and number of pages that it contained. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that no specific information as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act had been sought. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that no such documents were available with the public authority. Regarding the file in which the policy was framed, he claimed exemption under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the contentions of the respondent and rejected the appeal. +820,RTI query - When and why the sale of silver alloy coins had been discontinued?,Ministry of Finance,the sale of silver alloy coins minted by the government mints,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed to transfer the RTI application to the PIO in the headquarters of the corporation who will obtain the information, wherever it is available in the corporation and its various mints and provide to the appellant.","RTI query - When and why the sale of silver alloy coins had been discontinued? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Finance seeking information relating to the sale of silver alloy coins minted by the government mints. He wanted to know when and why the sale of such coins had been discontinued and when such coins began to be sold at higher values through commemorative packs. He also wanted to get the copies of the relevant file noting and correspondence to find how this decision was taken. The Finance Ministry transferred the RTI application to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and to the corporation controlling the mints. The Public Information Officer (PIO), mint at Kolkata provided some information and stated that he had no information regarding either the discontinuance of sale of silver alloy coins at the face value or about any decision to sell these coins at higher value. During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent clarified that the reply of the PIO was based entirely on the available records in the mint at Kolkata as he had no access to any other records.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that if any such decision had been taken in the past it should be known to the head office of the corporation only. The Commission directed to transfer the RTI application to the PIO in the headquarters of the corporation who will obtain the information, wherever it is available in the corporation and its various mints and provide to the appellant." +821,Appellants should attend the hearing before the CIC to argue for his RTI appeal,,the fuel economy results achieved from each of the samples submitted by the vendors,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the appellant has not appeared before this Commission to canvass his case nor has not placed any material on record to establish that disclosure of requested information would be in the larger public interest, which is the only ground for disclosure of personal information under the RTI Act.","Appellants should attend the hearing before the CIC to argue for his RTI appeal + +Background: +The appellant submitted that Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) had floated a tender for supply of multi-functional additive for branded gasoline and 09 vendors were asked to supply technical data. After due processing an order was placed on a particular vendor. In this context the appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and sought the complete details of the entire engine test data on the samples submitted by all the potential vendors invited to offer samples. He also wanted to know the fuel economy results achieved from each of the samples submitted by the vendors. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the selection process was still in process and had not been finalized and so the requested information could not be supplied to appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing respondent submitted that the requested technical data has been generated by the vendors at considerable cost and is a third party information for which the appellant is not entitled. He also submitted that he cannot part with this data as he is in nondisclosure agreement with the parties concerned. Respondent further submitted that procedure prescribed under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:has not been followed.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant is not entitled to the requested information as the concerned party has spent considerable time, money and resources in generating the data that he is asking for. CIC further stated that third parties generally do not agree for the disclosure of their personal information. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the appellant has not appeared before this Commission to canvass his case nor has not placed any material on record to establish that disclosure of requested information would be in the larger public interest, which is the only ground for disclosure of personal information under the RTI Act." +822,Who is authorised to conduct an enquiry under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act?,,certain enquiries made by the Inquiry Officer under the SC/ ST Prevention of Atrocities Act on a complaint filed by appellant’s husband,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission further held that the appellant’s allegation that he was not included in the enquiry and that his statement was not recorded also needs to be looked into and if need be, the complaint to be enquired into afresh by an Officer of the appropriate rank.","Who is authorised to conduct an enquiry under SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding certain enquiries made by the Inquiry Officer under the SC/ ST Prevention of Atrocities Act on a complaint filed by appellant’s husband. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that as per reply received from the respondent the enquiry into the complaint has been conducted by a Police Officer at the level of Sub Inspector (SI), whereas under the provisions of SC/ ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, enquiry can only be conducted by an Officer not below the rank of ACP. The appellant also submitted that the statements recorded during the course of enquiry of witnesses have not been enclosed. The respondent agreed to provide the appellant copies of statement of witnesses, if any, recorded during the enquiry.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide categorical reply to the appellant as to why the enquiry has been conducted by an officer of the rank of SI and not by ACP along with copies of statements of witnesses recorded. The Commission also directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police & First Appellate Authority (FAA) to look into the reasons why the complaint has not been enquired into by an Officer of the rank of ACP and inform the appellant. The Commission further held that the appellant’s allegation that he was not included in the enquiry and that his statement was not recorded also needs to be looked into and if need be, the complaint to be enquired into afresh by an Officer of the appropriate rank." +823,Prior permission of ASI for any construction work within 500m of Taj Mahal,,if permission of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was necessary to erect a temporary mobile tower within 300 m of the outer perimeter of the Taj Mahal,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to send to the appellant the photocopy of any notification, legal provision or court order under which the above restriction of 500 m has been laid down against undertaking any construction work, permanent or temporary.","Prior permission of ASI for any construction work within 500m of Taj Mahal + +Background: +The appellant had wanted to know if permission of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was necessary to erect a temporary mobile tower within 300 m of the outer perimeter of the Taj Mahal. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that prior permission of the ASI would be necessary to undertake any such activity within 500 m of the outer perimeter of the Taj Mahal. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority endorsed the position taken by the CPIO while explaining the different permissions that would be necessary.  The appellant argued that the PIO had cited no notification or government order in support of his claim.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that PIO had not disclosed any legal provision or notification of the appropriate government laying down such restrictions. The Commission directed the PIO to send to the appellant the photocopy of any notification, legal provision or court order under which the above restriction of 500 m has been laid down against undertaking any construction work, permanent or temporary." +824,Using RTI for initiating an enquiry into death in judicial custody,Supreme Court,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no further relief which the CIC can give and also advised the appellant to approach the competent authorities, either in the administration or judiciary, to seek further remedy in the matter.","Using RTI for initiating an enquiry into death in judicial custody + +Background: +The appellant’s son had died while in the judicial custody. The appellant had sent representations to various authorities including the Supreme Court of India seeking judicial enquiry into the death of his son. He later filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act with the Supreme Court, seeking information in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that his petition had been forwarded to the police authorities in the State of Madhya Pradesh for further necessary action and that the relevant records had since been weeded out. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant pleaded that he should be given justice and that his son's death should be probed by instituting a judicial enquiry.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the Supreme Court had not thought it necessary to order any specific enquiry into the death of the appellant's son and had forwarded his representation to the police authorities in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Commission also stated that the PIO had truthfully informed the appellant about whatever action the Supreme Court had taken on the matter. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no further relief which the CIC can give and also advised the appellant to approach the competent authorities, either in the administration or judiciary, to seek further remedy in the matter." +825,Can a copy of writ petition be published before the same is heard by the Court?,,if there was any rule which debars a petitioner from publishing a copy of the writ petition in the media before the same is heard by the Court and other related information,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to inform the  appellant if there is any such rule available in the Supreme Court which debars a petitioner from publishing the writ petition in the media before it is taken up for hearing or is heard by the Court.,"Can a copy of writ petition be published before the same is heard by the Court? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act with the Supreme Court and wanted to know if there was any rule which debars a petitioner from publishing a copy of the writ petition in the media before the same is heard by the Court and other related information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the queries did not amount to information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that all that the appellant wanted to know was if there is any rule framed by the Supreme Court debarring petitioners from publishing the writ petition in the media before it is taken up and heard by the Court. If the Supreme Court does not have any such rule, the PIO should have clearly stated that no such rule exists or is available with them. The Commission directed the PIO to inform the  appellant if there is any such rule available in the Supreme Court which debars a petitioner from publishing the writ petition in the media before it is taken up for hearing or is heard by the Court." +826,"Under RTI, is the SEBI enquiry liable to be disclosed?",,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The PIO was directed by the CIC to provide the number of notices the SEBI might have issued to these companies during the relevant period for insider trading in share transfer along with the other details included in the notices sent or separately maintained in a central register/database.,"Under RTI, is the SEBI enquiry liable to be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant filed two separate Right to Information (RTI) applications on the same day, seeking similar information in respect of RIL (Reliance Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani Group of Companies) and RNRL group of companies. The appellant sought to know the number of notices issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) during a particular period against the RIL and RNRL for insider trading of share transfer. In the first case, the Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the desired information was not available while in the other case, information was denied under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act claiming that quasi-judicial proceedings are in progress.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that even if it is admitted that certain quasi-judicial proceedings were in progress against the relevant group of companies for insider trading in share transfer, the total number of notices issued could have been mentioned by the PIO. Further, if the notices issued included any information regarding the nature of the violation, such as, the volume of insider trading of shares, even that information could have been provided. The CIC overruled the argument offered by the PIO that the disclosure of the desired information would impede the process of the quasi-judicial proceedings. The PIO was directed by the CIC to provide the number of notices the SEBI might have issued to these companies during the relevant period for insider trading in share transfer along with the other details included in the notices sent or separately maintained in a central register/database. + +Comments + +Charges of insider trading have been leveled against many organisations and SEBI has yet to come up with a strong indictment which stands judicial scrutiny. Public disclosure of investigations would put additional pressure on the SEBI to come up with real good results." +827,"If the police do not register a FIR, can the Supreme Court interfere?",,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the Supreme Court cannot substitute for a legal consultant and the PIO cannot be expected to give any advice on this.,"If the police do not register a FIR, can the Supreme Court interfere? + +Background: +The appellant had sent a representation to the Supreme Court against the police for not registering his First Information Report (FIR). Later he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking to know what action the Supreme Court had taken on his representation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him about the advice the Supreme Court had sent earlier whereby it was suggested to take recourse to the appropriate legal remedy. The PIO stated that he had no other information to offer. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the local civic authorities were completely neglecting the neighbourhood in which he lived and that his attempts to draw the attention of various authorities about the awful conditions of the roads and other amenities had yielded no results. Consequently he had wanted to file a FIR in the local police station against the Municipal authorities. The appellant also submitted that the police did not register his complaint and so he had sent a representation to the Supreme Court in the belief that it would intervene in the matter. The respondents pointed out that the Supreme Court had no role in such a matter and, as advised by the Supreme Court Registry in the past in response to his representation, the appellant have to find out the appropriate legal remedy for his problems.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the Supreme Court had taken no other action on the appellant’s representation except for advising him that he should seek the appropriate legal remedy and that is what the PIO had informed him. The Commission also held that if the appellant has any serious grievance against the local authorities, he would have to find out either some administrative remedy by taking up the matter before higher authorities of the State government or approach an appropriate court of law for seeking any legal remedy that might be available. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the Supreme Court cannot substitute for a legal consultant and the PIO cannot be expected to give any advice on this." +828,Disciplinary action against the PIO of a schedule II organisation,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission directed the FAA to look into the inordinate delay on the part of the PIO and to take appropriate disciplinary action against the official if he is found to have been remiss.,"Disciplinary action against the PIO of a schedule II organisation + +Background: +The appellant sought certain information relating to seizure and release of jewelry of her late mother in a raid on Chairman of Simplex Concrete Piles Ltd, such as, the details of jewelry seized, what was their measurement, when they were released and to whom they were released. The appellant also wanted the copies of relevant documents in relation to the release and handing over of jewelry. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the DG IT (Investigation) is an organization listed in schedule II as per the section 24 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and is beyond the purview of the RTI Act. As such, the information cannot be provided. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) issued a notice under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:to the Chairman of Simplex Concrete Piles Ltd seeking his views if he had any objection against the disclosure of information about the seized jewelries to the appellant. In response to the notice the Chairman conveyed his objections to sharing information pertaining to the third party. The appellant submitted a petition to the FAA in which she clarified that the information sought under the RTI Act was not about the entire outcome of the said search and seizure action conducted by the department or about the wealth of the Chairman instead she was only interested in information about her mother’s own jewellery which was seized in that search action. The FAA directed the PIO to furnish the information regarding the jewelry of the mother of the applicant. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that in compliance to the FAA’s order, she received a reply from the PIO after a gap of four months. The PIO informed that they did not have any information relating to seizure of jewelry pertaining to her late mother. She also submitted that there has been inordinate delay in response of the PIO and she should be paid compensation for the mental stress which she had to undergo for such a long period. She also made a demand for inspection of records relating to the seizure, alleging that there was something amiss.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the DG (Investigation) is an exempt organization under section 24 of the RTI Act and the inspection of records as sought by the appellant could not be permitted. The Commission agreed with the appellant that there has been considerable delay on part of the PIO in carrying out the directions of the FAA. The Commission directed the FAA to look into the inordinate delay on the part of the PIO and to take appropriate disciplinary action against the official if he is found to have been remiss. + +Comments + +In respect of organisations which are beyond the purview of the RTI Act, the PIO is expected to respond to all the RTI applications and reply to them within the prescribed time limit. The orders of the FAA should be complied with unless an appeal has been filed against it." +829,Using RTI for resolving dispute with the Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited,,the actions taken on his complaint,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissed the appeal stating that the appellant is free to take action as per law in respect of her complaint.,"Using RTI for resolving dispute with the Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited + +Background: +The appellant had filed a complaint with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA). Later she filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information on the actions taken on his complaint. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the status of the appellant’s complaint. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondent submitted that information as received by them from Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited had already been furnished to the appellant. The appellant submitted that the signatures that were fixed on the documents vide which the proposal had been made were forged and were not hers. The PIO further submitted that the nature of dispute between the appellant and the insured was contractual in nature and IRDA did not have any role in it. The PIO also stated that in case the allegations made by the appellant were true then it was a criminal offence which should be reported to the police for further action.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissed the appeal stating that the appellant is free to take action as per law in respect of her complaint. +830,Is PIO obliged to obtain the information from third party to provide it to the applicant?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission however, directed the PIO to categorically inform the appellant that details of educational qualifications for standards 1 to 9 are not available in the records of the Public Authority.","Is PIO obliged to obtain the information from third party to provide it to the applicant? + +Background: +The appellant sought the educational qualifications of a person working in Southern Railway Press. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the said person has passed class 10th. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant stated that as per office records that person has passed 10thstandard but the PIO had failed to give details about his studies from 1ststandard to 9thstandard. He also insisted that the educational qualifications from Std.1 to Std.9 should be obtained from the person by the Public Authority if the information is not available with them and then provide to him as per provisions of section2(j)“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; +(iii) taking certified samples of material; +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; +(iii) taking certified samples of material; +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that according to section2(j)“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; +(iii) taking certified samples of material; +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; +(iii) taking certified samples of material; +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;of the RTI Act, ‘right to information’ means the right to information accessible under the RTI Act which is held by or is under the control of the Public Authority. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the PIO has already provided information available with the Public Authority and no further information is required to be provided by him. The Commission however, directed the PIO to categorically inform the appellant that details of educational qualifications for standards 1 to 9 are not available in the records of the Public Authority." +831,Review of order by the CIC after a representation by the PIO,,whether the investigating officer and the Deputy Legal Adviser had not proposed inclusion of his name in the charge-sheet but his name was included by someone else,"['8(1)(h)', '8(1)(g)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comments + +This is one of the rare cases where the CIC has reviewed its own order.","Review of order by the CIC after a representation by the PIO + +Background: +The appellant referred to a certain case initiated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against him. He wanted to know whether the investigating officer and the Deputy Legal Adviser had not proposed inclusion of his name in the charge-sheet but his name was included by someone else. He also wanted copies of all the relevant records including correspondence in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act. + +The Central Information Commission (CIC) heard the case on 2 April 2012 and directed the PIO to provide the information observing that section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;cannot be invoked unless there is evidence to show that this would really endanger the life or safety of the authority concerned and in the instant case there is nothing on record to substantiate such an apprehension. After the case was decided, the PIO of the CBI represented to the CIC that the hearing notice had not been served on him and that he would like to be heard in the matter before a final decision was taken. The commission verified the fact and decided to hear the PIO. + +Proceeding + +During the second hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO submitted that the disclosure of the recommendations of the officers at each decision making level in the CBI would expose the individual officers thereby posing threat to their physical safety. He also submitted that the matter was sub-judice in the High Court and the disclosure of the desired information would adversely affect and impede the process of persecution. The respondent also pointed out that the disclosure of the internal decision making  process in a case of this nature  would have a long term adverse effect on the freedom enjoyed by the CBI officers in expressing their honest and free opinion on any case. Once their views and comments in an individual case are placed in the public domain, they would be hesitant to express themselves freely and that would never be in the public interest. He argued that it was in public interest and in the interest of fair investigation and prosecution of the accused that details of the recommendations made by CBI officers at various levels are kept confidential and not disclosed under the RTI Act. The appellant argued that the desired information was very factual and he had not sought to know about the comments or views expressed by individual officers but had only wanted to know at which level in the CBI it had been decided to include his name as an accused.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the matter is pending before the Sessions Court and the matter of the prosecution has not become final. The Commission also noted that what the appellant has sought to know amounts to the views expressed by various officers of the CBI. The Commission held the disclosure of the level recommending prosecution would reveal the name of the officer in the process which could pose a threat to their personal safety. Such information is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the disclosure of the desired information would impede the process of persecution and poses a threat to the physical safety of the officer concerned who had recommended that his name be included in the list of the accused. The Commission also advised the appellant that he may raise these issues before the sessions court and request for such information. + +Comments + +This is one of the rare cases where the CIC has reviewed its own order. The disclosure of the name of an officer who has given a noting in the course of sanction of prosecution has been a subject matter of RTI applications repeatedly." +832,Should the answer sheets of Civil Services Mains Examination be disclosed under RTI?,Union Public Service Commission (UPSC),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the respondent to disclose the evaluated answer sheets written by appellant in Zoology Paper I and II in the Civil Services Mains Examination after duly severing the names and/or signatures of the Examiner or any other third party information.,"Should the answer sheets of Civil Services Mains Examination be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) seeking information related to his answer sheets such as, no. of pages and answer sheets written by him in Zoology Paper I and II in the Civil Services Mains Examination, number of additional answer sheets used by him, page wise marks awarded in each page, question wise marks awarded for each question, number of answer sheets taken up for evaluation and the photocopies of his written answer scripts. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating it is not being maintained in the format as desired by the RTI applicant. He further denied the copies of answer sheet citing the CIC Decision [CIC/WB/A/2006/00394] dated 23/4/2007 in which it was clearly decided that Constitutional bodies like UPSC whose main function is to conduct the examination need not disclose the evaluated answer sheets under RTI Act, 2005. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that disclosure of answer sheets with respect to the Examination bodies has been allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011 dated 9 August 2011. The appellant further submitted that his own answer sheet should be allowed for disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 after duly severing the names and/or signatures of the examiner of the answer sheet. It was further said that he is only asking for the disclosure of the answer sheets and not for ‘revaluation’ of the answer sheets. The respondent submitted that UPSC Mains examination is a special examination conducted at a national level in multiple subjects and languages. It is conducted for the selection/ recruitment of candidates for the Government post. The said examination stands at a different footing compared to the Board Examinations conducted at class 10th and 12th level of the different schools of India by Central Board of Secondary Education or other similar Central/State Boards. Also, the methodology of the evaluation of the Answer sheets by the UPSC is confidential in nature, unlike CBSE and disclosure of answer sheets may also reveal the said methodology involved in the said evaluation. The Respondents further submitted that disclosure of the said answer sheet of the appellant would not serve any rational purpose as the ‘revaluation’ of the Answer sheets is not allowed as per the rules of the UPSC Examination. Another issue raised by the respondents that for certain languages/subjects only few examiners are available and disclosure of the answer sheets in those subjects may indirectly disclose the identity of those few examiners. + +Observations of the CIC + +The CIC referred to the order of the Delhi High Court in the case All India Institute Of Medical Sciences v. Vikrant Bhuria LPA No.487/2011 dated 28 May 2012; Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors; Delhi High Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Tanmayee Ranjan W.P.(C) 1917/2011 Dated 23 February 2012 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H Sayta & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 7571 OF 2011 dated 2 September, 2011. The CIC observed that the criteria of evaluation would not be disclosed by the knowledge of the marks provided to the answer in each of the questions. The Commission also stated that the personal details of the examiners can be severed under section 10 of the Act and hence the evaluation criteria of the individual examiner would certainly not come under the public domain and thus disclosure of the answer sheets written by appellant would not reveal the methodology/ procedure for secret evaluation of answer sheets, prevailing at the UPSC. The Commission did not accept the contentions of the respondents that the disclosure will reveal the identity of examiners. The Commission observed that even the grading given in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) are now disclosed under the RTI Act and despite name and other personal details may be severed before disclosure, the applicant may be indirectly aware of the person(s) who have marked the ACR. The Commission further noted that the respondents are having restrictive interpretation of the term ‘examination bodies’ in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said judgment does not specifically show that the expression ‘examining bodies’ does not include the examination conducted for the selection/ recruitment of candidates for the Government post by UPSC. The judgment discusses the Examination conducted by the Board, but that is because the CBSE is the petitioner in the said case; however, the court has not purposefully excluded the Public Authorities conducting the examination for the employment purposes. In the absence of the conclusive definition of the term ‘examination bodies’, the same has to be given wider implication.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the respondent to disclose the evaluated answer sheets written by appellant in Zoology Paper I and II in the Civil Services Mains Examination after duly severing the names and/or signatures of the Examiner or any other third party information. +833,Disclosure of the TA bill of a government official under RTI,,,['8(1)(g)'],UNKNOWN,,,"Comments + +The view of this bench is at variance with that made by the other benches of CIC.","Disclosure of the TA bill of a government official under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the basic pay and the pay scale of a person working at Central Institute for Sub-Tropical Horticulture. He also sought a copy of his TA bill regarding his visit to Varanasi. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the information related to basic pay and the pay scale but refused to provide a copy of the Travelling Allowance Bill (TA bill). During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), he submitted that the requested information is not disclosable to the appellant under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that reliance on section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;and section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act is misplaced. However, the Commission noted that the information regarding the TA bill was third party information and such information can be disclosed only in the larger public interest. + +Comments + +The view of this bench is at variance with that made by the other benches of CIC. It would be proper that a larger bench is constituted to resolve the difference in opinion of the different benches." +834,Disclosure regarding insurance claim under RTI after the disposal of the claim,"Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), Hyderabad",,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that no larger Public Interest in disclosing the information has been established by the appellant.,"Disclosure regarding insurance claim under RTI after the disposal of the claim + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) act with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), Hyderabad seeking the details of a letter written by him to M/s Baja Allianz General Insurance CO. Ltd, Pune. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that information can be directly taken from to M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the third party has refused to allow the disclosure of information and the appellant has not established any larger Public Interest in disclosing the information. The appellant submitted that as the Insurance claim had been discharged and the matter has been already disposed of, the same becomes the Public Document and can be disclosed under the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) disagreed with the reasoning submitted by the appellant and observed that the ‘character’ of the information which is ‘personal’ information of the third party does not change even after the Insurance claim is disposed of, and the same cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act, 2005 unless some larger Public Interest in disclosing the information is established by the appellant. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that no larger Public Interest in disclosing the information has been established by the appellant." +835,Seeking e - mail addresses of private General Insurance Companies using RTI,"Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, Hyderabad",the email addresses of the main offices of all the private General Insurance Companies in Delhi,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the decision of the PIO and FAA and dismissed the appeal.,"Seeking e - mail addresses of private General Insurance Companies using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority, Hyderabad seeking information regarding the email addresses of the main offices of all the private General Insurance Companies in Delhi. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information was not maintained by the Public Authority and therefore could not be furnished. He also advised the appellant to refer to the website of the Public Authority, indicating therein the list of websites of all the General Insurers operating in India. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that there are about 2526 General Insurance Companies working in India and sourcing the requested information from all the entities and providing the same to the appellant would disproportionately divert the limited resources of the Public Authority and the same is exempted from disclosure in terms of section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the decision of the PIO and FAA and dismissed the appeal. +836,Information regarding appointment of Secretary to the RAW sought under RTI,Cabinet Secretariat,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"In case, such information is not held in the Cabinet Secretariat, the PIO should transfer the RTI application to the appropriate public authority who, in turn, will provide the same information to the appellant.","Information regarding appointment of Secretary to the RAW sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Cabinet Secretariat seeking copies of all the records and documents in respect of appointment of a person as Secretary to the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC) which happened on 29 February 2012, the respondents had produced the orders of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). In the said order it was observed that the desired information did not relate to the exempted organisation but to the manner in which the appointment was made to that organisation by the competent authority. The Commission accepted the contentions of the FAA and directed the PIO to take appropriate decision at the earliest and communicate to the appellant. The appellant filed a complaint with the Commission complaining that their directions have not been complied with. + +Proceeding + +During the second hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondents pointed out that this was not exactly what the FAA had concluded. She had observed that the desired information was not held by their Division and that the application be transferred to the appropriate Division. The respondents further submitted that the PIO of the Cabinet Secretariat had dutifully transferred the RTI application to the PIO of the RAW who, in turn, had intimated the appellant that their organization being included in the Second Schedule of the Right to Information Act, no information could be disclosed.  The CIC observed that the appointments under the Central Government are made with the approval of the competent authority and appointment of the said person as Secretary to RAW has been made with the approval of the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). This appointment cannot be said to have been made by the RAW and the information in respect of this appointment cannot be withheld merely because it is about an appointment made to the RAW. The authority which had processed the appointment as Secretary RAW owes it under the Right to Information Act to disclose the information relating to that appointment subject to the exemption provisions contained in the Right to Information Act. The respondents argued that it was possible that while processing the appointment of the said person as Secretary to the RAW, various inputs might have been obtained from the RAW itself, and that such inputs could not be disclosed.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO of the Cabinet Secretariat to provide the copies of all the desired records and documents in respect of appointment as Secretary to the RAW but no details about his appointment to the RAW which had been made by the RAW itself are to be disclosed. In case, such information is not held in the Cabinet Secretariat, the PIO should transfer the RTI application to the appropriate public authority who, in turn, will provide the same information to the appellant. + +Comments + +This order has been challenged in the High Court and has not been implemented." +837,Should the statement of a person be disclosed under RTI?,Income Tax (IT) department,,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant has been provided.,"Should the statement of a person be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Income Tax (IT) department seeking information related to a bank account in the Overseas Bank of a particular person and his son, such as information regarding purchase of a motorcycle by the said person, full enquiry report regarding expenditure of Rs. 4 lac incurred by him on the occasion of his daughter’s wedding,  action taken by the IT authorities regarding purchase of a plot by him and  enquiry done by the IT department in pursuance of appellant’s previous letter regarding presence of Rs. 8 lac in the IOB account of that person. He also wanted the copies of statement made by the person in the course of enquiries made by the IT department and certified copy of order issued by IT officer. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information but denied the information relating to the statement made by the person and order issued by IT officer under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had not been provided complete information. The PIO submitted that they had informed the appellant that an enquiry had been done against the said person based on the complaint of the appellant. They also submitted that a notice for payment of Rs. 72,042/- had been served to him, against which the he had been an appeal which was under consideration. He further submitted that the certified copy of the final order could not be provided as an appeal was still pending.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant has been provided. +838,Using RTI for seeking information regarding Court Martial of a person,,"Court Martial of a person + +Background: +The appellant referred to a particular person and stated that he was on study leave during the period 2004 to 2006",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to revisit the matter, ascertain the correct position and communicate it to the appellant.","Using RTI for seeking information regarding Court Martial of a person + +Background: +The appellant referred to a particular person and stated that he was on study leave during the period 2004 to 2006. The appellant claimed that during this period the said person was found to be working in a private establishment for a consideration against the rules. A Court Martial was conducted against him and he was punished. In this regard, the appellant filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking the verdict of the Court, the number of the years the said officer worked in the Army and the duration of the study leave availed by him etc. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the details of service record and the period of study leave of that person have been provided to the appellant. He further stated that a clear picture has not emerged whether Court Marshall was conducted against the said officer or it was only a court of enquiry. If case any punishment was inflicted on the officer, whether the same was reflected in his service record or not.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to revisit the matter, ascertain the correct position and communicate it to the appellant." +839,Can the HRA details of third party be disclosed under RTI ACT?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission however directed the PIO to provide an attested copy of the relevant page of the service book so that the appellant is satisfied that the information provided is as per information available on record.,"Can the HRA details of third party be disclosed under RTI ACT? + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to the HR allowance being given to a person for the last five years by the Delhi Jal Board. On the directions of the First Appellate authority (FAA), the Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the information for a period of three years and informed the applicant that prior to this period the person was working in another place in Delhi Jal Board from where information is being collected and will be provided as and when it is received. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent pointed out that the appellant’s grievance against the Public Authority is that the PIO had mentioned that there are two houses wherein the said person was residing. The respondent refuted this contention by stating that the information furnished by the PIO is absolutely correct since it is based on the information as available in the service book of the third party. The respondent also produced before the Commission the said service book.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) verified the facts from the service book and held the information as available in the service book has been provided to the appellant. The Commission however directed the PIO to provide an attested copy of the relevant page of the service book so that the appellant is satisfied that the information provided is as per information available on record. +840,"Under RTI, can the priced publications be given free of cost to a BPL citizen?",,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal.,"Under RTI, can the priced publications be given free of cost to a BPL citizen? + +Background: +The appellant sought for copies of cultural packages, reports & books (19 publications) published by Centre for Cultural Research and Training (CCRT). The Public Information Officer (PIO) furnished the Product Catalogue having the details of all the cultural packages mentioning that all these cultural packages are the priced publication of CCRT and also requested to send the Demand Draft of Rs. 3573/- towards the total cost of available ASI publications. The applicant was an under trial and he filed the first appeal claiming that he wanted the books free of cost as he falls in the Below Poverty Line (BPL) Category. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) rejected the appeal stating the applicant had not sought any information from the CCRT under the RTI Act, instead have asked for the priced publications produced by the CCRT. + +Proceeding + +The appellant enclosed a copy of an order dated 13/08/2010 issued by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai as appellate authority under the RTI Act to support of his contention that there is no necessity to have a certificate from the competent authority to treat him below the poverty line as the appellant is a under trial prisoner from 2006. Referring to section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;andsection2(i)“record” includes. +(a) any document, manuscript and file; +(b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; +(c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and +(d) any other material produced by a computer or any other device;of the RTI Act, the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that there is be no doubt that any material in the form of documents, books, cultural packages, reports etc. available with the Centre for Cultural Resource & Training (CCRT) qualifies as ‘information’. The Commission stated that whether the mere fact that the said material constitutes ‘information’ is sufficient to entitle a citizen to invoke the provisions of the RTI Act to access the same. The Commission also referred to section2(j)“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; +(iii) taking certified samples of material; +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;and observed that if a particular information is not be held by, or under the control of the public authority concerned there would be no right in a citizen to seek such information from that particular public authority. The Commission stated that the expression - held by or - under the control of any public authority, in relation to - information, means that information which is held by the public authority under its control to the exclusion of others. In respect of such information, which the public authority is statutorily obliged to disseminate, it cannot be said that the public authority - hold or - controls the same. The Commission cited its previous orders,[Mr. K. Lall vs. Mr. M.K. Bagri, Assistant Registrar of Companies & CPIO]in appeal no. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 and Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/000961-SM dated 26.09.2007 and held that once information is brought into the public domain by means of a priced publication, the said information cannot be said to be “held by” or “under the control of” the PIO and hence would cease to be information accessible under the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that in the instant case, information is available without the need for a request as these are priced publications. Therefore, to cast an obligation on the public authority to provide copies of the same under the RTI Act is not justified and it also violates the Copyrights Act. Further it may not be saved even under section 9 of the Act as copyright may subsist in a person other than the State. The Commission also held that though the information seeker falls under the BPL category the information cannot be supplied to him free of cost under proviso to section7(5)Where access to information is to be provided in the printed or in any electronic format, the applicant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (6), pay such fee as may be prescribed: +Provided that the fee prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 6 and sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall be charged from the persons who are of below poverty line as may be determined by the appropriate Government.of the RTI Act as the information is not held by the PIO and access to this category of information which is a priced publication(s) shall be on the basis of payment of such costs as may be prescribed for the purpose. The Commission rejected the appeal." +841,Is it mandatory for Delhi High Court to publish all orders and decisions in Hindi?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no further information which the PIO need send to the complainant.,"Is it mandatory for Delhi High Court to publish all orders and decisions in Hindi? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding publication of all orders, decisions and other important public announcements in both English & Hindi languages while stating that by virtue of section4(4)All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. +Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority.All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. +Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, all such information was supposed to be published in the local regional language. Under section 18 of RTI Act, the appellant filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC) contending that the Delhi High Court has not provided any transcript of public importance in Hindi language despite having enough resources for the same. During the hearing before the Commission the respondents submitted that the original RTI application had never been received in the High Court. They also submitted that the copy of the application had been examined and it was found that the appellant had not sought any particular information. The further clarified that the Delhi High Court continued to use English as its language of transaction and did not conduct business in Hindi language.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the RTI application is more in the nature of a representation to the High Court to use Hindi language as the medium of its transaction in place of English. Such a request is beyond the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. If the appellant is serious about his representation, he should find out the appropriate forum to take up this matter. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no further information which the PIO need send to the complainant. + +Comments + +Section4(4)All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. +Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority.All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness, local language and the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed. +Explanation - For the purposes of sub-sections (3) and (4), “disseminated” means making known or communicated the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet or any other means, including inspection of offices of any public authority.says “All materials shall be disseminated taking into consideration the cost effectiveness,local languageand the most effective method of communication in that local area and the information should be easily accessible, to the extent possible in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, available free or at such cost of the medium or the print cost price as may be prescribed”. + +A large amount of official work in India is done in English. Dissemination of information in local languages in such circumstances would be a really difficult." +842,Should information available on website be provided in hard copies under RTI?,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,Some benches of CIC have held that the information already in public domain is no longer held by the public authority and the public authority is not obliged to provide the same to an applicant.,"Should information available on website be provided in hard copies under RTI? + +Background: +The applicant asked certain detail information regarding illegal construction of properties from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that information sought by the appellant is available on the MCD website. + +The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO has basically asked the appellant to visit a website and obtain the information. The CIC held that most citizens in the country cannot access website and the PIO may give the web link of the information being available on the website, but he should also offer to provide the information in hardcopies.","The CIC directed the PIO to provide the complete detailed information sought by the Appellant and warned that he must inform citizens of how much additional fee is required to be paid if they want information in hardcopies. + +Comments + +The view of the different benches of CIC has varied on this point. Some benches of CIC have held that the information already in public domain is no longer held by the public authority and the public authority is not obliged to provide the same to an applicant." +843,Disclosure of construction plan of Air force Buildings under RTI,,the buildings to be constructed on a plot of land at district Agra,['8(1)(a)'],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissed the appeal holding that the construction of Air Force buildings has a bearing on the national security and the details cannot be disclosed.,"Disclosure of construction plan of Air force Buildings under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information about the buildings to be constructed on a plot of land at district Agra. The construction was being done for the Air force and the Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the information under section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) also upheld the PIO decision.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissed the appeal holding that the construction of Air Force buildings has a bearing on the national security and the details cannot be disclosed. +844,Details of research project details funded by DRDO sought under RTI,,the research projects funded by Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) in Engineering College of Bangalore,['8(1)(a)'],UNKNOWN,,,"Further, funding of defense related projects is covered under section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act and hence the information cannot be disclosed.Therefore, the Commission upheld the PIO and the FAA decision.","Details of research project details funded by DRDO sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information about the research projects funded by Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) in Engineering College of Bangalore. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the disclosure of the information claiming that the organization was exempt under section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the appellant that certain information was available on the Manpower Management Center (MMC) website. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that DRDO has funded certain research projects at RVCE, Bangalore, which was related to defense related matters and, therefore, disclosure of the subjects of research and funding thereof would be prejudicial to the national security. He also contended that DRDO is an organisation beyond the purview of the RTI Act and, therefore, is not liable to disclose any information on this count as well. The respondent further submitted that the Ministry of Science & Technology regularly publishes a Directory of Extra Mural Research and Development Projects approved for funding by selected Central Government Agencies/Departments and it is open to the appellant to access this directory through the Ministry of Science and Technology, if he is so inclined.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that DRDO is beyond the purview of the RTI Act under section 24. Further, funding of defense related projects is covered under section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act and hence the information cannot be disclosed.Therefore, the Commission upheld the PIO and the FAA decision." +845,Disclosure of file notings relating to the sanction for prosecution under RTI,,,['8(1)(h)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comments + +The decision of the different benches of the CIC has been different in this regard and the CIC needs to take a unified stand on the issue.","Disclosure of file notings relating to the sanction for prosecution under RTI + +Background: +A section officer in Ministry of Defence (MoD) was prosecuted by CBI for certain criminal offences and the competent authority accorded sanction for prosecution against him. In this connection, he sought the name of the appointing authority of a section officer and the copies of file notings related with the sanction for prosecution accorded against him. He was denied the file notings related with the prosecution. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he has been denied information on the file notings and further strongly pleaded for the disclosure of the requested information on the ground that he needs it for canvassing his case in the court of law for the quashing of the proceedings. The officers of the MoD contended that disclosure of requested information will be prejudicial to the prosecution case and that disclosure of such information was barred under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to the Delhi High Court order WP (C) No.16712 / 2006 (Surinder Pal Singh vs. Union of India & Ors) in which the court declined the request of the petitioner for the information regarding sanction of his prosecution which may impede the prosecution of offender cannot be faulted in the facts and circumstances. The Commission held that the ratio of the above decision squarely applies in the present case and the disclosure of requested information is barred from disclosure under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision and dismissed the appeal. + +Comments + +The decision of the different benches of the CIC has been different in this regard and the CIC needs to take a unified stand on the issue." +846,Using RTI to pursue the matter before the Supreme Court,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that it has no merit.,"Using RTI to pursue the matter before the Supreme Court + +Background: +The appellant had sent some telegram to the Supreme Court of India in which he sought its intervention in a matter of religious dispute. Later he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking the fate of the telegram. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the said telegram had been received in the Supreme Court and it was under process. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) passed a speaking order and observed that the content of the telegram did not justify any response under the right to information within 48 hours it being not a matter of life or liberty. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondents submitted that the said telegram had been treated as a petition and had been sent to the relevant division in the Supreme Court dealing with public interest litigations. It was eventually filed, after advising the petitioner to seek legal remedy in accordance with law. The Supreme Court had taken no other action on the telegram except advising the petitioner in the manner stated above.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the response of the PIO and the findings of the FAA were entirely in order.  The Commission rejected the appeal stating that it has no merit. +847,Can information be sought from World Health Organization under RTI?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the respondent does not appear to be a public authority as defined under section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.,"Can information be sought from World Health Organization under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act with World Health Organisation (WHO).  The organisation returned the postal order of the applicant stating that WHO is not a Public Authority. The appellant filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC). The respondent submitted that the WHO is neither owned, nor controlled nor substantially funded either directly or indirectly by governmental funds. Hence the question of the said Act applying to the WHO does not arise. Since the said Act does not apply to the WHO, it is not obliged to provide any information to any person who seeks such information in terms of the said Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the respondent does not appear to be a public authority as defined under section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. Hence, the complainant has no legally enforceable right under the RTI Act as the respondent is not a public authority under the RTI Act and is therefore under no obligation to furnish information to the complainant’s RTI application." +848,Information regarding appointment as Tax Assistant on compassionate grounds sought under RTI,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission reject ted the appeal holding that the sought information has been provided as available with the department.,"Information regarding appointment as Tax Assistant on compassionate grounds sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant was appointed as Tax Assistant on compassionate grounds as her husband had gone missing. She later filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information related to her appointment such as when was her name first considered for compassionate appointment, was any appointment made before her? If yes, why was she not considered, list of appointments made between 1997-Dec 2004 along with dates of their applications and their eligibility. She also sought details of application and appointment of two other people who had been appointed on compassionate ground. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise reply to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that she had filed her first petition for compassionate appointment on 19.12.1995, while those two persons applied for compassionate appointments on March 21, 1997 and Dec 1, 1998 respectively. But, the department appointed the above two persons in 2002 while she was appointed later.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant wants to know as to why two other persons had been appointed before her in spite of her having applied for compassionate appointment earlier than them. The Commission noted that the appellant may have a legitimate ground to receive a satisfactory response from the department but this query is in the nature of an explanation which is not ‘information’ as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Commission reject ted the appeal holding that the sought information has been provided as available with the department. +849,Seeking refund of admission fee using RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal noting that sought information has already been provided to the appellant.,"Seeking refund of admission fee using RTI + +Background: +The appellant’s son had cleared AIEEE examination and was given admission in Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidyalaya (GKV). Later his son got admission to NIT Srinagar and he made a demand for refund of tuition/ hostel fee, totalling Rs. 53,000/- from the GKV. On withdrawal of the student, an amount of Rs. 6,000/- was deducted. He later filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking the reasons for deduction of this amount. The Public Information Officer (PIO) gave a point-wise reply. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that as per AICTE circular of 2007 institutes are allowed to deduct tuition fee for the period during which the student remained admitted and also Rs .1000/- as processing fee. Accordingly they deducted Rs. 6,000/- from the appellant’s son and refunded the balance of Rs. 47,000/-.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal noting that sought information has already been provided to the appellant. +850,"Under RTI, can the FAA deny the information on different grounds?",,monthly/annual income (including commission paid) of a particular person,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that the information sought by the appellant is third party information and thus cannot be disclosed unless larger Public Interest has been established by the appellant in the disclosure of the same.,"Under RTI, can the FAA deny the information on different grounds? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding monthly/annual income (including commission paid) of a particular person. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and denied the rest under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) rejected the request for disclosure of information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that the information sought by the appellant is third party information and thus cannot be disclosed unless larger Public Interest has been established by the appellant in the disclosure of the same. +851,Why was the Gujarat CM not interrogated in the Gujarat riots case?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the decision of PIO/respondent and rejected the appeal observing that there is no information to be disclosed.,"Why was the Gujarat CM not interrogated in the Gujarat riots case? + +Background: +The appellant wanted to know if there was any compulsion from the Prime Minister or the Home Minister not to interrogate the Chief Minister of Gujarat in connection with the Gujarat riots and the reasons for not charge sheeting Mr. Narendra Modi in an encounter case of Sohrabuddin and his wife. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that two charge sheets had been filed and the case was under investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr. PC. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the order of the PIO and stated that no such compulsion or order was received from any one. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that there was no record to show that any order or direction had been received from any of these authorities or anyone else not to interrogate the Chief Minister.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the decision of PIO/respondent and rejected the appeal observing that there is no information to be disclosed. +852,Details about the female employees of Coal India Limited,,whether child care leave was being given to them,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant and hence disposed the appeal.,"Details about the female employees of Coal India Limited + +Background: +The appellant sought the information about the total number of female employees in Coal India Ltd (CIL) (Company-wise) and wanted to know whether child care leave was being given to them. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided information regarding the total number of female employees in CIL Headquarters and also informed the appellant that child care leave was not applicable for female employees in CIL. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) further directed the PIO to furnish information regarding female employees Company-wise.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant and hence disposed the appeal. +853,The applications submitted by other candidates were sought under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the score card has already been provided to the appellant which contains the entire information.,"The applications submitted by other candidates were sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant had submitted that he had applied for the post of Sr. Scientist in response to advertisement and he was not called for interview. In this context he had sought to know the reason for him not being called for the interview and also requested for a copy of the card sheet and some other ancillary information. + +Proceedings + +The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted before the Central Information Commission (CIC) that a copy of the card sheet and the copies of the applications submitted by other candidates have already been supplied to the appellant. Regarding the question of the appellant not being called for interview, the PIO informed that the benchmark was 45% marks and as the appellant did not come up to the benchmark, he was not called for the interview. It was further clarified that the reason for not calling the appellant for interview is reflected in the score card itself.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the score card has already been provided to the appellant which contains the entire information. Besides, copies of the applications submitted by other candidates have also been supplied to the appellant so the appeal was dismissed." +854,Action report against illegal activities in Arya Samaj Mandir premises,,different queries and action taken report on the complaints of residents of a certain area against Arya Samaj Mandir for misuse of their premises,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Further, as far as the regulation of traffic matter was concerned, the Commission directed the PIO to transfer copy of the complaint to the PIO, Delhi Police Traffic who would directly provide requisite information to the appellant.","Action report against illegal activities in Arya Samaj Mandir premises + +Background: +The appellant sought information on different queries and action taken report on the complaints of residents of a certain area against Arya Samaj Mandir for misuse of their premises. The Public Information Officer (PIO) supplied information on few points and denied for the rest of the details as the appellant has not mentioned any specific time period of information related and rejected the few queries as they were not ‘information’ as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. However, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed to provide copy of the enquiry report to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the basic issue related to the alleged holding of unauthorized functions including banquets, by the Arya Samaj Mandir causing inconvenience to the residents of the area, including traffic problems. The appellant also alleged illegal activities like consumption of alcohol and burning of crackers during late hours. The Commission also noted that according to the enquiry report, no such illegal activities were found to be taking place in the premises of Arya Samaj Mandir, which the appellant strongly opposed as being incorrect. The Commission pointed that there are other agencies which may be involved for arriving at the correct conclusion such as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Licensing Branch of Delhi Police for giving permission to the Arya Samaj Mandir for holding such banquets, Traffic Police for regulation of traffic and for taking action for violation of traffic rules etc. Therefore, the PIO of the Central District of Delhi Police was directed by the Commission to obtain necessary clarifications as per their record from the Licensing Branch as well MCD and provide to the appellant. Further, as far as the regulation of traffic matter was concerned, the Commission directed the PIO to transfer copy of the complaint to the PIO, Delhi Police Traffic who would directly provide requisite information to the appellant." +855,Does Ministry of Health have a proper mechanism for dealing with RTI applications?,Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The Commission held that this is a result of lack of proper system in the Ministry and expressed hope that the Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare would take appropriate measures as suggested by the Commission to ensure that RTI applications are attended to in the manner as per the law.,"Does Ministry of Health have a proper mechanism for dealing with RTI applications? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare seeking information in relation to request of aid by Union Health Ministry to World Health Organization (WHO), such as, copy of request-letter sent to WHO with related file-notings regarding request for meeting expenses on such meeting/ conference etc., copy of reply from WHO mentioning the financial aid granted. He also wanted to know whether the Union Health Ministry had ever refused about 20 lakh (or some other quantity) of H IN I vaccine from WHO, the file-notings/ correspondence/ documents in this regard, whether Union Health Ministry had ever refused help from Bill Gates in respect of Health programmes in India and the copy of file-notings/ correspondence/ documents in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that part information would be provided on payment of Rs. 74/- for 37 pages. For rest of the queries he transferred the application to CDN-II for providing the information. The appellant filed an appeal stating that the part information should be provided free of cost and that the remaining information has not been provided. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that since there was no delay on part of PIO, the question of providing of information free of cost does not arise. The FAA directed the CDN –II section to transfer the application to the PIO, IH section for providing remaining information to the appellant. + +Proceeding + +The respondent stated that though the RTI application was posted by speed post by the appellant on 14/09/2011 but the speed post delivery was made only on 21/09/2011 to the Ministry. He also submitted that with respect to remaining queries he had sent the RTI application to PIO CDN-II to provide the information. The holder of the information, PIO (IH Section) stated that the RTI application was never sent to him and that he learnt about the RTI application only when he received the FAA’s order through CDN-II and subsequently he has sent the information on 29/03/2012 to the appellant. He also stated that he sent the RTI application to PIO/US Child Health & Immunization, PIO(CCD & Malaria), PIO (RCH&MH) and PIO(NRHM), US(PH-II) and Director (EMR) DGHS for information regarding remaining queries. + +The appellant submitted that he has received various letters from the departments informing him that they have no information. The appellant also pointed that within the Public Authority, there can be no transfer of RTI application and the PIO must obtain assistance under section 5(4) and provide the information. The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that it is unfortunate that the speed post delivery within Delhi takes 07 days and held that the PIO’s demand for additional fees for part of the information was valid. The Commission noted that enormous amount of time and paper was wasted by the Ministry and yet it has been unable to provide the information to the appellant. Takng a note of the admission of the PIO that there is efficient system of working when questions are asked from Parliament, the Commission, under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, directed the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to setup a proper process of replying to RTI queries to avoid wastage of enormous amount of public resources. The Commission directed the Ministry to ensure that the same efficiency which is displayed when answering to Members of Parliament is used when answering RTI queries. The Commission directed the PIO (CH & Immunization) to provide information on remaining queries to the appellant. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.the Commission issued a show-cause notice to PIO CDN-II to give reasons as to why penalty should not be levied on him.","During the hearing of the show cause notice for imposition of penalty, the respondents stated that the information on remaining queries has been sent to the appellant. He also submitted copy of an office memorandum regarding streamlining of handling of the RTI requests in the Ministry. The Commission observed that six officers came for the hearing and from their deposition and the written submission given by them the Commission is unable to come to any conclusion about the person responsible for the delay and is not able to pin point responsibility on any one officer who can be held liable for not providing the information. The Commission held that this is a result of lack of proper system in the Ministry and expressed hope that the Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare would take appropriate measures as suggested by the Commission to ensure that RTI applications are attended to in the manner as per the law." +856,Information about theft of railway property in DLW using RTI,,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Further, the Commission directed to inform the names of the RPF/ DLW personnel involved in catching the thief red handed as available in the copy of the FIR.","Information about theft of railway property in DLW using RTI + +Background: +The appellant had sought information against some points with regard to a thief who was caught red handed while stealing railway property in Diesel Locomotive Workshop (DLW) premises at Varanasi by the Railway Protection Force (RPF) personnel. Not satisfied with the reply provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO), the appellant filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the matter relates to the theft of railway property and investigation is still going on and therefore information cannot be provided under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. He also noted that the same information was being sought in different ways again and again through a number of RTI applications.","To the query whether the news of red handed apprehending of thief was conveyed to the higher railway authority, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the covering letter along with which the news of theft was conveyed to the senior officers. Further, the Commission directed to inform the names of the RPF/ DLW personnel involved in catching the thief red handed as available in the copy of the FIR." +857,Reasons for increase in revaluation and supplementary exam fee by Delhi University,,as to why does it takes three months for re-evaluation and related issues,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the PIO and the FAA and rejected the appeal.,"Reasons for increase in revaluation and supplementary exam fee by Delhi University + +Background: +The appellant sought the reasons for increase in the re-evaluation fee and supplementary exam fee by Delhi University. He also wanted to know as to why does it takes three months for re-evaluation and related issues. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the queries raised by him were not information as per section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that available information on record had already been provided to the appellant and upheld the decision of the PIO stating that the appellant has requested for interpretation/ clarification/explanation about hypothetical events which was not permissible under the Act.","The appellant submitted that the students were facing a genuine problem and the University authorities were not able to take remedial measures. The respondent explained that the nature of the appellant’s queries were in the form of seeking explanation/opinion, which cannot be provided under the RTI Act. The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the PIO and the FAA and rejected the appeal. + +Comments + +While it is still a long way, a day would come when the public authorities would disclose the reasons for the decisions taken by them pro-actively and involve the stake holders in the decision making process." +858,RTI application seeking information about the Supreme Court collegium,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC ruled that the desired information cannot be disclosed.,"RTI application seeking information about the Supreme Court collegium + +Background: +The appellant wanted to know if the collegium of the Supreme Court of India was considering the candidature of a particular district judge of Andhra Pradesh for appointment as a judge of the High Court and all related information in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that such information could not be disclosed not only because it was exempt in terms of the provisions of subsection 1(e) and (j) of section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, but also because the Supreme Court had stayed an order passed by the Central Information Commission for disclosure of such information.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the information sought in this case is exactly similar to the one in which the Supreme Court has granted a stay. The CIC ruled that the desired information cannot be disclosed. +859,"I have not seen the RTI application, says PIO",Staff Selection Commission (SSC),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,7500.0,,The Commission also imposed a penalty of Rs.,"I have not seen the RTI application, says PIO + +Background: +The appellant had filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) seeking some information but he did not receive the information within the stipulated period of 30 days. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) provided partial information. + +Proceedings + +The Central Information Commission (CIC) had passed orders twice giving certain directions to the PIO but on earlier occasions, nobody had turned up on behalf of the PIO of the Staff Selection Commission. The Commission gave an opportunity to the PIO concerned to offer his explanation for the delay. The PIO neither appeared to offer his explanation nor gave any written explanation for the delay. The respondent appearing on his behalf also failed to offer any explanation at all about the delay. The respondent who appeared on behalf of the PIO submitted that at the time of the RTI application, the designated PIO was on training and another person was officiating on his behalf. On being asked by the Commission to explain why he did not provide the information after returning from his training and after resuming his duty as the PIO, the regular PIO submitted that he had not seen the RTI application and came to know about it only after the order of the CIC reached him.","The Commission observed that despite their clear directions the acting PIO chose not to appear before them and it is evident that he has no desire to offer any explanation. Under section 20 of the RTI Act, the CIC imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,500 on him for a total period of delay of 25 days. The Commission also observed that the FAA had disposed of the first appeal and had provided some information which clearly shows that the RTI application and the related papers existed in the Staff Selection Commission based on which the FAA took whatever decision. The Commission also imposed a penalty of Rs. 11,250 on the regular PIO for a delay of 45 days observing that he was responsible for the remaining period of delay of nearly one and half months after he first came to know about the RTI application and the final disclosure made in December." +860,Information regarding fake currency notes by NCRB,,some queries pertaining to fake currency notes,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC directed the PIO to clarify the apparent contradiction in the directions of the RBI and of the NCRB in the matter and also to clarify whether intimation regarding detection of counterfeit currencies by the PNB during the period 2006-2009 has been intimated to the NCRB directly.,"Information regarding fake currency notes by NCRB + +Background: +The appellant had sought information on some queries pertaining to fake currency notes. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) only maintains the data of Counterfeit currencies received from Reserve Bank of India for fake currencies recovered by banks and also from State Crime Record Bureaus of States and UTs for fake currencies seized by State/UT Police. As NCRB has no other role in the matters of investigation of FICN and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has been designated as the Ministry of Home Affairs as the nodal agency for coordinating efforts to contain FICN circulation, the PIO requested the appellant to contact the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for further queries on fake currencies. + +Proceedings + +The appellant had sought to know whether the Punjab National Bank (PNB) had informed the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) of the instances of counterfeit currency notes detected and impounded from 2006 to 2009. The PIO had replied that information on counterfeit currencies is received from RBI and that the entries are made in the data base of the Bureau only on the basis of data received from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). + +The appellant argued that as per RBI Circular No. RBI/2005-06/173 dated 30.9.2005, all banks have been directed to submit their report regarding counterfeit currency directly to the MHA on the 7th of the next month. The respondent informed that vide letter dated 19.2.2004, they had requested the RBI to consolidate all the data pertaining to recovery of counterfeit currency notes received from all the banks and to compile the information and submit to the NCRB directly. The Bureau had also intimated the RBI that they will not entertain the data on forged notes received from any other Bank than RBI.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) took note of the fact that the entire issue seems to be regarding the system of seeking data by NCRB regarding counterfeit currencies recovered by Banks. The CIC directed the PIO to clarify the apparent contradiction in the directions of the RBI and of the NCRB in the matter and also to clarify whether intimation regarding detection of counterfeit currencies by the PNB during the period 2006-2009 has been intimated to the NCRB directly. +861,Disclosure of advice given by CVC cannot impede the process of investigation,,the vigilance advice given by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in his matter,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The commission directed the PIO to provide the advice tendered by the CVC in this case including the file noting leading to the advice.,"Disclosure of advice given by CVC cannot impede the process of investigation + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the vigilance advice given by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in his matter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the information citing the exemption provisions contained in section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act stating that the disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation of the individual concerned.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that it is not clear how the disclosure of the advice given by the CVC in this case including the relevant file noting would impede the process of the disciplinary proceeding/prosecution of the official concerned. The advice tendered by the CVC is an input based on which the competent authority decides about the nature of the disciplinary action to be taken in any particular case. The Commission further held that the affected person should have a natural right to know about the advice and the manner it is tendered. The commission directed the PIO to provide the advice tendered by the CVC in this case including the file noting leading to the advice. +862,Award of contract for setting up Solar Power Projects by NTPC questioned under RTI,,06 paras in the format devised by him,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comments + +An applicant should be present before the CIC to canvass his case specially when public interest is claimed as a ground for disclosure of information.","Award of contract for setting up Solar Power Projects by NTPC questioned under RTI + +Background: +The appellant stated that NTPC Vidyut Vyapar Nigam Ltd., a subsidiary of NTPC, had invited tenders for setting up of Solar Power Projects at various locations in the country in 2010. The tender process has been completed and the contracts awarded to certain parties. In this respect, the appellant sought information on 06 paras in the format devised by him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that NTPC is a PSU wholly funded by the Central Government but the contract in question involves high technology. The bids have been tendered by the third parties. They may contain both financial as well as technological information which may be related to commercial confidence and trade secret or intellectual property of the bidders whose bids were evaluated. The commission observed that disclosure of such information which would be part of the evaluation process and would require that the third party procedure under section 11 of the Act be followed. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the appellant has not appeared before the Commission to canvass his case and establish larger public interest in the disclosure of the requested information and meet the challenge of commercial confidence, trade secret and intellectual property. + +Comments + +An applicant should be present before the CIC to canvass his case specially when public interest is claimed as a ground for disclosure of information." +863,Using RTI for inspection of sensitive file notings,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comments + +There is an apparent contradiction in the order of the CIC in respect of disclosure of file by inspection.","Using RTI for inspection of sensitive file notings + +Background: +The appellant was Scientist ‘C’ in the Department of Scientific & Industrial Research (DSIR). He was removed from service pursuant to the departmental proceedings. He submitted that his dismissal order has been set aside by the Principal Bench of the CAT at New Delhi. He filed an application under the Right to information (RTI) Act requesting for copy of the entire file notings related to his dismissal from service. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondent submitted that this matter had been dealt with by the Vigilance Department which contains sensitive notings given by the officials of the Vigilance Department, the Minister of Science and Technology and other dignitaries. He also submitted that the DSIR has filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court against the order of the CAT and disclosure of requested information at this stage would prejudice the Government’s case.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) perused the records and noted that the files contain sensitive information the disclosure of which is likely to prejudice the Government’s case in the court. The Commission also held that it would not be wise to disclose identity of the officers who made notings in the file. The Commission directed the PIO to give an inspection of records to the appellant in the presence of a senior officer of DSIR for half a day. CIC further ruled that photo copies of documents will not be supplied to the appellant after the inspection. + +Comments + +There is an apparent contradiction in the order of the CIC in respect of disclosure of file by inspection. Either a file should be disclosed or should not be disclosed in case it is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. The disclosure in terms of ‘inspection only’, does not appear to be in the right spirit of the Act." +864,Seeking occupation and ancestry of Ahir and Gual Castes under RTI,Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),Ahir and Gual Castes such as their occupation and ancestry,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment to transfer the RTI application to the National Commission for Backward Classes, National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Registrar General of India, respectively under the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, for providing requisite reply to the appellant directly in respect of Ahir and Gual Castes respectively.","Seeking occupation and ancestry of Ahir and Gual Castes under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the provisions of the Right to information (RTI) Act with the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) seeking information relating to Ahir and Gual Castes such as their occupation and ancestry. The Public Information officer (PIO) of DoPT transferred the RTI application to the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment who in turn informed the appellant that the information sought by him was not related to Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that this information is not available with them since the Central list of OBC is notified by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment on the basis of recommendations made by National Commission for Backward Classes. He further stated that for the information relating to Scheduled Castes, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the Registrar General of India are concerned.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment to transfer the RTI application to the National Commission for Backward Classes, National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Registrar General of India, respectively under the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, for providing requisite reply to the appellant directly in respect of Ahir and Gual Castes respectively." +865,Does Second Schedule of RTI Act provide blanket protection from disclosing innocuous information?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +The order of the CIC in favour of disclosure is welcome but unfortunately is not likely to withstand judicial scrutiny as the exemption provided in the RTI Act under section 24 is absolute in all matters barring corruption or human rights violation.","Does Second Schedule of RTI Act provide blanket protection from disclosing innocuous information? + +Background: +The appellant stated that the father of his friend was an employee of Border Roads Development Board (BRDB). The father died while in service and the son made a request for appointment on compassionate grounds but no such appointment was given. In this regard, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the BRDB. The PIO did not respond to the application. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that BRDB is an excluded organization in terms of section 24 of the RTI Act and thus no information is disclosable to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that section 24 applies to certain intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule for the purpose of protecting these organizations in regard to matters involving national security etc. The Commission further noted that in the present case the appellant is seeking information about the representation made by him for a compassionate appointment. The requested information has no bearing whatsoever on the national security. The Commission ruled that the inclusion of BRDB in the Second Schedule does not provide blanket protection to it for refusing innocuous information to the appellants. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant stating that despite inclusion of BRDB in the Second Schedule, the requested information is disclosable to the appellant. + +Comments + +The order of the CIC in favour of disclosure is welcome but unfortunately is not likely to withstand judicial scrutiny as the exemption provided in the RTI Act under section 24 is absolute in all matters barring corruption or human rights violation." +866,RTI - Diversion of diesel from Haryana to Rajasthan for black marketing,Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"The Commission issued a notice to the Directors of IOCL, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) for personal appearance before the Commission.","RTI - Diversion of diesel from Haryana to Rajasthan for black marketing + +Background: +The appellant claimed that the petroleum products particularly diesel, was being lifted by the petrol pump owners of Haryana State from the Depots of three Oil Marketing Companies viz. IOCL; BPCL and HPCL and was not being off loaded at their respective petrol pumps but was being diverted to various places in the State of Rajasthan. He also claimed that the diesel was being sold @ Rs.40.29 in Haryana whereas the minimum prevailing rate in Rajasthan State was 43.46. Because of this price differential, the diesel was being up-lifted from Rewari in Haryana and was being diverted to various places in Rajasthan for black marketing. He further submitted that the Excise and Taxation Department of the Government of Haryana has issued certain Show Cause Notices to certain parties for these illegal activities and certain FIRs were also registered with the police under the E.C. Act. Regarding this, the appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL) seeking information regarding the retail outlets in Rewari District such as monthly/quarterly/yearly off take by the petrol pump owners for last 05 years; details of action taken against the petrol pump owners; details of officers visiting the outlets and the matters related therewith. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing, the appellant submitted that the problem is very serious and the Oil Marketing Companies are not taking any action in the matter. He requested the Central Information Commission (CIC) to issue suitable instructions to the Oil Marketing Companies with a view to preventing recurrence of these illegal activities. The respondent submitted that IOCL is not aware of registration of any FIR at Police Station. Nor does he know of certain unscrupulous elements resorting to the devious method of diverting diesel from Haryana to Rajasthan to make quick money. He also submitted that IOCL has a mechanism in place to keep surveillance over the activities of petrol pump owners.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the matter is serious enough to warrant handling at the policy making level. The Commission issued a notice to the Directors of IOCL, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) for personal appearance before the Commission." +867,Addressing the issue of illegal possession of petrol pump through RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to give inspection of the complete records relating to the petrol pump and to permit the appellant to take extracts there-from observing that the appellant is the legal heir of his father and fully entitled to take inspection of the relevant records.,"Addressing the issue of illegal possession of petrol pump through RTI + +Background: +There was a partnership deed between two brothers in regard to a petrol pump. The son of one of the brothers submitted that he and the son of the other brother are the legal heirs of the partners aforesaid but the petrol pump is presently in occupation of someone else. In this respect, he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOCL). + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the present occupants of the petrol pump are not their relatives and it is not known how they happened to take possession of the petrol pump in-question. The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that it appears to be a case of dissolution of partnership but it is not known how the petrol pump fell into the hands of other persons. PIO agreed to give inspection of the entire records relating to this petrol pump to the appellant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to give inspection of the complete records relating to the petrol pump and to permit the appellant to take extracts there-from observing that the appellant is the legal heir of his father and fully entitled to take inspection of the relevant records. +868,Addressing the issue of delay in renewal of BPL card through RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,3000.0,"Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs.","Addressing the issue of delay in renewal of BPL card through RTI + +Background: +The appellant had submitted her BPL card for renewal to the Food & Supplies Department. She claimed that the application which she had submitted to the Public Authority for renewal of the card has been lost by them and she has been facing great difficulty in meeting both ends without her card. Later, she filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking the action taken on her BPL Card. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to the application. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) issued an order directing the PIO AC (Central) to inform the appellant the status of review of BPL Card and to explain the reasons for not replying to the RTI application. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant narrated the alleged harassment faced by her in the Circle office of the public Authority and requested the Central Information Commission (CIC) to direct the PA to issue her card at the earliest. The respondent explained that in 2009 various circles were bifurcated and it is not known where the application filed by the appellant is available. The appellant then produced copies of all the relevant papers in respect of issuance of her BPL Card. The respondent assured her that every possible effort will be made to locate her application based on the papers that were handed over to him by the appellant during the hearing.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to trace the application submitted by the appellant for renewal of her BPL card and to take appropriate action on the application and to inform the status of the application to the appellant. In case the application remains untraceable the PIO may place the complete set of documents before the Competent Authority. The Commission recommended that the Competent Authority may take a sympathetic view of the matter and accordingly take a decision and inform the appellant. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 3000/- to the appellant." +869,Can the legal opinion received by the Public Authority be disclosed under RTI?,,,['8(1)(e)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that disclosure of the legal opinion would not harm the interests of the Public Authority and directed the PIO to provide a copy of the letter addressed to head office informing them that CR was been filed on the basis of legal opinion along with a copy of the advocate’s opinion to file CR.,"Can the legal opinion received by the Public Authority be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd seeking the details of the enquiry conducted regarding a particular policy. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant informed of a Head Office communication to the Regional Office that the competent authority had instructed to file LPA against the advocate in the bar Council for appropriate action before the division bench, Patna High Court. However, instead of acting as per this direction, the Regional Office filed a Civil Review (CR). The appellant further submitted that he wants the information regarding the basis on which CR was filed along with a copy of the advocate’s opinion to file CR instead of LPA. The respondent submitted that this action was taken on the basis of the advice received from the legal counsel.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that disclosure of the legal opinion would not harm the interests of the Public Authority and directed the PIO to provide a copy of the letter addressed to head office informing them that CR was been filed on the basis of legal opinion along with a copy of the advocate’s opinion to file CR. +870,Procuring list of companies which have been issued UAS license under RTI,,,"['8(1)(e)', '8(1)(c)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Referring to the decision discussed above, the Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that ratio of the above decision also applies in the present case.","Procuring list of companies which have been issued UAS license under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought list of companies that were issued UAS licenses from 2003 to 2007 and copies of letters written by the Department of Tele-communications (DoT) to such companies between the date of their applications and award of licenses requiring information about their eligibility, share holding pattern and equity capital structure, free holding and details of promoters and Directors. He also sought the copies of office orders passed on such replies by DoT. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information but denied the rest under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;&8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent referred to the Commission’s earlier decision dated 20.3.2012 in File No. CIC/LS/A/2011/003529 (Rajiv Chandrasekhar v. DoT)  and submitted that the entire records relating to this matter have been handed over to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of the Lok Sabha Secretariat where the matter is presently pending and requested information is barred from disclosure under section8(1)(c)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;of the RTI Act.","Referring to the decision discussed above, the Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that ratio of the above decision also applies in the present case." +871,Addressing manner of investigation done by the income tax authorities using RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no ground to find any fault with the PIO of the Income Tax, (Investigation) and that the subject matter is clearly beyond them.","Addressing manner of investigation done by the income tax authorities using RTI + +Background: +Referring to an investigation done by the Income Tax authorities, the appellant complained to the President of India, claiming that there was some more investigation which should have been done in the case. He filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President Secretariat in respect of his complaint. Hearing this case (CIC/WB/C/2010/00091), the Central Information Commission (CIC) had directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) concerned from the relevant investigation unit to appear before them and explain why the desired information had not been provided to the appellant in time. The Commission had also ordered his Registry to provide the information received by it from the Directorate of Income Tax, (Investigation). + +Proceeding + +During the hearing, the respondents representing the said public authority submitted that the RTI application had been received by them on transfer from the President Secretariat and they had discovered that the subject matter did not relate to them and they had informed the appellant about it. The officer of the Registry of the CIC informed that he had shared whatever information had been received from the Income Tax authorities with the appellant.","The Commission observed that there is no information which needs to be disclosed to the appellant. His complaint to the President of India was against the Income Tax authorities and the CIC can do very little to persuade the income tax authorities to conduct an investigation in any particular manner. The quality of the investigation conducted by the income tax authorities cannot the subject matter of any RTI request. The Commission further held that if the appellant feels that the income tax authorities have not investigated the case properly, he has to take up this matter with the appropriate authority within the Income Tax or in a court of law. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that there is no ground to find any fault with the PIO of the Income Tax, (Investigation) and that the subject matter is clearly beyond them." +872,RTI application seeking history of medical treatment of spouse,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"Taking note of the feeling of the appellant that information is being withheld from him deliberately, the CIC directed the PIO to furnish an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the appellant affirming his position that there is no further information available for disclosure apart from what has already been supplied to the appellant along with a set of information already provided.","RTI application seeking history of medical treatment of spouse + +Background: +The applicant sought information in respect of the admission of his wife in the emergency section including whether her condition was critical at the time of admission in emergency section or not and the information related to doctors who had treated his wife. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that as per the casualty/NRCH record no such patient was admitted in CH/NDLS and requested the applicant to send the photocopy of the discharge slip so the required information can be provided. The applicant filed an appeal claiming that the information provided was misleading. The First Appellate Authority directed the PIO to provide point wise information along with supporting documents. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondents submitted that after the appellant had provided a copy of the discharge slip. On perusing the same they had noted that the appellant’s wife had been admitted through OPD. The required information was then retrieved from OPD and a copy of the entire case file was provided to the appellant. The appellant stated that he was not able to decipher the signatures of doctors in the case file. The respondents stated that the appellant had filed another RTI Application seeking details of names and designations of doctors who had treated his wife and all the required details were provided to him. The appellant denied receipt of an exhaustive list of all the doctors who had attended the patient (Appellant’s wife) at any point of time in ward as per the FAA orders.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to send the information prepared by HOD Surgery and Chief Physician to the appellant once again. Taking note of the feeling of the appellant that information is being withheld from him deliberately, the CIC directed the PIO to furnish an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the appellant affirming his position that there is no further information available for disclosure apart from what has already been supplied to the appellant along with a set of information already provided." +873,Disclosure of development control provisions applicable to the SEZs under RTI,Public Information Officer (PIO),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Accordingly, the CIC directed to that above information should be provided by the respondent and a compliance report should be filed with the Commission.","Disclosure of development control provisions applicable to the SEZs under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an RTI application with the Public Information Officer (PIO), seeking information on the 104 acres of farmland earmarked for urban planning in the city’s Master Plan for 2021 that DSIIDC had reportedly acquired for a Special Economic Zone (SEZ); and also sought for the development of SEZ in Delhi in general. The appellant had requested for information about the applicable provisions of the Master Plan and Zonal Plans, and copies of the relevant decisions and records. PIO replied to the appellant stating that there is no proposal of any SEZ in the urbanizable area of Delhi. He further stated that a proposal had been received from DSIIDC and was being examined as part of the finalization of the zonal development plan of a particular zone under preparation with the DDA. The appellant filed an appeal before the first appellate authority (FAA) stating that the PIO had not given specific reply to her RTI application. The FAA replied to the appellant informed that the matter related to Master Plan provisions, which was referred to the concerned officers. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commission. The appellant stated that she wanted information on specific provisions of Master Plan and Rural Plan and copies of appropriate records of any decisions of the authority or its Committees in relation to the 104 acres in question and the SEZ. The respondent elaborated on various activities of the DDA in connection with the RTI application and the proposals received from DSIIDC under examination of the DDA. The appellant sought clarifications from the DDA on the above subject.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the information sought by the appellant in the RTI application should be provided under the RTI Act, including the development control provisions applicable to the SEZs in context of the Master Plan and Zonal Plans. Accordingly, the CIC directed to that above information should be provided by the respondent and a compliance report should be filed with the Commission." +874,Seeking voluminous information through a single RTI application,,the facilities provided by the Bank in the event of any official being injured,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"However, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the information related to facilities admissible to the bank officers and staff members in the event of anyone undergoing medical treatment on account of an incident.","Seeking voluminous information through a single RTI application + +Background: +The appellant sought wide-ranging information such as, policy about departmental awards, transfer details of various personnel, profile of residential accommodation occupied by bank staff, and more. He cited 15 letters and sought about the route taken for processing them. He also wanted to know the facilities provided by the Bank in the event of any official being injured. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information citing sections 7, 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) rejected the appeal, stating that the requester had sought voluminous information which was not held or maintained in the form and would divert the resources of the Bank disproportionately thereby attracting section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the decision of FAA. However, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the information related to facilities admissible to the bank officers and staff members in the event of anyone undergoing medical treatment on account of an incident." +875,Fulfilling responsibilities under the RTI Act during the absence of the PIO,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also held that in future an officer not below the rank of PIO should be nominated to carry out responsibilities of the PIO during his absence or leave period.,"Fulfilling responsibilities under the RTI Act during the absence of the PIO + +Background: +The appellant sought information for a particular period such as the item wise list of total purchases, the bill wise details of the TDS deducted by the department and copies of the challans vide which the TDS deposited. He also wanted a copy of the employees who were paid honorarium along with total amount of honorarium paid. The Public Information Officer (PIO) asked the appellant to deposit Rs. 450/- as photocopy charges for obtaining the information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that after the passage of 30 days from the date of RTI application he received a second letter asking him to deposit an amount of Rs. 550/-. He also raised an objection that the Superintendent had signed the above two letters and not the PIO. The respondent stated that PIO was on leave on account of marriage of his son during that period.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide all the documents to the appellant on payment of Rs. 450/- only. The Commission also held that in future an officer not below the rank of PIO should be nominated to carry out responsibilities of the PIO during his absence or leave period. +876,RTI application seeking copies of the statements recorded and documents collected,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal noting that the desired records are no longer traceable in the CBI.,"RTI application seeking copies of the statements recorded and documents collected + +Background: +The appellant filed an application the Right to information (RTI) Act seeking the copies of the statements recorded and documents collected during the enquiry done by DIG, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the orders of the Supreme Court of India in the WP(Cr) No. 15 of 1994. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that, in spite of efforts, the said records were not any longer traceable. During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the statements of individuals examined during the enquiry and other related records were no longer traceable anywhere in the office of the CBI. The respondent also drew CIC’s attention to an order of the Supreme Court in which the Court itself had observed that all the records filed before it in connection with that case could be obtained by the parties, implying that whatever records had been furnished before the court could have been accessed by the parties of that case including the appellant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal noting that the desired records are no longer traceable in the CBI. +877,Can opinion and recommendations of the Public Authority be sought under RTI?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that specific information has not been sought in the RTI Application by the appellant.,"Can opinion and recommendations of the Public Authority be sought under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant submitted an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking opinion and recommendations of the Public Authority on the basis of a hypothetical situation provided in the RTI Application. The Public Information Officer (PIO) asked the appellant to seek specific information.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that specific information has not been sought in the RTI Application by the appellant. +878,Matters before Joint Parliamentary Committee not liable to be disclosed under RTI,,,['8(1)(c)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the contentions of the respondents and rejected the appeal.,"Matters before Joint Parliamentary Committee not liable to be disclosed under RTI + +Background: +The appellant referred to particular files and sought the file notings including all correspondences held in those files. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the information under section8(1)(c)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the entire records have been transferred to the Joint Parliamentary Committee of the Lok Sabha and hence the information is barred from disclosure under section8(1)(c)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the contentions of the respondents and rejected the appeal. +879,Should the details of the selected candidates be disclosed under RTI?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to furnish rest of the information to the appellant free of cost.,"Should the details of the selected candidates be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought the copy of Recruitment Rules for the post of Junior Steno (Trainee) and the Reservation Roaster for SC/ST & OBC candidates for Junior Steno (Trainee) maintained by the Manganese Ore India Ltd (MOIL). He also sought the details of the candidates selected for the post of Junior Steno (Trainee). + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that the appellant is not one of the candidates who appeared in the said examination. He further stated that the PIO had offered to disclose the entire information on the payment of Rs. 900/-. The appellant argued that he was not convinced about the demand of Rs. 900/- by the PIO. The Recruitment Rules relating to Junior Steno (Trainee) would not cover more than 10/15 pages and the Reservation Roaster would also not cover more than 4/5 pages. So the demand of Rs. 900/- does not appear to be justified.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted that as the appellant was not a candidate, he is not entitled to third party information i.e. the details of the candidates selected for the post. The Commission also directed the PIO to furnish rest of the information to the appellant free of cost." +880,Can documents related to outsourced work be sought under RTI?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,A public authority cannot claim that the documents available with the agency to whom the work has been outsourced are not held by it.,"Can documents related to outsourced work be sought under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought the details about the list of marks/grades scored by selected candidates under the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Young Scholar’s Award Scheme from the year 2008 to 2011 along with the test papers with their answer keys from the year 2008 to 2011.The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the information was not available as the examination was outsourced to an independent and autonomous body Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS). The respondent explained that the RBI Young Scholar Award Scheme was conducted by the RBI in which students after 12th pre-graduation were selected and given assignments/projects in various RBI offices for two to three months. The PIO further stated that the information regarding the test was available with IBPS which was a private contractor and hence the information was not with the RBI.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that if IBPS was a contractor through whom the scholarship tests were conducted, information on the tests was certainly information which can be accessed by RBI as it is certainly within the control of RBI. The Commission directed the PIO to obtain the information from IBPS and provide it to the appellant. In case the IBPS refused to part with the information, the Commission ruled that the PIO should send the refusal copy to the appellant and under Section 25(5) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, gave a recommendation to the RBI Governor not to assign such work to IBPS in future. + +Comments + +If public authorities outsource any work like selection of candidates to private parties who have no accountability to the citizens, it is against the norms of accountability and transparency set up by the Parliament. A public authority cannot claim that the documents available with the agency to whom the work has been outsourced are not held by it." +881,Procedure and time taken for disposal of cases by NHRC sought under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to apprise the appellant with more detailed information regarding the manner of disposal of cases and time taken and specific reply on shortest and longest time taken for disposal of cases.,"Procedure and time taken for disposal of cases by NHRC sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information on twenty one queries regarding the procedure and time taken in reaching final decision by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) such as the shortest and longest period taken for disposal of cases and details of cases closed without hearing. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a general reply to the queries.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to apprise the appellant with more detailed information regarding the manner of disposal of cases and time taken and specific reply on shortest and longest time taken for disposal of cases. +882,Seeking mortgage deed of Recovery Case under RTI,,,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The CIC further directed the PIO that any information in compliance with this Order has to provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.,"Seeking mortgage deed of Recovery Case under RTI + +Background: +The appellant had sought the certified copies of the mortgage deed of a Recovery Case through an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act enclosing an annexure giving the details of the case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the annexure has not been enclosed and thus it is difficult to judge the query. PIO asked to re-send the annexure but no reply was received after the appellant had re-sent the annexure. + +Proceedings + +No one appeared before the Central Information Commission (CIC) for the hearing. The CIC noted that it is not clear from the papers whether the appellant was the customer of the Bank who has created the mortgage in favour of the Bank.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled that if the appellant is the customer of the Bank who has created the mortgage deed in favour of the bank, the information should be provided and if it has not been created by the appellant the information will be covered under the exemption Section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The CIC further directed the PIO that any information in compliance with this Order has to provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act." +883,Can CVC give a second stage advice in matters relating to LTC or TA?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission also directed the PIO to provide a copy of the circular, if any, which might provide the exceptions in which a second stage advice could still be sought from the CVC in matters of allegations of irregularities in LTC claims.","Can CVC give a second stage advice in matters relating to LTC or TA? + +Background: +The appellant claimed that the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) had issued a circular stating that second stage advice need not be sought from it in matters relating to irregularities in claiming LTC or TA; still the CVC had entertained a request from the Department concerned and had offered its second stage advice in her case. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking the reasons for making such an exception in her own case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that what the appellant had sought was not information but explanation from the CVC about its action in a particular matter. The respondent pointed out during the hearing that there was no such circular issued by the CVC. + +Proceeding + +The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that  although the appellant had not clearly stated which record or document she was exactly seeking, it is clear that what she was seeking was a circular which might have listed the exceptions in which second stage advice could still be sought in such cases. The Commission perused the original CVC circular and observed that it clearly implies that in such matters ordinarily a second stage advice of the CVC may not be sought but seeking such advice is not completely ruled out and that it would depend on the gravity of the case and the judgment of the Department/Organisation concerned and the CVC. The Commission also held that the action of the department in referring the matter to the CVC for second stage advice and the subsequent decision on the part of the CVC to offer its second stage advice must have been made in a certain context. The appellant has the right to know the context in which such a decision was taken.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to furnish the photocopy of the relevant file noting in which the CVC decided to entertain the request of the CGDA, Ministry of Defense for second stage advice in her case and offered one. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide a copy of the circular, if any, which might provide the exceptions in which a second stage advice could still be sought from the CVC in matters of allegations of irregularities in LTC claims." +884,Copy of complaint cannot be denied to the person against whom complaint is filed,,why his request for the complaint had been earlier turned down,"['8(1)(a)', '8(1)(c)']",INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission further held that if the PIO chooses to delete any reference of this nature, he should pass a speaking order justifying the deletion while providing the copy of the complaint.","Copy of complaint cannot be denied to the person against whom complaint is filed + +Background: +The appellant had requested for the copy of the complaint made by a certain individual against him and had wanted to know why his request for the complaint had been earlier turned down. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the copy of the complaint under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;and section8(1)(c)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act stating that the disclosure would prejudicially affect the security of the Parliament.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the copy of the complaint cannot be denied to the appellant in this case since the complaint itself is against him. The Commission also held that if the complaint contains any reference to any such information which would prejudicially affect the security of the Parliament, those references may be deleted before disclosing the complaint itself. The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant a photocopy of the complaint after severing the portion concerning the security of the Parliament. The Commission further held that if the PIO chooses to delete any reference of this nature, he should pass a speaking order justifying the deletion while providing the copy of the complaint." +885,Is the Army Wives Welfare Association covered under the RTI Act?,,04 paras about the Army Wives Welfare Association (AWWA),[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +The CIC should have examined the basic question whether the AWWA is covered under the RTI Act rather than taking an ad-hoc decision.","Is the Army Wives Welfare Association covered under the RTI Act? + +Background: +The appellant had submitted that the she is the wife of a serving soldier .She had sought information on 04 paras about the Army Wives Welfare Association (AWWA). The Public Information Officer (PIO) noted that this information was denied to her on the ground that AWWA is not a Public Authority. He further noted that AWWA is an NGO and is not a part of the Army and so it is not a Public Authority.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) did not go into the question whether AWWA is a Public Authority under section2(h)“public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted +(a) by or under the Constitution; +(b) by any other law made by Parliament; +(c) by any other law made by State Legislature; +(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- +(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; +(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;of the RTI Act kept this issue open for future deliberations. The CIC directed to provide the information to the appellant sought in this particular application. + +Comments + +The CIC should have examined the basic question whether the AWWA is covered under the RTI Act rather than taking an ad-hoc decision. If AWWA is not covered under the RTI Act, there is no need to provide the information and if it is covered, it should appoint a PIO and implement section 4." +886,Burglary case details and advocate's opinion sought using RTI,,,['8(1)(e)'],UNKNOWN,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the information related of survey report and valuation report had been provided to the appellant and further upheld the PIO’s reply that the information related advocate’s opinion can not be disclosed under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.","Burglary case details and advocate's opinion sought using RTI + +Background: +Through an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the appellant sought the information related with the valuation and surveyor report along with the legal opinion of the advocate pertaining to the burglary in the particular claim number. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided partial information and refused to provide advocate’s opinion under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act, 2005 claiming that being fiduciary, it is exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the information related of survey report and valuation report had been provided to the appellant and further upheld the PIO’s reply that the information related advocate’s opinion can not be disclosed under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act." +887,Should the reasons for the failure of GSLV D-3 programme be disclosed under RTI?,,that the reasons for its failure,['8(1)(a)'],UNKNOWN,,,"Therefore, the denial of information was upheld.","Should the reasons for the failure of GSLV D-3 programme be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant submitted that GSLV D-3 launched by Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) failed.He wanted to know that the reasons for its failure. The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that GSLV D-3 programme is a highly technical, confidential and sensitive programme of ISRO and the reasons of failure cannot be disclosed to the appellant in terms of section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed that ISRO programme is highly sensitive and the reasons of failure cannot be placed in public domain under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Therefore, the denial of information was upheld." +888,Disclosure of the letter received by PM from the Russian President under RTI,,,"['8(1)(a)', '8(1)(f)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal stating that correspondence exchanged between the Heads of two Governments is barred from disclosure under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act.","Disclosure of the letter received by PM from the Russian President under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought copy of the letter received by Prime Minister from the Russian President/Prime Minister/their representatives between September 2007 and February 2008. He also wanted the copy of the letter put up to Prime Minister from the Russian President/ Prime Minister/ Officials on Telecom license issued between September 2007 and February 2008. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act stating that the disclosure of correspondence between PM and other Heads of States would prejudicially affect relations with foreign States.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the correspondence exchanged between the Heads of two Governments relates to multiple issues and does not touch the issue under reference and disclosure of this class of information may be prejudicial to India’s relations with Russia. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that correspondence exchanged between the Heads of two Governments is barred from disclosure under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act. + +Comments + +The PIO could have invoked the Section8(1)(f)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information received in confidence from foreign Government;of the RTI Act in the case." +889,Using RTI to address the misuse of the National Emblem,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The CIC further observed that if the appellant thought that the misuse of the National Emblem still continues, he can take up the matter in any competent court.","Using RTI to address the misuse of the National Emblem + +Background: +The appellant had written to the Prime Minister of India complaining against the misuse of the National Emblem by a certain publisher in the edition of the Indian Constitution published by them. The Public Information Officer (PIO) had informed that appellant’s RTI application was consequently transferred to that Ministry. The concerned PIO further informed the appellant that they had taken up the matter with the publisher concerned who has informed that the printing of the National Emblem on the front page of the edition of the Indian Constitution has been discontinued.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that as the entire information sought has been provided, there is nothing more to be done in this case. The CIC further observed that if the appellant thought that the misuse of the National Emblem still continues, he can take up the matter in any competent court." +890,Complaints register at Gas service station,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that if that be the case, then this may be communicated to the appellant in writing.","Complaints register at Gas service station + +Background: +A consumer registered with M/s. Malka Gas Service had certain grievances. One, the facility of booking of gas by SMS is not available at the said Gas Agency. Secondly, the Complaint Register being maintained at the said Gas Agency is un-numbered and so can be easily manipulated. He filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act regarding these issues. The respondents submitted that the SMS system is being introduced in a phased manner and Bareilly town has not been covered as yet. As regards format of the Complaint Register being maintained at the said Gas Service, they further submitted that the Register being maintained at the said Gas Service is in the prescribed format and there is no irregularity therein.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that if that be the case, then this may be communicated to the appellant in writing." +891,Correspondences between TRAI-CAG and TRAI-CBI sought under RTI,,,['8(1)(h)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that disclosure of requested information would impede the process of prosecution.,"Correspondences between TRAI-CAG and TRAI-CBI sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought copies of correspondences between (i) TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) and the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) (ii) TRAI and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding the quantum of loss that occurred to the Government in the allocation of 2G spectrum from Jan 2009 till date. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of TRAI informed that information regarding correspondence between TRAI and CAG was not available with TRAI. He denied the correspondence between TRAI and CBI under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. During the hearing, the appellant submitted that he is not the affected party but the 2G Scam has shaken the nation and as a citizen of the country he wishes to seek the quantum of loss in this scam, as determined by TRAI/ CAG. The respondent submitted that the CBI investigated the scam and has filed a charge sheet against a number of accused persons and the matter is presently pending trial. The requested information is barred from disclosure under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. He also submitted that CBI is the prosecuting agency in the matter and it is an organisation beyond the purview of the RTI Act under section 24.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that disclosure of requested information would impede the process of prosecution. +892,RTI application seeking details of material auctioned from the Railway General store,,,['8(1)(h)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the decision of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and rejected the appeal.,"RTI application seeking details of material auctioned from the Railway General store + +Background: +The appellant sought various information about the non ferrous material auctioned from the western railway general store – Dahod including the date of receipt of these materials and details of materials auctioned. The Public Information Officer (PIO) furnished 1750 pages to him in response to his queries. The appellant filed the first appeal stating that the information provided to him was not legible. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the appellant that if he finds the copy of sale issue as not legible, he may approach the Railway Protection Force (RPF) Post. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant is one of the accused who is involved in the fraud related to supply of nonferrous material. He also stated that all the information sought by the appellant has been provided to him except the copies of all the communication and file notings, sale letters and sale issue notes which has been denied under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act since the Railway court Godhra has seized the matter and the case was going on.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the decision of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and rejected the appeal. +893,Information regarding the Cabinet meetings for a period of seven years sought under RTI,,,['8(1)(i)'],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission also observed that it is only the sponsoring Ministry or Department which can take a decision as to whether a particular Cabinet decision has been fully implemented or not; the Cabinet Secretariat cannot take such a call and decide about disclosing any Cabinet decision except those which arise out of any proposal of the Cabinet Secretariat itself.,"Information regarding the Cabinet meetings for a period of seven years sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information in respect of the Cabinet meetings held over a period of seven years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that providing the information about all the items/ subjects considered in the meetings held during this entire period would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority under section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and therefore, could not be disclosed. He denied the decisions taken in the meetings under section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;stating that they are a part of the Cabinet papers. He had further observed that it was for the sponsoring ministry to decide finally if the Cabinet papers could be disclosed having implemented the Cabinet decision. Regarding the minutes of the meetings he invited the appellant to inspect the minutes register maintained in the Cabinet Secretariat. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondent explained that every year, about 400 to 450 items came up for discussion in the Cabinet from various ministries and departments of the government and over a period of seven years, this number would be close to 3000 items. He submitted that collecting and providing this information to the appellant would be an extremely time consuming task and would disproportionately divert the resources of the Cabinet Secretariat. However, he offered that specific information in this regard would be provided if the appellant would identify any particular item or a few of those items.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the contentions of the respondent and advised the appellant to be more specific and ask for details of a few of these items so that the PIO can provide such information without putting strain on the resources of the Cabinet Secretariat. The Commission also observed that it is only the sponsoring Ministry or Department which can take a decision as to whether a particular Cabinet decision has been fully implemented or not; the Cabinet Secretariat cannot take such a call and decide about disclosing any Cabinet decision except those which arise out of any proposal of the Cabinet Secretariat itself. + +Comments + +The discussions in the matter point out that there is no mechanism at the level of the cabinet to be regularly updated about what action has been taken regarding a particular decision taken by it." +894,Copy of the letter written by CM of J&K to the PM sought under RTI,,the action taken report on the letter,['8(1)(a)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission also advised the PIO to give speaking orders in future when he decides to deny any information.,"Copy of the letter written by CM of J&K to the PM sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant referred to a news story ‘Army Apology to Omar for Slamming Troop Cuts’ published in a newspaper and sought a certified copy of the letter written by Chief Minister of Jammu & Kashmir to the Prime Minister of India. He also wanted to know the action taken report on the letter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information by invoking section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of Right to Information (RTI) Act and stated that the matter was related to security issues. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant argued that the desired information cannot be denied by merely referring to an exemption provision. The respondents submitted that the request of the appellant had been seriously considered by the appropriate authorities in the national security establishment and they had advised that the contents of the letter or the action taken on that should not be disclosed looking to the sensitivity of the issue and the likely impact of such disclosure on the situation in J and K. The appellant also argued that larger public interest would warrant disclosure of such information and referred to section8(2)Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.of the RTI Act in this regard.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO had not explained as to how the disclosure of the desired information would affect the national security. The Commission rejected the appeal observing that, if in the opinion of the experts in the national secret establishment, the contents of the letter and the follow-up action on that would have adverse effect on the national security; larger public interest would probably be served by keeping it confidential rather than to disclose it in the public domain. The Commission also advised the PIO to give speaking orders in future when he decides to deny any information." +895,Using RTI for information regarding returns pending for scrutiny with the Central Excise,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission, however, directed the PIO to provide an opportunity to the appellant to inspect the relevant files.","Using RTI for information regarding returns pending for scrutiny with the Central Excise + +Background: +The applicant sought information in respect of returns pending (for more than three months) for scrutiny in Lucknow and Kanpur Commissionerate. He sought the information in particular formats devised by him, in which he sought information as to why no action has been taken against the responsible Superintendents. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information in terms of section2(j)“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; +(iii) taking certified samples of material; +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and also held that the appellant was gathering a variety of information from the PIO to redress his own grievances with the Department pertaining to a Disciplinary case against him. The First Appellate authority (FAA) held that under the provisions of the RTI Act, information could be supplied only if the request met the definition of ‘information’ under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act and not otherwise. He further noted that the PIO was not obliged to create information to generate data for a petitioner’s convenience.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the public authority has no obligation to create information and provide to the appellant and the respondent public authority can only provide information as is held by them. The Commission, however, directed the PIO to provide an opportunity to the appellant to inspect the relevant files." +896,Should the payments made to British individuals/firms relating to Commonwealth Games be disclosed under RTI?,,,"['8(1)(a)', '8(1)(f)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the letter received from the British Prime Minister on the above subject squarely falls within the exemption provision of section 8 (1)(f) of the RTI Act and cannot be disclosed for the reasons pointed out by the respondent.,"Should the payments made to British individuals/firms relating to Commonwealth Games be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought a variety of information relating to a reported letter written by the British Prime Minister to the Prime Minister of India concerning payments to various British individuals and firms in connection with the Commonwealth Games. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the contents of the correspondence under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;and8(1)(f)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information received in confidence from foreign Government;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant wondered if the letter of the British Prime Minister could be entirely treated to be confidential and not disclosable. The respondent submitted that it was a confidential communication between two Prime Ministers and it contained information which, if disclosed, had the potential to affect the friendly relations between both the countries and so it should not be disclosed.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the letter received from the British Prime Minister on the above subject squarely falls within the exemption provision of section 8 (1)(f) of the RTI Act and cannot be disclosed for the reasons pointed out by the respondent. + +Comments + +With the economic diplomacy taking a front seat in the foreign policy, there are likely to be many such requests under the RTI Act. It would be difficult to draw a line between pure commerce and foreign policy and with increasing stakes for disclosure; the intervention of judiciary is likely to increase in such matters." +897,RTI application seeking details of appointment of a person against land acquisition,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission also directed the respondent to provide an opportunity to the appellant to inspect the appointment file of that person, in case the appellant so desires.","RTI application seeking details of appointment of a person against land acquisition + +Background: +The appellant claimed that a person was appointed by South Eastern Coalfields Ltd (SECL) against land acquisition. It was his contention that the land belonged to him, however the other person has been given appointment in lieu of acquisition of land. He filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information in respect of appointment of the said person at South Eastern Coalfields Ltd (SECL). The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided two pages of information as received from the holder of information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant demanded to know the basis on which that person has been appointed. He also wanted a copy of all the documents regarding acquisition of the aforementioned land and the entire correspondence regarding appointment of the said person. The respondent provided a copy of appointment letter and submitted that information related to compensation amount, area of land and person to whom employment was provided against land acquisition have already been furnished to the appellant. The respondents also stated that the documents related to police verification, no objection certificate of other family members and salary slip was not available in their office. The respondent submitted that they will make another attempt to locate no objection certificate, police verification etc.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide police verification, no objection certificate of other family members and salary slip to the appellant. The Commission also directed the respondent to provide an opportunity to the appellant to inspect the appointment file of that person, in case the appellant so desires." +898,"Eliciting information related to APL, BPL and AAY cards under RTI",,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"However, the Commission directed the PIO to once again review the First Appeal and provide the required clarification in respect of the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant in it.","Eliciting information related to APL, BPL and AAY cards under RTI + +Background: +The applicant filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Food & Supplies, Government ofNational Capital territoryof Delhi (GNCTD) seeking information related to the allocation and sale of wheat, rice, and sugar during the months of September and October, 2011. He also wanted some information related to Above Poverty Line (APL), Below Poverty Line (BPL) and Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) cards which were registered. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise reply and enclosed 53 pages of information. The applicant filed the First Appeal and stating that incorrect information has been furnished to him while pointing out some discrepancies in the information provided by the PIO and that given in the cards. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide complete information. In compliance with the Appellate Authority’s order, the PIO replied to the appellant once again stating that the information has already been furnished to him.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the appellant has not sought any specific information but was only expressing his grievance against the Public Authority for issuing fake BPL & AAY cards. The Commission held that it is not clear as to what information the appellant is still seeking. However, the Commission directed the PIO to once again review the First Appeal and provide the required clarification in respect of the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant in it. + +Comment + +While filing the second appeal the appellant should clearly state the grounds for second appeal and the desired information for which the appeal is being filed." +899,Details of insurance policies filed by the General Insurance Companies under file and use policy,,,['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the disclosure of only theapproved insurance productsand held that the IRDA is free to take action as per section 10 of the RTI Act, in case they apprehended that the disclosure of information relating to any particular part of theapproved insurance productswould hurt the commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property resulting in causing harm to the competitive position of any of the Insurance Companies.","Details of insurance policies filed by the General Insurance Companies under file and use policy + +Background: +The appellant sought the details of the insurance policies filed by the General Insurance Companies under file and use policy/ regulation, which are permitted by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) for General insurance companies for circulation in India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information is available on the website of the Public Authority. + +Proceedings + +The appellant argued that it was obligatory on the part of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) to suo-moto place on its website the full terms and conditions of all the insurance products approved by it as soon as it gives clearance to the insurers for marketing the said product. He also stated that in the absence of such transparency, the insurers were free to make changes in any of the clauses in the final marketed product thereby taking undue advantage of the insured who would not have a clue as to original clauses as approved by IRDA. The PIO submitted that since 2001, there were about 500 tariff products which were given approval by the Tariff Advisory Committee and about 1500 non– tariff products which were marketed by the LIC of India and about 25 – 26 General insurance companies both in the public and private sectors. He submitted that the authority would be in a position to upload on its website all the tariff products – their terms and conditions – within the next 4 to 6 weeks. However the uploading of the other non– tariff products would take time as it was a huge task. The PIO expressed the fear that the disclosure of displaying the terms and conditions of the insurance policies filed with the Authority will harm the competitive position of the insurance company and is exempt as per section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) did not agree with the argument given by the respondent that the terms and conditions of each of the marketed insurance products as approved by IRDA need not be placed on the website of the regulator as in any case the same is uploaded on the websites of the insurers. The Commission held that this matter is of overwhelming larger public interest and begs for complete and total transparency. Under section 19(8)(a)(iii), section 19(8)(a)(iv) and section 25(5) of the RTI Act, the Commission recommended to the Chairman IRDA to take appropriate action to put up on the website of the regulator, the complete and full terms and conditions of all the insurance products as approved by them. The Commission directed the disclosure of only theapproved insurance productsand held that the IRDA is free to take action as per section 10 of the RTI Act, in case they apprehended that the disclosure of information relating to any particular part of theapproved insurance productswould hurt the commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property resulting in causing harm to the competitive position of any of the Insurance Companies." +900,Matter of delay in award of the Police Medal addressed through RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Holding that the appellant’s queries have to be replied to as per record held by the Public Authority, the Commission directed the PIO to provide requisite information, as per records, to the appellant.","Matter of delay in award of the Police Medal addressed through RTI + +Background: +The appellant’s name appeared in the list of officers who were to be awarded the Police Medal for meritorious service on the eve of Independence Day, 2009. He desired to know whether the medals and certificate have not yet been given to any officer whose names was published in Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) official website, when and where will he get above awarded medal, why there has been so much delay in delivery of medal and certificate. He also wanted the copy of all communication related to delay in delivery of above awarded medal. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the queries raised are not covered under the definition of information as stipulated under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the appellant submitted that he received a telegraphic message from the Union Home Secretary congratulating him and informing him of the award of the Police Medal for meritorious service on the eve of Independence Day 2009. However, since he has not received the Medal awarded to him nor the certificate, he filed an application under RTI Act and sought information from PIO.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the respondent had neither denied that the appellant’s name was published on its website for award of the Police Medal for Meritorious Service, nor the congratulatory telegram of the Union Home Secretary which was sent to the appellant in this regard. The Commission observed that the respondents have not quoted any provisions of the RTI Act for denying the information which is no doubt held by them in their record. Holding that the appellant’s queries have to be replied to as per record held by the Public Authority, the Commission directed the PIO to provide requisite information, as per records, to the appellant." +901,Information regarding Satyagraha by Baba Ramdev sought under RTI,,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide a copy of order issued under section 144 along with reasons for its promulgation, as requested for by the appellant.","Information regarding Satyagraha by Baba Ramdev sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information in respect of incident of Satyagraha by Baba Ramdev against black money, corruption such as who is responsible for cruelty with the innocent persons, the order copy of implementation under section 144 Act at mid night with reasons and how much loss occurred economically, to humanity and social injustice done by Delhi Police. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the requests related to cruelty and losses were not covered under the ambit of definition of information in terms of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. With regards to the order copy of implementation under section 144 Act, the appellant was informed that information cannot be provided under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act as the FIR has been registered in this regard, the investigation of the case is still pending and the matter is sub-judice before the Supreme Court of India.Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent contended that at the time of reply the disclosure of information would have impeded the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Now, the matter before the Supreme Court has been decided. The investigation into the FIR is also complete and chargesheet has been filed before the competent Court.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide a copy of order issued under section 144 along with reasons for its promulgation, as requested for by the appellant." +902,RTI application seeking information regarding the special audit of the NTRO,,"the special audit of the NTRO + +Background: +The appellant sought information arising out of the special audit of the NTRO by the Comptroller Auditor General (CAG)",[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the PIO could not have provided the copies of any documents or records which the CAG had received from the NTRO, the latter being an organization included in the second schedule of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.","RTI application seeking information regarding the special audit of the NTRO + +Background: +The appellant sought information arising out of the special audit of the NTRO by the Comptroller Auditor General (CAG). The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the desired information against some of his queries but denied the copies of any documents on the ground that the CAG had received these in confidence from the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO) which is an organisation beyond the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act under section 24.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the PIO could not have provided the copies of any documents or records which the CAG had received from the NTRO, the latter being an organization included in the second schedule of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. + +Comments + +A Public Authority should not disclose any document received from any other organisation which is beyond the purview of the RTI Act. Applications may be transferred to the PIO of such organisation and information can be disclosed only in cases of corruption or human rights violation." +903,Information under RTI about Central Excise raid at Hindalco in 1975,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC further observed that in case the appellant is still not satisfied with the reply of the FAA, he can approach the Commission in second appeal afresh under section 19(3), along with complaint under section 18 of the RTI Act.","Information under RTI about Central Excise raid at Hindalco in 1975 + +Background: +The applicant submitted that his interview was published in the Economic Times, Delhi Edition, on 2.8.1975 with regard to his study on the production cost of Aluminium and discrepancies on account of Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd (HINDALCO). After the publication of news report, a search was conducted by the Central Excise Department and a large quantity of Aluminium was seized from Hindalco’s consignment agents from different places. The appellant sought the final result of the investigation from the Directorate of Legal Affairs, Central Board of Excise & Customs. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information requested was for a period beyond 20 years which cannot be provided as per provisions of section8(3)Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section: +Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the information as sought for by the appellant is vague and did not pertain to the Directorate of Legal Affairs. Observing that all efforts should be made to provide the information, the FAA directed to forward the application to the CPIO of jurisdictional Central Excise Office under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that the PIO of the Office of Commissioner of Central Excise, Mirzapur has not provided information and requested the Commission to initiate penalty proceedings against the under the provisions of section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the Central Excise Division to provide requisite information as per available records to the appellant within stipulated time and in case a reply has been furnished, to forward a copy of his reply to the appellant. The CIC held that if the appellant is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, he can also avail the first appellate channel under the provisions of section19(1)Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: +Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.of the RTI Act. The CIC further observed that in case the appellant is still not satisfied with the reply of the FAA, he can approach the Commission in second appeal afresh under section 19(3), along with complaint under section 18 of the RTI Act." +904,Details of beneficiaries and donors of the PM's relief fund sought under RTI,,,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the list of institutional donors should be disclosed; however, in view of the stay granted by the High Court, such information can no longer be disclosed.","Details of beneficiaries and donors of the PM's relief fund sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought a number of information relating to the Prime Minister's relief fund including details of beneficiaries and the donors over a period of 10 years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some statistical details but refused the list of either donors or beneficiaries under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. During the hearing, the appellant referred to section8(2)Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.of the RTI Act and argued that the desired information should be disclosed in larger public interest. The respondent submitted that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) had not been disclosing the details of the donors or the beneficiaries to anyone including even the Parliament and so such information had not been disclosed. They also submitted that the Delhi High Court had stayed an earlier decision of the Central Information Commission (CIC) in which the PMO was directed to disclose the list of institutional donors.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the list of institutional donors should be disclosed; however, in view of the stay granted by the High Court, such information can no longer be disclosed. It would be right to wait for the final disposal of the matter by the Delhi High Court when it would be clear if this class of information should be disclosed or not. Once the matter before the Delhi High Court is disposed of, the appellant can always seek this information if the High Court decides that such information should be disclosed. + +Comments + +The issue of disclosure of the names of donors and beneficiaries of the funds which is at the discretion of certain authorities such as the Prime Minister or the President has been under debate for long. It would be in the interest of transparency that a pro-active disclosure is made in these cases." +905,Is the post of Intelligence Officer in DRI / DGCEI exempt from the reservation policy?,,the reservation of certain posts in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)/Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence(DGCEI),[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission directed the PIO to search the records to find out if any exemption had been granted from the operation of the reservation policy in respect of this particular post ever and provide the available information to the appellant and if no such record is available need to inform the appellant accordingly.,"Is the post of Intelligence Officer in DRI / DGCEI exempt from the reservation policy? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the reservation of certain posts in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)/Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence(DGCEI). He wanted to know if any relaxation had ever been granted from the reservation policy in respect of the post of Intelligence Officer. The Public Information Officer (PIO) wrongly transferred the application to the Ministry of Home Affairs which in turn transferred it to the Department of Revenue but the appellant didn’t receive any information from the department. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) replied that the desired information was related to the Department of Revenue. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that it would not be possible to find out if any particular post had been exempted from the operation of the reservation policy.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that there was only point where the DoPT could have provided some information as it was related to the post of intelligence officer. The Commission directed the PIO to search the records to find out if any exemption had been granted from the operation of the reservation policy in respect of this particular post ever and provide the available information to the appellant and if no such record is available need to inform the appellant accordingly. +906,Is information related to Kisaan Credit Card scheme liable for disclosure under RTI?,,the basis for the issuance and the benefits that accrued to the individuals,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the decision of the PIO.,"Is information related to Kisaan Credit Card scheme liable for disclosure under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought the information related to the issue of Kisaan Credit Card (KCC) of some specific persons as he wanted to know the basis for the issuance and the benefits that accrued to the individuals. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to provide information under section (8)(1)(j) of the RTI Act and section 13 of the Banking Companies Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the PIO’s reply and stated that since the information related to a ‘third party’ it could not be provided to the appellant. He also replied that the KCC scheme was not a government scheme related to subsidy or a grant component. + +Proceedings + +The respondent submitted that since the appellant was not related in any manner to the people whose information he sought his application was rejected on the ground of his being a third party. Furthermore, there was no projection of any public interest.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the decision of the PIO. +907,Information related to harassment and murder of RTI activists sought under RTI,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Central information Commission (CIC) observed that sought information had already been provided to appellant and hence the appeal was disposed.,"Information related to harassment and murder of RTI activists sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the information related to the harassment and murder of several RTI activists. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) transferred the application to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Department of Personal & Training (DoPT) who provided partial information to the appellant and denied for rest of the information since the reports appeared as per the news papers and media coverage and there was no clear status about RTI activists who had been harassed and assaulted.",The respondent submitted that the figure quoted by them was based on media reports and not on any factual survey and it was for the state governments concerns to take appropriate action in all such cases and any specific information related to a particular case of this kind would have to be found out from the respective state government only. The Central information Commission (CIC) observed that sought information had already been provided to appellant and hence the appeal was disposed. +908,Disclosure of insurance policies deposited by a development officer of LIC under RTI,,,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the respondent to provide the information only in terms of numbers, regarding the total number of policies that were taken between April 2010 to June 2010 and the total number of policies that had lapsed and the total number that were continuing.","Disclosure of insurance policies deposited by a development officer of LIC under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the details of the insurance policies deposited by a development officer of LIC. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided partial information to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) too denied the rest of the information and held it exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the PIO stated that information consisting of 128 pages has already been provided to the appellant and for rest of the information action was taken under the provisions of section 11 of the Act. The third party has denied consent for disclosure of information stating that it was his personal information. The appellant submitted that the third party was his supervisory officer and he wanted the information as requested in order to judge the level of support being provided to other agents.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the respondent to provide the information only in terms of numbers, regarding the total number of policies that were taken between April 2010 to June 2010 and the total number of policies that had lapsed and the total number that were continuing." +909,The prompt response of Public Authority receives appreciation from CIC,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"However, the Commission appreciated the fact that the respondents promptly acted on the appellant’s request and have taken necessary action in the matter.","The prompt response of Public Authority receives appreciation from CIC + +Background: +Through an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the appellant brought to the notice of the Public Information Officer (PIO) the fact that the smart card window printer installed at one of the railway office of the public authority was giving illegible printouts. He asked the PIO what can be done by him in this matter and what could be the time limit for fixing the problem. The PIO informed the applicant that all the printers (TVS) will be replaced by new printers very soon. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that instructions have already been given to all commercial staff for replacement of used ribbon.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the appellant has not sought any information in material form, but has made a request to the public authority to look into a certain problem which has occurred in the printer installed in one of the office. The Commission stated that this was something which cannot be examined or decided under the RTI Act. However, the Commission appreciated the fact that the respondents promptly acted on the appellant’s request and have taken necessary action in the matter. + +Comments + +A public authority should try to imbibe the spirit of the RTI Act and not merely restrict to providing ‘information’. The railways deserve appreciation for the good work and other organisations should emulate the same." +910,Can the files be destroyed when the same have been sought under the RTI Act?,,whether the complete file/files/documents pertaining to papers of Right to Information (RTI) case which is in process can be weeded out or not by any Government servant/ Government office,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comments + +The view of the CIC has varied in many cases right from taking a technical view of a question to a pro-active stand in favour of disclosure.","Can the files be destroyed when the same have been sought under the RTI Act? + +Background: +The appellant wanted to know whether the complete file/files/documents pertaining to papers of Right to Information (RTI) case which is in process can be weeded out or not by any Government servant/ Government office. He also sought for copy of the rules in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that appellant is seeking an advice which did not fall under the meaning of information under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of RTI Act and also noted that appellant may consult the RTI Act and RTI Rules, which are already in public domain and the same are also available in the website of Central Information Commission (CIC). The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the PIO’s order and informed that the Central Information Commission- is not the custodian of information sought. He further held that such issues can only be adjudicated by the Commission and the PIO cannot provide any further information in this regard.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal holding that the appellant has not sought any information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;. The Commission observed that the appellant has not sought anything which is a matter of records but is seeking the opinion of the PIO. + +Comments + +The view of the CIC has varied in many cases right from taking a technical view of a question to a pro-active stand in favour of disclosure. The answer to the query of the applicant lies in the rules which prescribe the maintenance of records which could have been referred to the applicant." +911,Disclosure regarding appointment of Directors at various NITs under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The use of incorrect numbers (i in place of 1 while quoting the exemption section) in the orders which are put up for the public view on the CIC site needs to be changed.,"Disclosure regarding appointment of Directors at various NITs under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding an advertisement given by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) for the post of Director at various National Institutes of Technology (NITs), such as copies of applications received for it, list of nominations received from eminent persons for the above post, list of Selection Committee members and the selection parameters. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to the application. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the delay occurred as the application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act was not traceable. He denied the copies of applications under section 8(i) stating that the process of selection for Director of 13 NITs was going on. Regarding the selection parameters, the appellant was advised to look into the advertisement wherein necessary qualifications and experience had been mentioned. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he had been provided only the numbers instead of the list of eminent persons. The public authority submitted that copies of documents were not furnished as the process of selection of Directors was going on. The respondent also submitted that the list of Selection Committee members was not disclosed as at that point of time Presidential approval for the same was awaited. The respondent further submitted that the Selection Committee had not finalized the modalities to scrutinise the applications and shortlist the suitable candidates to be called for interview at that point in time and thus the information could not be provided to the appellant. The appellant argued that he did not receive any response from the PIO. The public authority submitted that as per their records the original RTI was not traceable and hence they took action only after receipt of the appeal.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that as the RTI application was sent by registered post, it should not have been misplaced in the Ministry. The Commission directed the PIO to examine the circumstances in which a registered letter was not traceable and ensure that systems are put in place so that such instances didn’t recur. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the decision taken by the FAA conforms to provisions of section 8(i)(e) & (j) of the RTI Act. + +Comments + +The view of the different benches of CIC has varied on the issue of disclosure of the applications. The use of incorrect numbers (i in place of 1 while quoting the exemption section) in the orders which are put up for the public view on the CIC site needs to be changed." +912,No proposal for grant of proportional pension to those resigning from Service,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission also held that the information regarding pension has been already provided by the PIO.,"No proposal for grant of proportional pension to those resigning from Service + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act asking why he has not been paid pensionary benefits for the period in which he was an employee of Dandakaranya Project of Government of India (GoI) under the Ministry of Home Affairs. He also wanted to know whether the beneficiaries of the judgments referred to in his RTI application have since been paid pension as per the directions in the above judgment; and whether there was any proposal before the GoI to grant proportionate pension to the employees who resigned from their post after completing a minimum of ten years of service, treating their resignation as voluntary retirement. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that in the absence of copy of judgments in Writ Appeals of Honourable High Court of Kerala, it is not possible for the Ministry to provide the requisite information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that on the basis of copy of the citations of the judgements, it is revealed that DG, BSF was party in the cases and the information sought by the appellant can be given by the BSF only. The appellant was advised to approach BSF for getting the requisite information. The PIO also informed the appellant regarding the matter of pension, that there was no proposal in the Department to grant proportional pension for those resigning from Government Service.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal noting that the FAA has rightly advised the appellant to approach the concerned authorities of the BSF for getting the requisite information in reply to his RTI application. The Commission also held that the information regarding pension has been already provided by the PIO. +913,RTI - Auction report of valuable properties sold by the Central government,,"an auction such as, the copies of letter of possession, auction report and order under section 269UD(1) through an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act",[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the available information sought by the appellant has been provided.,"RTI - Auction report of valuable properties sold by the Central government + +Background: +The appellant referred to the auction sale of valuable properties held by the Central government under IT Act, 1961 and sought information regarding an auction such as, the copies of letter of possession, auction report and order under section 269UD(1) through an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. He also asked for inspection of files related to the said auction. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and denied the inspection of files stating that the files contain department’s internal correspondence, important notings, judicial matters etc. He was willing to provide copies of specific documents. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the appellant submitted that he wanted the copy of the letter of possession. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) submitted that the copy of letter of possession is not available on their records and hence they are unable to provide a certified copy it.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the submissions made by the PIO and FAA. The Commission rejected the appeal observing that the available information sought by the appellant has been provided. +914,Disclosure of contact details of the judges of SC /HC under RTI,,the contact details of the judges of the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justices of the High Courts,['8(1)(g)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"However, the CIC has held that in certain circumstances, the same may be denied to a citizen.","Disclosure of contact details of the judges of SC /HC under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the contact details of the judges of the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justices of the High Courts. He also wanted information about the public interest litigations filed in the Supreme Court. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the contact details under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;and 8(1 )(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. For the information regarding the public interest litigations, the PIO observed that the desired information was not available in the form in which it had been sought. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondents submitted that the idea of facilitating public contact with the judges by revealing their contact numbers and other details in the public domain would be repugnant to the concept of preserving the independence and objectivity of the judges. The appellant requested that he wanted the number of public interest litigations filed, subject wise. The PIO stated that the Supreme Court did not maintain statistics of the public interest litigations (PILs) under subject heads and since thousands of such cases are filed every year, finding out the content of each such litigation to determine its subject matter would almost be impossible.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the contact numbers of the judges of the Supreme Court of India and the High Courts should not be placed in the public domain not only because it might be misused to bring about undue pressure on them or to interfere with their functioning but also because it might pose a threat to their safety. The Commission also noted that the Supreme Court does not hold the type of statistics that the appellant wants. + +Comments + +The contact details of the government servants are liable for pro-active disclosure. However, the CIC has held that in certain circumstances, the same may be denied to a citizen." +915,Information regarding international trip won in a competition,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the information has been provided to the appellant and he is free to take up the matter with senior authorities within the grievance redressal mechanism.,"Information regarding international trip won in a competition + +Background: +Details with respect to a competition conducted by Public Authority with the name ‘Malaysia Chalo Pratiyogita’ and ‘Big Leap Pratiyogita 2006 – 07’ in which appellant was successfully selected as winner was sought by the appellant. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided partial information to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) further provided some additional information. The PIO admitted that he did not provide information in writing to the appellant that he had been declared successful in the competition held for international visit to Malaysia and had, as per his averments only informed the appellant on telephone. The appellant denied having received telephonic intimation of his selection for this international visit. The PIO further admitted that he had knowledge of this information on 12 April 2008 and the appellant proceeded on leave with effect from 16 April 2008. Undoubtedly no international travel kit or guidelines to be followed for international travel were provided to the appellant as per the PIO's own admission.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the information has been provided to the appellant and he is free to take up the matter with senior authorities within the grievance redressal mechanism. +916,RTI application seeking details of use of satellite phones for anti-naxal operations,,,['8(1)(a)'],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the PIO and FAA decision that the provisions of Section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act apply in this case and hence disposed the appeal.,"RTI application seeking details of use of satellite phones for anti-naxal operations + +Background: +The appellant sought the information that whether Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) ever examined the need of Broad Band Global Area Network Satellite Telephone (BGAN) services for use by Police and Para Military force to fight naxalite menace in the country. The appellant further wanted to know the details and the copies for the conclusions reached and the copy of correspondence on this subject between the MHA and Ministry of Telecommunication at the level of Minister, Home Affairs or at any other level. The appellant also sought the copies of the noting of the file(s) in which this matter has been dealt. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied disclosure in terms of Section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:of the Right to Information (RTI) Act as Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) is listed in the Second Schedule of the Act and have been given qualified exemption from the application of the Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) also stated that the information requested cannot be provided as per exemptions under section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondent submitted that a decision was taken for the improvement of the connectivity between the security forces for whom lack of communication was emerging as a barrier in successful execution of the anti naxal operations. A number of handsets were considered depending upon a number of factors like pace of connectivity, quality of voice in interior areas, compactness, portability etc. and the technology on which these equipment operated were varying in nature. The Broad Band Global Area Network Satellite Telephone (BGAN) services also had certain technical specifications and the disclosure of these parameters can create a danger to the internal security. Further, the respondent stated that the policy was at an emergent stage and was considered to be nascent as far as their usage in the naxal areas was concerned.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the PIO and FAA decision that the provisions of Section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act apply in this case and hence disposed the appeal. +917,Information relating to policy determining market prices of petroleum products,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to send copy of the letter to the appellant afresh.,"Information relating to policy determining market prices of petroleum products + +Background: +The appellant sought information relating to policy issues regarding determination of market prices of petroleum products like- petrol, diesel, kerosene and LPG gas by the Central Government/Oil PSUs and the imposition of taxes on the sales thereof by the Central Government and the State Governments concerned. The Public Information Officer (PIO) explained the mechanism of prices fixation in respect of petroleum products and the incurrence of under recoveries made by Oil Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs). He also mentioned that the tax on the sale of petroleum products is imposed both by the Central Government and the State Governments concerned as per their policy and that the dealer’s commission is determined by the PSUs in consultation with the Central Government.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the queries of the appellant have been substantially answered by the Under Secretary in as much as the mechanism of determination of prices of petroleum products has been outlined in the said letter. The CIC also noted that the appellant has not appeared before the Commission to canvass his case and it appears that the Under Secretary’s letter was not in the appellant’s hands when he filed this appeal. The Commission directed the PIO to send copy of the letter to the appellant afresh. +918,Seeking names of the doctors who worked in the emergency ward using RTI,,the names and designations of the doctors whose signatures are available on the Registration card since from the signatures on the card he could not identify the doctors who had treated his late wife,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the appellant with the names and designations of the doctors against each of the signatures on the Registration card and to furnish an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the appellant affirming the stand that only one doctor was present in the Emergency ward on the said date.,"Seeking names of the doctors who worked in the emergency ward using RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to the doctors who had treated his late wife including the names and designation of the doctors on the Registration card and some information in respect of doctors who had worked in the emergency ward. The Public Information Officer (PIO) enclosed the information received from the concerned officer and as regards the availability of the doctor in emergency ward the respondent stated that only one doctor was present in the Emergency ward. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant wanted to know the names and designations of the doctors whose signatures are available on the Registration card since from the signatures on the card he could not identify the doctors who had treated his late wife. The appellant also wanted to know the names and designations of the doctors who were present in the Emergency ward on a particular date. The respondent submitted that only one doctor was present in the emergency ward. The appellant however was not willing to believe that there was only one doctor in the emergency ward on the said date.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the appellant with the names and designations of the doctors against each of the signatures on the Registration card and to furnish an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the appellant affirming the stand that only one doctor was present in the Emergency ward on the said date. +919,Seeking information regarding statement made in Lok-Sabha using RTI,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissed the appeal noting that the information sought by appellant cannot be classified as information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","Seeking information regarding statement made in Lok-Sabha using RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act and raised some queries based on a newspaper report relating to a statement given by Shri LK Advani in the Lok Sabha to the effect that the Chief Justice of India had not permitted the government to get the services of a sitting judge of the Supreme Court to enquire into the Gujarat riots. The Public Information Officer (PIO) observed that respondent could not be expected to offer any advice or opinion on such matters, implying that no such information was available.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissed the appeal noting that the information sought by appellant cannot be classified as information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act." +920,Statistics of judges of SC / HC whose relatives practice in same court,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the information requested by the appellant is not maintained by the respondent.,"Statistics of judges of SC / HC whose relatives practice in same court + +Background: +The appellant sought the list of statistics prepared by the Law Ministry comprising of the particulars of relatives (son, daughter and other blood relatives) of lawyers practicing in the same courts where their blood relations are as positioned as incumbent Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the Department of Justice did not maintain any such statistics and no information can thus be furnished. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that at the time of appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court/ High Courts, there is a column in the application form, which seeks information regarding close relatives practicing in the Supreme Court/ High Court and after the appointment of Judges, there is no provision for seeking such information at any subsequent stage.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) perused the relevant documents on file and held that the information can only be provided as is held by the Public Authority. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the information requested by the appellant is not maintained by the respondent. +921,Information regarding dismissal of SLP and review petition by Supreme Court,,if the Supreme Court had considered all the documents received from the trial court before delivering its order,[],UNKNOWN,,,The CIC further noted that any order passed by the Supreme Court would speak for itself and it is not for the PIO or anyone else to interpret it or to speculate about the basis of that order.,"Information regarding dismissal of SLP and review petition by Supreme Court + +Background: +The Supreme Court had dismissed a Special leave Petition (SLP) and review petition filed by the appellant. Later, he filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act with rasing certain queries regarding the same. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the available information. During the hearing, the appellant insisted that he wanted to know if the Supreme Court had considered all the documents received from the trial court before delivering its order. The respondents clarified that it was entirely beyond the scope of the RTI act to interpret an order passed by the Supreme Court and to come to a conclusion whether the judges had considered the trial court documents before passing any order.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the queries of the appellant do not amount to information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The CIC further noted that any order passed by the Supreme Court would speak for itself and it is not for the PIO or anyone else to interpret it or to speculate about the basis of that order. If any litigant is dissatisfied with the order for any reason, he has to seek remedy from the Supreme Court itself by following the procedure laid down in that regard and the PIO cannot be expected to provide any answer to the queries made by the appellant." +922,Should the Supreme Court provide a record of judicial hangings under RTI?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal noting that neither of the two main items of information sought was available with the Supreme Court.,"Should the Supreme Court provide a record of judicial hangings under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information related to the number of judicial hangings ordered by the Supreme Court during the last five years and the amount of fine imposed during the same period. The Public Information Officer (PIO) referred the applicant to the Supreme Court website for some of the details and pointed out that the desired information was not maintained by the Supreme Court in the form in which it had been sought. During the hearing, the respondents pointed out that no such information was being maintained and that the text of each order passed by the Supreme Court would have to be read and scrutinized to find out about the nature of punishment imposed in any particular case. The appellant insisted that such information should be maintained by the Supreme Court as it is of great public interest.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal noting that neither of the two main items of information sought was available with the Supreme Court. +923,Are the employment details of Insurance agent liable to be disclosed under RTI?,,,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the decision of the PIO the appeal was rejected.,"Are the employment details of Insurance agent liable to be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought the employment details of an agent of New India Assurance Company Limited through an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) issued a third party notice and refused to disclose information as per the third party objection. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) provide partial information and denied for the rest of information under section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the decision of the PIO the appeal was rejected. +924,Should a public authority call for information to provide to a RTI applicant?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that IRDA derives statutory powers in certain areas of regulation/ supervision from the various provisions of the Insurance Act, 1939; IRDA Act, 1999 and rules made there under.","Should a public authority call for information to provide to a RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant sought the details of the payroll records and training/ HR records and other employment details of his wife from the Insurance Regulatory and Development Agency (IRDA) through an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to provide any information stating that it was not available with Insurance Regulatory and Development Agency (IRDA).","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that IRDA derives statutory powers in certain areas of regulation/ supervision from the various provisions of the Insurance Act, 1939; IRDA Act, 1999 and rules made there under. The employment issue of an employee working in a regulated entity does not fall under the regulatory purview of the Authority." +925,RTI application seeking the status of the proposal for financial assistance,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the contentions of the PIO and directed him to fulfill his commitment.,"RTI application seeking the status of the proposal for financial assistance + +Background: +The appellant was a B. Tech and claimed to have invented gaseous hydro turbine for separating methane gas from the sea water. He submitted that he has been pursuing his proposal for financial assistance with Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) for last five years but to no avail. The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that while one expert body had found merit in the appellant’s invention, but another expert body had given a negative report. Even so, the appellant’s proposal for financial assistance has not been totally rejected and he has been advised to file a revised proposal for further processing. The PIO also showed the willingness to invite the appellant to visit Delhi and make a presentation regarding his invention to an expert body on a mutually convenient date and time, for which the DSIR will pay second class to and fro rail fare and living expenses to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the contentions of the PIO and directed him to fulfill his commitment. + +Comments + +RTI has been used by the citizens in varied ways which may vary from fantastic to bizarre. Use of RTI Act by someone for filing a RTI application for getting finance for a research project and forcing the process of decision making to act in a certain manner is a real innovative manner of using the Act." +926,RTI application seeking multiple questions relating to election duty details,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also suggested the appellant to make precise queries under RTI as the application should deal with one subject matter only and multiple queries on different subject matters should be avoided.,"RTI application seeking multiple questions relating to election duty details + +Background: +The appellant sought the details of the different employees who were deployed on election duty relating to Assembly Elections 2006, Parliamentary Elections 2009 and Municipality Elections 2010 and other related information through a Right to Information (RTI) application. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred part of the RTI application to the PIO of other zone who provided partial information to the appellant. The appellant stated that the required information was not provided as per the points asked. The respondent submitted that the information available as per the records has been already provided.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the attested lists and the current status of the enquiry and outcome of the said enquiry to the appellant. The Commission further directed the PIO to check whether information is held with the Public Authority and if so, the procedure as per Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005should be followed with respect to the disclosure of third party information. The Commission also suggested the appellant to make precise queries under RTI as the application should deal with one subject matter only and multiple queries on different subject matters should be avoided. + +Comments + +Legally, there is no limitation of restricting the RTI application to one subject. It is, however, very demanding and awkward for a PIO to deal with an application having a dozen issues relating to multiple topics." +927,Can the details of the complainants be disclosed under RTI?,,,"['8(1)(g)', '8(1)(j)']",INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission observed that rest of the information cannot be disclosed under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","Can the details of the complainants be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought the name, father’s name, designation, address of signatory of the complainants who had signed the complaint made to the branch manager of LIC. The Public Information Officer (CIC) denied the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. During the hearing, the appellant submitted that she had been provided with a copy of the complaint letter which bears only the signatures of all the complainants.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the full name of each of the complainants along with their designation and office address to the appellant. The Commission observed that rest of the information cannot be disclosed under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act." +928,Can the information regarding official tours be disclosed under RTI?,,,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to provide details of official tours undertaken by the person, the places visited, dates of tour, expenditure incurred and purpose of visits and advances taken for tours and approval of competent authority for undertaking the tours during the period.","Can the information regarding official tours be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought the copies of applications submitted by a person seeking advances for meeting expenses connected with his tours for a period of 17months, approval of the Competent Authority for every tour, the mode of payments along with the cheque number and date of the cheque. He also wanted the copies of T.A. Bills submitted by the person. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that expenses incurred from Public funds for official tours cannot be termed personal information of anyone. The Commission directed the PIO to provide details of official tours undertaken by the person, the places visited, dates of tour, expenditure incurred and purpose of visits and advances taken for tours and approval of competent authority for undertaking the tours during the period." +929,Can the time of arrest and release on bail be sought under RTI?,,"alleged departmental action taken against the AAO, Branch",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to give in writing to the applicant their statement that as per the Police FIR / report there is no mention of time of arrest and time of release on bail of the AAO (third party) and also that the Police had informed the Company that the arrest of third party was made after a gap of 6 months.,"Can the time of arrest and release on bail be sought under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding alleged departmental action taken against the AAO, Branch. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that they have written to the third party for obtaining his assent for the disclosure of the information.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to give in writing to the applicant their statement that as per the Police FIR / report there is no mention of time of arrest and time of release on bail of the AAO (third party) and also that the Police had informed the Company that the arrest of third party was made after a gap of 6 months. +930,RTI application seeking information related to the Internal Sewerage System,,the outstanding amount against a particular connection,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the available information has already been provided to the appellant.,"RTI application seeking information related to the Internal Sewerage System + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to the completion and working of the internal sewerage system in a village including the public notice issued in this connection. He also wanted to know the outstanding amount against a particular connection. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not reply to the application. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant. He also informed the appellant that the website of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) has information on water charge on the Home page. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondent submitted that a Public Notice was indeed issued in respect of completion of Internal Sewerage System. They also produced a copy of the Notice and submitted that it had been put up on the concerned web site and published in various newspapers as well. The respondent further stated that the appellant has sought the documents submitted by another person in the process of getting the water connection and despite putting in their best efforts they could not locate any such documents.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the available information has already been provided to the appellant. +931,Can the details of charge sheeted employees be disclosed under RTI?,,list of persons who failed three times in the examination in scale I to V from the seniority list within the declared vacancies,['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission further observed that giving out information in terms of names of the employees is not required and no larger public interest would be served by such disclosure and may result in causing embarrassment to the employees whose names have been disclosed.,"Can the details of charge sheeted employees be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought information pertaining to list of persons who failed three times in the examination in scale I to V from the seniority list within the declared vacancies. He also wanted the details of those employees who are charge sheeted and cases are pending against the officers from the above mentioned seniority list. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and denied the rest under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act stating that it was confidential in nature.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to verify the correctness of information already furnished to the appellant and provide additional information in terms of numbers only in case there is a discrepancy. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide information related to the charge-sheeted employees in terms of numbers only. The Commission further observed that giving out information in terms of names of the employees is not required and no larger public interest would be served by such disclosure and may result in causing embarrassment to the employees whose names have been disclosed. +932,Disclosure of discretionary appointments in the Lok Sabha and its secretariat,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to provide a complete list of all employees in the roles of the Lok Sabha who had been appointed at the discretion of various authorities and as per the rules/ orders framed for such appointment.,"Disclosure of discretionary appointments in the Lok Sabha and its secretariat + +Background: +The appellant sought information concerning various appointments made in the Lok Sabha and its secretariat including those on discretionary basis. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided most of the information except the one related to discretionary appointments. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) observed that it would disproportionately divert the resources of the Lok Sabha if this information would be provided in the form in which it had been sought. Instead, he invited the appellant to inspect the relevant records. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the appellant submitted that he was mainly interested in the information related to all discretionary appointments made in the Lok Sabha. He further submitted that the advice for inspection of records was made to him some 80 days after he filed his RTI application and that he was not interested in only inspecting the records and that he wanted some minimum details about all such appointments. The respondents pointed out that all appointments in the Lok Sabha were made under various rules and orders framed from time to time in this regard and, therefore, it would not be right to say that some appointments were made purely on discretionary basis. The respondent also produced the copy of the said rules, according to which certain authorities in the Lok Sabha can choose to employ officials in their personal office at their discretion and that such employees would serve on coterminous basis.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the details about all such appointments should be regularly published in compliance with the provisions of section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;(ix) and (x) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Commission directed the PIO to bring this to the notice of the competent authority in the Lok Sabha and ensure that all such details are published. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide a complete list of all employees in the roles of the Lok Sabha who had been appointed at the discretion of various authorities and as per the rules/ orders framed for such appointment. The list should include the names of the employees, the date of their first appointment, and the authority with whom and at whose discretion the said employee has been appointed and the total monthly emoluments being paid to the employee concerned." +933,RTI - Who is entitled for the family pension after the death of a retired employee?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission also directed the PIO to look into the matter afresh and if it is a genuine case, then cut through the meaningless procedural formalities and have an appropriate decision taken by the competent authority expeditiously.","RTI - Who is entitled for the family pension after the death of a retired employee? + +Background: +The appellant’s late father was an employee of the Indian Railway. He retired from Service in 1968 and was getting pension since then. He expired in 1972; thereafter his mother was the recipient of the family pension who also expired in 2008. The appellant claimed that he has an unmarried sister whose income is less then Rs. 3500/- per month and as per rules framed by the Central Government, an unmarried daughter of a deceased employee is eligible for family pension. The appellant submitted that the concerned officials of the Indian Railway have made detailed enquires into the matter during the last 1 ½ years and are satisfied that his sister is eligible for family pension and yet pension has not been sanctioned so far thereby causing lots of mental torture, agony and harassment to him and her sister. In this regard he filed an application under Right to information (RTI) act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that that the Department had recommended the case but the Accounts Department of the Northern Railway had raised objections. The appellant argued that as per para 58 of P. S. No. 12008 / 2000, the income certificate furnished by the concerned beneficiary may be accepted by the Railway Authorities.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to furnish a copy of the objections raised by the Accounts Department of the Northern Railways to the appellant for meeting the objections as far as practicable. The Commission also directed the PIO to look into the matter afresh and if it is a genuine case, then cut through the meaningless procedural formalities and have an appropriate decision taken by the competent authority expeditiously." +934,Frivolous RTI appeal regarding a transfer matter,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission dismissed the appeal stating that it is a frivolous appeal.,"Frivolous RTI appeal regarding a transfer matter + +Background: +The appellant filed several appeals regarding a transfer matter. During the hearing, the Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that the appellant has since retired from service so the appeal should be dismissed off. PIO also submitted that the appellant and his wife are in the habit of filing one RTI application after another in this regard which have already been decided by this Commission from time to time.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) stated that the transfer matter is purely in administrative domain. The Commission dismissed the appeal stating that it is a frivolous appeal. +935,Can a medical card be issued to wife of a government employee who is separated?,,whether she can avail the health facilities although her husband and she are living separately,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the appellant has been replied to adequately by the PIO and the request for issuance of medical card falls outside the ambit of the RTI Act.,"Can a medical card be issued to wife of a government employee who is separated? + +Background: +The appellant’s husband was suspended; she filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act, seeking details regarding his suspension. She also wanted to know whether she can avail the health facilities although her husband and she are living separately. The Public Information Officer (PIO) gave part information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondents pointed out that the appellant has already been informed that as long as in the records of the Public Authority she is shown as the legal wife of the employee she can continue to avail of the health facilities. The appellant requested that a medical card be issued separately to her since her husband is not allowing her to use the medical card already available with him. She also stated that he has married a second time, while she remains his wife.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the appellant has been replied to adequately by the PIO and the request for issuance of medical card falls outside the ambit of the RTI Act. +936,RTI application seeking data entry skill test for the post of Tax Assistant,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,5000.0,"Under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO to give reasons as to why the penalty should not be imposed on him for the delay.","RTI application seeking data entry skill test for the post of Tax Assistant + +Background: +The appellant sought information concerning the data entry skill test for the post of Tax Assistant. A delayed and unsatisfactory reply was received from the Public Information Officer (PIO). + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the appellant submitted that he had been waiting for so long for the information. He also submitted that he had faced many difficulties in filing the RTI application as the office concerned in the SSC had refused to accept it. The respondent pointed out that the entire matter related to the northern regional office of the SSC and that whatever information was supposed to be provided should have been given by that office.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has been deprived of the information he had sought a long time back without any reasonable cause and had suffered a lot of detriment and harassment. Under section 19 (8)(b) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the appellant. The Commission directed the PIO concerned to provide the desired information. Under section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO to give reasons as to why the penalty should not be imposed on him for the delay." +937,The PIO should write his name along with his signature while replying to RTI application,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The Commission further noted that while replying to the applicant, the former PIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature and directed the PIO to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future.","The PIO should write his name along with his signature while replying to RTI application + +Background: +The appellant had sought information pertaining to the 93rd Annual Conference of Indian Economic Association held in the Punjab University, such as the sources and amounts received as grant, list of delegates, who were honoured, the list and cost of presentation items such as suits, ties, shawls and mementos. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the appellant stated that as per the information received by him no suits were presented to the delegates; however he had photographic proof that cream colour coats were presented to all the dignitaries. The PIO stated that he had truthfully submitted that no suits were presented on the occasion.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) expressed the displeasure at the manner in which the PIO handled this RTI application, by sticking to the wording of the RTI application he had attempted to obstruct disclosure of full and factual information to the applicant as per the true spirit of the Act. The Commission held that such an approach of the PIO is seen as obstructionist and willful non- disclosure of information that was disclosable particularly since the expenditure on these gifts has been met from public funds. The Commission warned the PIO to be more careful in future. PIO was directed to provide full and complete information regarding expenditure incurred on all types of gifts including the coats at the above mentioned conference to the appellant. The Commission further noted that while replying to the applicant, the former PIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature and directed the PIO to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future." +938,Disclosure of details under RTI in a case being investigated by CBI,,the Modus Operandi Purchase processing of the case including approval and sanction for the purchases and name of the competent authority who granted sanction for the purchase of the equipment,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to disclose the name and designation of the competent authority to the appellant.,"Disclosure of details under RTI in a case being investigated by CBI + +Background: +The appellant sought a copy of the letter written by a particular person, details of action taken on this information and corrective measure taken to control the likely corruption. He also wanted to know the Modus Operandi Purchase processing of the case including approval and sanction for the purchases and name of the competent authority who granted sanction for the purchase of the equipment. During the hearing, the Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that it is a corruption matter and is under investigation with Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for a long time. The Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR) had also initiated departmental enquiries in the matter and the Head Office is awaiting outcome of the CBI investigation before taking a final decision in the matter. It is because of this reason that information could not be given to the appellant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) found no reason as to why the name of the competent authority who granted sanction for the purchase of the equipment in question cannot be disclosed to the appellant. The Commission directed the PIO to disclose the name and designation of the competent authority to the appellant. +939,Disclosure of medical records to the son of the deceased under RTI,,,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide an attested photocopy of records, if available, to the appellant and if the records are not available this should be clearly stated.","Disclosure of medical records to the son of the deceased under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to his late father’s death, such as, the cause of death, period of his illness, his ailment and a copy of his medical reports. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act stating that it was personal information of the employee, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of individual. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) claimed that the appellant’s father was not an employee of this center and was a Corporate Health Service Scheme (CHSS) beneficiary under Contributory Health Service Scheme of this department. Medical information about any person is protected by the Code of Professional Conduct made by the Medical Council of India (MCI) under section 33 (M) read with section 20(A) of the Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the PIO stated that the matter is about 10 years old and the records may have been given to appellant’s sister and he is not sure whether the records are available.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide an attested photocopy of records, if available, to the appellant and if the records are not available this should be clearly stated." +940,Enquiry under RTI Act for allegations of black marketing of ration,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The Commission directed the head of the public authority, Commissioner, Department of Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs, to enquire into the appellant’s allegations and submit a detailed report to the Commission along with the action taken, if any, against the shop keeper responsible for any misdeed.","Enquiry under RTI Act for allegations of black marketing of ration + +Background: +The appellant had filed a complaint with the public authority against a shop keeper who was illegally running a general store and selling rations in black. She later filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act, with the Department of Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs seeking the daily progress report and the outcome of her complaint. The FSO, C51 informed the applicant that the information sought pertains to Circle 49. During the hearing, the respondents stated that they had enquired into the complaint through their Inspector. They also submitted that since the appellant’s ration card does not carry the stamp, she is not being given rations and that the allegations leveled by the applicant could not be substantiated. The appellant stated that there are at least 50 people who are willing to give in writing that they have all bought rations in the black because the shop keeper has been refusing to sell the rations at the correct price.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the allegations leveled by the appellant are serious ones which call for an enquiry by a senior officer of the department under section18(2)Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.of the RTI Act, in order to provide the factual information to the appellant. The Commission directed the head of the public authority, Commissioner, Department of Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs, to enquire into the appellant’s allegations and submit a detailed report to the Commission along with the action taken, if any, against the shop keeper responsible for any misdeed." +941,Can the future plans of the company be disclosed under RTI?,,development of deep water blocks by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) under the New Exploration Licensing Policy (NELP) scheme and the related matters,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that no organization can disclose its future plans to a third party, especially ONGC which explores hydro carbons, a highly critical input for the country’s economic growth and defence potential.","Can the future plans of the company be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding development of deep water blocks by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) under the New Exploration Licensing Policy (NELP) scheme and the related matters. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information, except for those related to the plans of ONGC for development of deep water blocks and deep water rigs. During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the plans of ONGC cannot be disclosed to the appellant as it involves issues of commercial confidentiality and trade secrets.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that no organization can disclose its future plans to a third party, especially ONGC which explores hydro carbons, a highly critical input for the country’s economic growth and defence potential." +942,RTI Act casts the responsibility of providing the information on the holder,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"Regarding the case of Afzal Guru, the Commission accepted the respondent’s plea that the entire matter is yet to be decided by the President.","RTI Act casts the responsibility of providing the information on the holder + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the President’s Secretariat seeking information concerning the disposal of mercy petitions by the President of India in general and particularly in the case of Afzal Guru. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information including photocopies of some file noting regarding other mercy petitions while informing that since a final decision on the mercy petition of Afzal Guru was yet to be taken, the desired information could not be disclosed. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO should make it clear if all the available documents have been provided or some of those have been withheld. No document or record can be withheld without assigning any particular exemption provision. The copies some documents including the correspondence, notes, comments and opinion, if any, have not been provided. The respondent argued that many such documents had been received from third parties and the decision to disclose such information should rest with those parties.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the RTI Act clearly casts the responsibility of providing copies of records and documents on the holder. The PIO should either: + +If there is any information which has been provided by any third party in confidence, the PIO may consult the third party under section 11 of the RTI Act. The Commission held that in case the PIO decides not to disclose any of the remaining documents and records, he shall pass a speaking order stating the exact exemption provision on the basis of which any information is being withheld. Regarding the case of Afzal Guru, the Commission accepted the respondent’s plea that the entire matter is yet to be decided by the President." +943,Is the adopted child entitled for the family pension?,First Appellate Authority (FAA),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the rule being sought by the appellant is not available in the form in which the Public Authority has interpreted the rule and that therefore there is nothing available for the PIO to disclose further.,"Is the adopted child entitled for the family pension? + +Background: +An application under right to Information (RTI) Act was filed with the Public Information Officer (PIO), Railway Board asking a review of the representation addressed to the Railway Minister by the appellant and to provide information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that in terms of Rule 75(19)(b)(iii) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, son/ daughter adopted legally by the Railway servant shall be treated as family for the purpose of family pension. Child adopted by the spouse after the death of the Railway servant will not be entitled to get family pension. The applicant filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) seeking the exact rule wherein it is written that the Child adopted by the spouse after the death of the Railway servant/ pensioner will not be entitled to get family pension. The respondents submitted that the rule stating that Child adopted by the spouse after the death of the Railway servant/ pensioner will not be entitled to get family pension is not available in the records and that it is only an interpretation of the actual rule used by the Public Authority while settling similar pension matters.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the rule being sought by the appellant is not available in the form in which the Public Authority has interpreted the rule and that therefore there is nothing available for the PIO to disclose further. +944,Should the site plan and location map of a mall be disclosed under RTI?,,,['8(1)(d)'],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission upheld the refusal of the plan while directing the PIO to give a copy of the site plan and the area chart to the appellant.,"Should the site plan and location map of a mall be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding a cinema hall converted into a mall like the current property status, copy of the sanctioned map, the demolition action report and the criteria set by MCD for construction of mall and Cineplex, the details of FAR allotted by the town planner, the conversion policy and the charges on land use from cinema premises to the Cineplex / mall etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) supplied part information and informed the appellant that the copy of the sanctioned plan along with the file can be provided after the third party permission. The PIO informed that the appellant can also inspect the relevant building plan file and the copy of the requisite documents will be supplied on depositing of the charges as per the provisions of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the PIO stated that the third party has objected to releasing the information. + +Proceedings + +In the first hearing, the Central Information Commission (CIC) pointed that the PIO must determine whether the information sought by the appellant is exempt as per the provisions of section 8(1) of the RTI Act and then take a decision and should not refuse to give the information merely on the ground that third party had raised an objection. The Commission directed the PIO to give notice to the third party to show the Commission if the information sought by the appellant is exempt under section 8(1) of the RTI Act. + +The second hearing was adjourned and in the third hearing, the third party gave a written submission claiming that the information is exempt under section 8(1)(d),8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;& 8(1)(j). The third party also argued that the plan is intellectual property of the Architect and also disclosing it could lead to endangering the physical safety of the persons who would be using these buildings.",The Commission upheld the refusal of the plan while directing the PIO to give a copy of the site plan and the area chart to the appellant. +945,Information related to GPF is covered under personal information as per RTI Act,,what action is taken if it is found that he has misused the amount withdrawn from his GPF,['8(1)(j)'],UNKNOWN,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the information sought in the Right to Information (RTI) application attracts the provisions of section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act and no larger public interest has been established by the appellant for seeking the information.","Information related to GPF is covered under personal information as per RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding a withdrawal from General Provident Fund (GPF) by a Constable such as, the reasons assigned for withdrawal, the documents submitted, a copy of GPF statement and the evidence given by him for utilization of the GPF. He also wanted to know what action is taken if it is found that he has misused the amount withdrawn from his GPF. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information sought relates to third party. The Constable (third party) has objected to the disclosure of the sought information and documents relating to his GPF records.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the information sought in the Right to Information (RTI) application attracts the provisions of section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act and no larger public interest has been established by the appellant for seeking the information." +946,Information submitted by third party for allotment of PAN Card sought under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal noting that the information sought was of a personal nature.,"Information submitted by third party for allotment of PAN Card sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought a certified copy of application for allotment of PAN along with its enclosures like partnership deed or registration certificate in respect of a company. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that information relating to PAN and other information relating to PAN such as address, documents submitted as proof of identity and address was personal information of the PAN holder and subject to confidentiality under section 138 of IT Act. The PIO also stated that the information submitted by applicant along with PAN application form was held by the department in a fiduciary capacity and was of a personal nature, hence exempted from disclosure under section 8(i)(e) and 8(i)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.","The First Appellate Authority (FAA) submitted that information sought by the appellant contains personal information relating to issues such as nature of the business, percentage of share holding, source of funds, partnership details and plans regarding conducting of the business which were exempted from disclosure under section 8(i)(j) of the RTI Act and the appellant has not been able to prove any public interest. The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal noting that the information sought was of a personal nature." +947,RTI application seeking status of the refund amount under Health Insurance Scheme,,the status of the refund amount under his Health Insurance Scheme,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission further held that the respondents should also provide the details of the refund amount and cheque number issued to the appellant.,"RTI application seeking status of the refund amount under Health Insurance Scheme + +Background: +An ex- employee of LIC filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) act, seeking information regarding the status of the refund amount under his Health Insurance Scheme. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that information would be provided by the concerned department shortly. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the appellant that grievance matters cannot be resolved under RTI Act, 2005. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondents submitted that status of the refund amount cannot be traced as it is not clear as to under which Head of Account this amount is deposited. The respondents further submitted that if the appellant was willing to provide the original copy of the receipts of the premium payments made by him, the information can be traced. The appellant stated that in the past, he has provided several times the photo copies of the receipts to the PIO, but still no action has been taken by the Public Authority.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the appellant to give the photo copy of the receipts once again to the deemed PIO, who will forward the same through fax to the PIO. The PIO would then trace the information and provide it to the appellant. The Commission further held that the respondents should also provide the details of the refund amount and cheque number issued to the appellant." +948,Information related to the GoM (Naxal Division) sought under RTI,,,['8(1)(a)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal holding that the RTI application has been properly dealt with by the PIO and FAA of the respondent and that the provisions of section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act are applicable in the present case.","Information related to the GoM (Naxal Division) sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the information related to the Group of Ministers (GoM) constituted such as, the members of each GoM, date/venue of meeting of each GoM, copies of minutes of meeting of each GoM from 2005 till date  and the report submitted by GoM. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the applicant that the said application was transferred to the Joint Secretary (NM.II), Naxal Management Division. The requisite information is secret in nature and the same cannot be provided under section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act, stating that parting with the above information can prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India as well as the security and strategic interests of the State and is not in larger public interest. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the deliberations on naxal issues by the Empowered Group of Ministers are strategic in nature and includes inter-alia, the nature of anti-naxal operations, the disclosure of which can seriously affect Government’s overall strategy against Left wing Extremism and therefore, took exemption under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal holding that the RTI application has been properly dealt with by the PIO and FAA of the respondent and that the provisions of section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act are applicable in the present case." +949,Using RTI to get compensation for incorrect towing of car,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) found no reason to interfere in the replies of the respondent and the appeal was disposed of.,"Using RTI to get compensation for incorrect towing of car + +Background: +The appellant’s car (Maruti Baleno) was towed by the crane operator and the bumper was damaged in the process. The appellant claimed that he had informed the crane operator and the head constable about the wrong way in which the car was being towed. The appellant further submitted that the wrong way being used for towing cars and the behavior of the Head Constable need to be rectified by passing necessary instructions for future action and he should be awarded damages. In this regard he filed an application under Right to information (RTI) Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that as per statement of crane operator, the bumper of the car was damaged prior to tow and a copy of the DD entry was also provided to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) also informed the appellant that he should pursue the matter with DCP/Traffic at Hqrs in this regard as what was sought by the appellant was beyond the purview of the section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the matter has been settled for Rs. 5000/- which has been paid by the crane operator to the appellant. The appellant also furnished a certificate stating that he has received Rs. 5,000/- as repairing charge for the damaged bumper of his car.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) found no reason to interfere in the replies of the respondent and the appeal was disposed of. + +Comments + +The case depicts how citizens have used RTI Act for achieving various ends." +950,Can the reasons for exercising the discretion be sought under RTI?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC also directed the PIO to supply information regarding the duties and responsibilities of various officers at different ranks to the appellant.,"Can the reasons for exercising the discretion be sought under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant was a Bachelor of Engineering and working as Charge-man in the Factory. He had applied for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) so that he could look for a job elsewhere but NOC was not granted to him. He also submitted that NOC was granted to certain other Charge-men but it was denied to him for no good reasons. In this regard, he filed three separate applications under Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that the Management has exercised its discretion in the grant of NOC to the other individuals and NOC was denied to the appellant due to shortage of staff in the Factory.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the Management has discretion in the matter but it has to be kept in mind that it is also the duty of the Management to see that its employees realize their full potential by exploring career progression avenues of their liking which is possible only through the grant of NOC. The Commission directed the General Manager to look into the appellant’s case afresh considering his educational qualifications and the fact that he has already served the Factory for 08 years. The CIC also directed the PIO to supply information regarding the duties and responsibilities of various officers at different ranks to the appellant. +951,Can a 'surety' seek third party information under RTI?,,,['8(1)(g)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission ruled that if the order of the CIC has been upheld by the High Court then the appellant can prefer RTI application before the PIO, LIC Housing Finance Ltd.","Can a 'surety' seek third party information under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought the details about the House Property which was built by securing Joint Housing loan. The Public Information (PIO) provided part information and refused to provide rest of the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the appellant stated that he sought this information on account of the fact that he has stood as surety for the third party in respect of housing loan taken by them from the Comptroller Co-Operatives Bank and LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and he wishes to produce the requested information before the court as the third party was absconding. The respondent stated that LIC Housing Finance Ltd is a separate entity.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. has filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the decision of the CIC declaring it a public authority and has also taken stay on the implementation of the said order of the Commission. The respondent could not confirm the current status of the case in High Court. The Commission ruled that if the order of the CIC has been upheld by the High Court then the appellant can prefer RTI application before the PIO, LIC Housing Finance Ltd. providing all the details of the loan account and PIO will provide information to the appellant as he is a surety in the present case." +952,Copy of order for the funds given to Municipal Councilors,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,25000.0,,"25,000/- on the Accountant under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act for a delay of more than 100 days.","Copy of order for the funds given to Municipal Councilors + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding orders by which concurrence was given for the funds to Municipal Councilors, such as the copies of estimate, work order, copy of justification for delay, copy of quality control report, third Party Test Check, copy of measurement book and final payment bills etc. The Public Information Officer invited the appellant for inspection of the records, stating that the information sought by him was voluminous and it would take time and labour to trace the record and prepare the required information. He also informed that the photocopy of any record desired by the appellant will be provided to him after depositing the necessary fees as per the RTI Act. No information was provided to the appellant, despite the orders of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) who had directed for disclosure of complete information. + +Proceedings + +The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the complete information as per records to the appellant. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI act, the Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO to give reasons as to why penalty should not be levied on him. Under section 20(2), the Commission recommended disciplinary action against the PIO stating that even after repeated reminders, the PIO persistently refused to give the information. During the hearing the appellant stated that he had received the complete information after a delay. The PIO stated that the responsibility for the delay in providing the information could be assigned to the Assistant Engineer (AE), the Assistant Accountant-II and two accountants of the Public Authority. The Accountant claimed that he tried to get the information from the dealing assistants but could not get it.","The Commission observed that the information which was to be provided was with the accounts branch and that it was the responsibility of the Accounts Officer to ensure that the work was done and the FAA’s order was implemented. As the Accounts Officer failed to give evidence before the Commission that he made any efforts to obtain the information as per the order of the FAA, the Commission imposed the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the Accountant under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act for a delay of more than 100 days." +953,Weightage accorded to the remarks of three reporting officers while arriving at the final assessment in the APAR,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that there is no obligation on part of the public authority to give the information in a format desired by the appellant.,"Weightage accorded to the remarks of three reporting officers while arriving at the final assessment in the APAR + +Background: +The appellant had written a letter (enclosing her APAR) to CIT-I, requesting him to secure assessments from three other ROs under whom she had served for different periods in the same year, before taking a view. In this connection she filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking whether assessments were secured from three other ROs; weight age accorded to each of them while arriving at the final and composite assessment and if the assessments were received but not considered before arriving at composite assessment. Being dissatisfied with the information provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO), the appellant filed the second appeal in which she submitted a detailed format in which she wanted weight ages accorded by three other officers to be listed out.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to a Delhi High Court [Union Public Service Commission versus Ran Vijay Singh dt. 24.4.12] which ruled that the RTI Act does not oblige a public authority to create information which the applicant may desire to seek. The public authority is not obliged to analyse, study or arrange the information that it has like a statistician, and present the same in the manner that the applicant may demand. The Commission rejected the appeal observing that there is no obligation on part of the public authority to give the information in a format desired by the appellant." +954,Disclosure of seniority list for DPC sought under RTI,,her position in the seniority list of the department,[],REMANDED,,,The Commission remanded the case back to the FAA directing him to grant a personal hearing and examine the authenticity of the statements of both the appellant and the PIO on the basis of the records available with the public authority as well as with the appellant and then pass a speaking order in the matter.,"Disclosure of seniority list for DPC sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information about her position in the seniority list of the department. She also requested for Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) list and copies of Recruitment Rules etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) forwarded point-wise reply as given by the deemed PIO, Superintendent (E-III) to the applicant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the E–II branch to respond to queries of the appellant’s RTI application. The E-II branch provided the information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the appellant stated that the seniority list provided by the respondents does not indicate the correct position of her seniority.  The respondents stated that they have provided the factual information to the appellant as per their records. The appellant produced a copy of another seniority list which reflected some contradiction in the position taken by the public authority with regard to the appellant’s seniority. The appellant also cited a case of another person who had joined the services of the public authority after the appellant, but was having higher rank than the appellant in the seniority list.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the issue was purely administrative in nature. The Commission remanded the case back to the FAA directing him to grant a personal hearing and examine the authenticity of the statements of both the appellant and the PIO on the basis of the records available with the public authority as well as with the appellant and then pass a speaking order in the matter. +955,Is a person entitled to prefix the designation ‘Professor in Medicine’ after getting the scale of Professor?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the appellant had not sought any information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act and hence no information could be provided.","Is a person entitled to prefix the designation ‘Professor in Medicine’ after getting the scale of Professor? + +Background: +The appellant desired to know whether he is entitled to prefix the designation Professor in Medicine after getting the scale of Professor. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that it was not within the ambit of information as defined in section 2(1)(f). During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the appellant is expecting the PIO to determine the eligibility of a person. The PIO explained that there is process in Medical Council of India (MCI) to determine such eligibility. He also submitted that he has sent a proforma for determining eligibility of the candidate for holding a Teaching Position in a Medical College. However, appellant has not sent the relevant proforma to MCI.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the appellant had not sought any information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act and hence no information could be provided. + +Comments + +It would have been appropriate for the appellant to fill the proforma and send to the MCI. In the first place, asking the criteria / eligibility norms from the MCI for the designation of ‘Professor in Medicine’ would have been appropriate on the part of appellant." +956,Disclosure of commission paid to insurance agents under RTI,,agency commission paid to two agents of the Company in respect of his four insurance policies,['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"to make the system of release of Agency Commission more transparent by providing the policy numbers for which the Commission is being released, on the agency Commission bills and discharge vouchers.","Disclosure of commission paid to insurance agents under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding agency commission paid to two agents of the Company in respect of his four insurance policies. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld PIO’s decision stating that the policy numbers for which monthly commission was disbursed to an agent could not be disclosed under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The appellant produced the copies of the Disbursement Vouchers showing release of agency Commission to the two above mentioned agents which were blank in the column marked ‘Policy Numbers’, submitted that the four policies mentioned by him in his RTI application were taken by him directly from the Company and never through either of the two agents who were receiving agency Commission in respect of the appellant’s insurance policies. He alleged that the practice followed by the company not to provide the Disbursement Voucher and the policy numbers for which Commission was being released to a particular agent was an opaque practice which allowed possible misuse of the system to release agency Commission to agents who had in fact never sold those insurance products. The respondent submitted that the Disbursement Vouchers were computer generated and not programmed to provide the policy numbers for which the agency Commission was being released.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the computer generated/ handwritten disbursement vouchers which clearly indicate the policy numbers in respect of which the agency fees is released in favour of the insurance agent. The Commission disagreed with the logic given by the FAA, that providing of the policy numbers on the disbursement vouchers will be detrimental to the commercial interests of the company, observing that the names, addresses and other details of the insured would not be given on the disbursement vouchers. The Commission stated that the instant case had brought a matter of larger public interest to the fore. Through the RTI application it was evident that at least in some branch offices of the Company, agency Commission was wrongly being released in a very non-transparent manner to insurance agents. At national level, this amount was likely to be fairly large and it was imperative to immediately put a stop to this financial impropriety by making the functioning of the public authority in the matter of issuing of disbursement vouchers, more transparent. Under section 19(8)(a)(iii) of the RTI Act, the Commission directed the CMD of the United India Insurance Company Limited to direct all its Regional Offices, Divisional Offices, Branch Offices etc. to make the system of release of Agency Commission more transparent by providing the policy numbers for which the Commission is being released, on the agency Commission bills and discharge vouchers." +957,Outcome of representation given by the appellant sought under RTI,,the outcome of his representation regarding non implementation of orders by Deputy Conservator of Forest (DCF) for joining of duty,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,2000.0,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.the Commission served a notice to the PIO to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for his failure to transfer the appellant’s RTI request to the concerned PIO of information under section 6(3) of the RTI Act.","Outcome of representation given by the appellant sought under RTI + +Background: +The applicant wanted to know the outcome of his representation regarding non implementation of orders by Deputy Conservator of Forest (DCF) for joining of duty. He also requested for the noting portion of a particular order. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information. The appellant argued that he has not received information related to some points. During the hearing, the respondents stated that information related to some points pertains to the PIO (HQ).","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the PIO has failed to transfer the part application to the concerned PIO under section 6(3) of the RTI Act which has obstructed the disclosure of information to the appellant and thereby has inflicted unwarranted financial detriment on him. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission granted a compensation Rs. 2000/- to the appellant. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant in respect of some points. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.the Commission served a notice to the PIO to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for his failure to transfer the appellant’s RTI request to the concerned PIO of information under section 6(3) of the RTI Act." +958,"Under RTI, when is the investigation process said to be complete?",,the incident in connection with Yoga Shivar of Baba Ram Dev,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +The CIC has dithered on taking a stand whether filing of the charge sheet can mean an end to the investigation.","Under RTI, when is the investigation process said to be complete? + +Background: +The appellant sought information pertaining to the incident in connection with Yoga Shivar of Baba Ram Dev. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act stating that a case had been registered in this regard. As the matter was sub-judice before the Supreme Court of India, providing the information at this stage would impede the process of investigation and prosecution of offenders. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the information in connection with grant of permission by the Police for holding the Yoga Shivar. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the directions of the FAA were complied with by the PIO. The respondent also stated that investigation was now complete and charge-sheet has been filed.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the requisite information to the appellant observing that the information as sought for will no longer impede the process of investigation and therefore, provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;do not apply. + +Comments + +The CIC has dithered on taking a stand whether filing of the charge sheet can mean an end to the investigation." +959,TCS directed to disclose details of contract made for Pass Port Seva Kendra under RTI,,,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(e)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comments + +This case depicts that any callousness in defending the issue properly before the Central Information Commission by the third party may adversely affect their case.","TCS directed to disclose details of contract made for Pass Port Seva Kendra under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the construction of Pass port Seva Kendra (PSK) at private premises hired by the Passport office such as name of the officers who decided to hire the private premises, date of hiring, name of the organization which hired the premises, name of the public authorities whose permission is essential to open the Passport Seva Kendra along with the dates on which their permission / sanction was received. He also sought for the documents submitted to the Passport Office by the owner of the premises etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the Ministry of External Affairs approves the location of the site for a particular PSK in relation to its size, area, accessibility and related amenities for the general public. The matter of hiring/leasing of the site for a particular PSK is done by the Service Provider under the Public Private Partnership (PPP) Scheme. He further informed that in the case of this particular PSK, the same procedures were followed. + +Proceeding + +During the first hearing, the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that it is not clear whether this is a PPP or a contract given to a service provider and directed the PIO to bring a copy of the agreement with the Service Provider along with an explanation about who decides on the selection of the site and the commercial term. + +During the second hearing, the respondent brought a copy of the Master Service Agreement (MSA) with Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) (service providers) and raised an objection to the disclosure on the ground that the contract has been entered into by the Ministry with the Service Provider which is a private organization. Disclosure of the contract shall hamper the competitive position of the private party vis-à-vis his competitors. Therefore the information should not be disclosed under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. Moreover lot of information about the service provider is being held by the public authority in a fiduciary capacity and hence it cannot be disclosed under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The Commission agreed that the rate mentioned in the contract if disclosed could harm the competitive position of the Service Provider and directed to severe the rates mentioned in the agreement under section 10 of the RTI Act. The Commission also asked the respondent to specifically point out the information in the contract which could be said to be held in a fiduciary capacity. On the submission of the respondent that he needs to get instructions from the Ministry on the matter of disclosure of the Master Service Agreement, the Commission adjourned the matter. + +During the two subsequent hearings, the appellant requested the Commission to direct the PIO to inform the authority who has permitted the third party to display the board that the said place is an office of Ministry of External Affairs. He also requested the Commission to order the PIO to give sworn affidavit as detailed by him. The Advocates representing the TCS requested for adjournment stating that their senior is traveling. The Commission rejected his request stating that their time is paid by the poorest man in India and it therefore does not have the luxury of giving another adjournment. The third party advocate submitted that the information is exempt under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;& section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;as the information represents commercially competitive information and disclosing it would harm competitive interest of the TCS.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the Third Party (TCS) has not given any arguments to support its claim for exemption under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;& section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The Commission held that as no justification had been provided for the claim of exemptions, information cannot be denied to the appellant. Further, the Commission observed that this information can certainly be obtained by the Ministry from TCS if it is not available and would squarely fall in the definition of ‘information’ as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant, stating that when the Government asks a private party to conduct any functions it certainly has to be able to access all information regarding the activity from the private body to which it has given the contract. + +Comments + +This case depicts that any callousness in defending the issue properly before the Central Information Commission by the third party may adversely affect their case." +960,The grading of the trainees of Company Commanders Course cannot be modified using RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"However, the Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the break-up of marks awarded to the appellant by the experts.","The grading of the trainees of Company Commanders Course cannot be modified using RTI + +Background: +The appellant had undergone a 04 week Company Commanders Course at ACS Centre & College. He submitted that he was given ‘B’ grading whereas he deserved ‘A’ grading on the basis of his overall performance. In this context he filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act, claiming an ‘A’ grade and seeking the break-up of marks. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that ‘A’ grading is given to those trainees who have obtained an overall percentage of 70% or above. As the appellant did not fall in this category, so he was given ‘B’ grading. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the respondent submitted that break-up of the marks has already been given to the appellant and that he has no objection to provide break-up of marks awarded to the appellant by the experts. The appellant stated that he had obtained 69.75% overall aggregate which should have been rounded off to 70% and he should have been given ‘A’ grading. The respondent contended that there is no system of rounding off of percentage of marks obtained by a trainee and the appellant has been correctly graded.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that they cannot go into the merits of the matter and nor can they go into the validity of the Army Order under reference. However, the Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the break-up of marks awarded to the appellant by the experts." +961,Is the PIO obliged to provide the information which is already in public domain?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 dated 12.4.2007) and rejected the appeal observing that the appellant is entitled to get the desired information under the provisions of section 610 of Companies Act, 1956, as the requested information is already available in public domain.","Is the PIO obliged to provide the information which is already in public domain? + +Background: +The appellant sought the information about a company such as, the details of the statutory records and the name of the Directors of the company which are recorded in Registrar of Companies (ROC) from the date of registration to till date. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the status of the subject company is ‘Active’ and the information sought by him was already in the public domain. The PIO also informed the appellant that the relevant information could be obtained by inspecting the documents (under section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956) of the company maintained by ROC. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has devised a unique websitewww.mc.gov.inin which all the records of the companies are stored and exhibited. As such the information sought by the appellant is already in the public domain and the sought information can be accessed from the same. The respondent also cited a previous order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) [CIC/SM/2009/ 001883-AT, dated 11.11.2010] wherein the Commission has held that once the information is brought into the public domain, it is excluded from the purview of RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) cited a previous order (Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 dated 12.4.2007) and rejected the appeal observing that the appellant is entitled to get the desired information under the provisions of section 610 of Companies Act, 1956, as the requested information is already available in public domain." +962,Can tax evasion details of third party be disclosed for defending a case in court?,,action taken by the ITD on the same,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal, citing a Full Bench order of the CIC which has held that income tax returns are ‘personal information’ exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","Can tax evasion details of third party be disclosed for defending a case in court? + +Background: +The appellant referred to an application [Tax Evasion Petition (TEP)] filed with the office of CIT, Income Tax Department (ITD) relating to tax evasion by a person and sought information on action taken by the ITD on the same. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the Right to Information (RTI) request to ITO Ward-1, with directions to take further action as the matter related to his jurisdiction. The PIO denied the information under section 8(i)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, stating that the said person has objected to any information relating to him being shared with the appellant as the information sought was personal and has no relevance to public interest. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) stated that the PIO had relied upon the decision of the full bench of the CIC in a similar case in which the issue of disclosure of third party information regarding income tax return etc. had been held as ‘personal information’ exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.. However, the FAA directed the PIO to provide a point wise reply to the appellant regarding procedural aspects of TEP and the outcome of the investigation made in respect of TEP filed against the said person. On the direction of the FAA, the PIO provided the information. + +Proceedings + +The PIO submitted that whatever information was available at that point of time, has already been provided to the appellant. The appellant made a reference to two cases: + +He further submitted that a case under the Dowry Act had been registered against him in August 2010 and it was alleged that articles worth Rs. 7 lacs had been given by the girl’s side as dowry and he wanted information so that he could defend himself.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the two cases quoted by the appellant do not have any relevance to his case as in both the cases only the information pertaining to the net taxable income for a particular period was ordered for disclosure. The Commission rejected the appeal, citing a Full Bench order of the CIC which has held that income tax returns are ‘personal information’ exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act." +963,Details of person who signed the documents enclosed with the reply to RTI application,,,"['8(1)(e)', '8(1)(g)']",INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed to PIO to provide information to the appellant.,"Details of person who signed the documents enclosed with the reply to RTI application + +Background: +The appellant sought the name and designation of person whose initials appear in several documents enclosed with the replies to previous RTI applications of the applicant. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the PIO confirmed that the initials that appear below the name and designation of the officer who has signed the letters on previous dates, all of which are addressed to the appellant appear in the original letters / office copies of the letters.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that PIO has not been able to justify the application of section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;in denying disclosure of information to the appellant. The Commission directed to PIO to provide information to the appellant." +964,Income derived by a petrol pump from a plot of land sought under RTI,,the income derived by a petrol pump from a plot of land,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the income tax returns constitute ‘personal information’, which is exempt from disclosure under section 8(i)(j) of the Act.","Income derived by a petrol pump from a plot of land sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the income derived by a petrol pump from a plot of land. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that it falls in the personal domain and it would not be correct to pass on any such information to an individual which concerns information contained in IT returns filed by others. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act stating that the department holds the information of the assesse in a fiduciary capacity and it cannot be given unless information sought is in larger public interest.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant had sought information regarding income derived by a petrol pump from a plot of land which implies disclosure from the IT returns submitted by the petrol pump. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the income tax returns constitute ‘personal information’, which is exempt from disclosure under section 8(i)(j) of the Act." +965,Can the E-mails written by the son in law to daughter of the applicant be disclosed under RTI?,,,['8(1)(j)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"However, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the copies of complaint written by the applicant himself.","Can the E-mails written by the son in law to daughter of the applicant be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought the copies of documents submitted by his son in law to the public authority in response to the applicant’s complaint. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied for the information stating that third party has objected the under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The PIO also informed the applicant that all the documents filed by his son in law have already been sent to him. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the appellant stated that he had requested for copies of emails written by his son in law to his wife (daughter of the appellant) and thus such emails are not personal. He also alleged that the said emails contained abusive language. He submitted that copies of his own complaints have not been provided to him by the respondents. The respondents stated that the information sought by the appellant is personal to a third party, disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that information sought by the appellant was purely ‘personal’ to third party the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasions of privacy of third party, especially when the third party has objected to disclosure of the said information. The Commission directed that there shall be no disclosure obligation on the respondents with regard to the emails, stating that the Appellant has not proved any ‘larger public interest’ which would warrant the disclosure of the present information.  However, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the copies of complaint written by the applicant himself." +966,Whether a registered society is paying income tax or not is not personal information under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information sought to the appellant.,"Whether a registered society is paying income tax or not is not personal information under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the income tax related details of Kamdehenu Goshala Samiti such as Whether the Goshala was paying income tax or not, how many returns have been filed by the Goshala, whether balance sheet has been submitted with the income tax return, profit and loss account, income and expenditure account and whether the Goshala has got exemption certificate u/s 80(G). The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied for the information stating that it was a third party information and the Samiti objected to its disclosure. During the hearing, the appellant clarified that he was not asking any details relating to the returns but was merely seeking a response in the affirmative. He also submitted that the Kamdehenu Goshala is a registered society which is being funded by donation from the public and hence the question of a third party does not arise.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has sought an answer in yes or no as to whether the Goshala is an income tax assesse, if so, for how long has it been filing returns, whether with the returns the Goshala has been submitting a profit and loss statement and whether it has got an exemption u/s 80(G) from the Income Tax authorities. The Commission further held that the disclosure of this information cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered to be of a personal nature. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information sought to the appellant. + +Comments + +There is a need to define privacy in the Indian context to avoid conflicting orders on privacy." +967,Citizens should exercise a great deal of responsibility while using their right under RTI Act,,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Aditya Bandopadhyay, 9 August, 2011] wherein it was held that the Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, the Commission advised the appellant to keep the above observation of the Supreme Court in mind while exercising his right under the RTI Act.","Citizens should exercise a great deal of responsibility while using their right under RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant sought inspection of the records relating to the appointment of a lady who was selected as a scientist inDefence Research and Development Organization(DRDO). The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that DRDO is an exempted organisation and the information sought is a third party information which is barred from disclosure under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) stated that DRDO is an exempted organisation but in the RTI application the appellant has alleged irregularities in the selection of the said lady as a scientist. The Commission held that the appellant is permitted to take inspection of the available records and to take extracts therefrom on payment of requisite fee. + +The CIC further observed that the appellant had filed three appeals earlier and repeated filing of RTI applications / appeals arising therefrom put undue strain on the limited resources of the public authorities. This right should be exercised with a great deal of responsibility. Citing a Supreme Court decision [Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, 9 August, 2011] wherein it was held that the Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, the Commission advised the appellant to keep the above observation of the Supreme Court in mind while exercising his right under the RTI Act. + +Comments + +It has been debated in the official circles whether there should be some kind of restraint or check on the filing of RTI applications to avoid filing of frivolous applications. A sense of responsibility in the citizens is a must to ensure that the Act works in the manner in which it was envisaged to function." +968,Status of investigation of theft of idols from Jagannath Temple sought under RTI,Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI),,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the desired information to the appellant.,"Status of investigation of theft of idols from Jagannath Temple sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seeking the status of the case instituted by CBI in the matter of the theft of some idols from the Jagannath Temple. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the CBI was not obliged to disclose such information since it had already been included in the second schedule of the RTI Act by a Central Government notification.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the RTI application had been filed on the 1 June 2011. It predates the notification and, therefore, will not be affected by it. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the desired information to the appellant. + +Comments + +CBI has been included in the second schedule of the RTI Act by a Central Government notification which was issued in the month of June 2011. CBI cannot take the benefit of the notification and claim that it is an agency exempt from the purview of the RTI Act in cases of any RTI application filed with it before the date of that notification. For the earlier applications, the PIO of CBI should quote the appropriate exemption section under the RTI Act." +969,Can the names of Members of the Interview Board be denied under RTI?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"Comments + +There seems to be a lack of consistency in the decision of the various benches of the CIC regarding the disclosure of the names of the interview board members and it would be advisable to form a larger bench to examine the issue.","Can the names of Members of the Interview Board be denied under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant had appeared in an interview for promotion from non-executive cadre to the executive cadre. Later, he filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking the names and numbers of the Members of the Board of Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP). The Public Information Officer (PIO) objected to disclosure of the information stating that the Members of the Board are the officials of BSP and disclosure of their identity would be prejudicial to their day to day working in the Plant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the PIO’s plea. The Commission also observed that if the appellant is keen to inspect the documents relating to the interview of his own stream, he may be permitted to do so. + +Comments + +There seems to be a lack of consistency in the decision of the various benches of the CIC regarding the disclosure of the names of the interview board members and it would be advisable to form a larger bench to examine the issue." +970,Are there any rules regarding the refill of gas cylinders?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the rule position regarding the refill and the position to purchase the above equipment to the appellant.,"Are there any rules regarding the refill of gas cylinders? + +Background: +The appellant claimed that the he has been facing difficulty in getting refill of the gas cylinder. He filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking the copy of the rules in this relation. The Central Information Commission (CIC) perused the DGCC Book which indicated that the refill is being provided in an average period of 21 to 25 days which is quite normal. During the hearing, the appellant insisted that the position obtaining in the rules may be communicated to him in writing. He further submitted that the distributor insists on the purchase of the hot-plate and other products along with the gas cylinders. The respondent submitted that there is no compulsion to purchase the equipment along with the gas cylinder.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the rule position regarding the refill and the position to purchase the above equipment to the appellant. + +Comments + +The case law depicts the use of the RTI Act by a common man to seek solutions to his day-today problems." +971,Can DGCA obtain information from the private foreign airline for a RTI applicant?,,the missing passenger bag and payment of compensation by British Airways at New Delhi,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the respondent’s plea and rejected the appeal.,"Can DGCA obtain information from the private foreign airline for a RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the missing passenger bag and payment of compensation by British Airways at New Delhi. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant, that M/s British Airways does not fall within the purview of Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 as it is a foreign airline. As the DGCA has no document in this case, no information can be provided in the matter. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the respondent submitted that information regarding loss of passenger bag and payment of compensation is entirely a matter between the passenger and the concerned airline and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), is only a security regulatory authority and has no role in the matter. The respondent further submitted that there is no provision for the DGCA under any law to seek the required information from the private foreign airline.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the respondent’s plea and rejected the appeal. +972,Can a Public authority seek information about Pantaloon (third party) under section 11 of RTI Act?,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission dismissed the appeal stating that the desired information did not exist with the SEBI and could only be accessed from the private company concerned.,"Can a Public authority seek information about Pantaloon (third party) under section 11 of RTI Act? + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to Pantaloon Retails (India) Ltd. vide five separate Right to Information (RTI) applications. He also cited number of documents and requested the Public Information Officer (PIO) to follow third party procedure and provide certain information. The PIO, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) provided the information which was in the possession of the SEBI, relating to the action taken by them on his complaints and informed the appellant that rest of the desired information was not held by the SEBI nor was it required to be filed by the company concerned. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the PIO clarified that much of the other information sought by the appellant would have to be sourced from the private company which was beyond the scope of the responsibility cast on the PIO under the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant had some misconception about the third party procedure provided in section 11 of the RTI Act as he was under the impression that if the public authority does not possess the information as desired, it should be access from the third party concerned and provide the information. A public authority has a responsibility to provide whatever information it has in its possession excepting those exempt under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Commission also held that as per the definition of information under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, a public authority can access information only under any law for the time being in force. The SEBI cannot be expected to get information from private entities for which it is not empowered under any particular enactment. The Commission dismissed the appeal stating that the desired information did not exist with the SEBI and could only be accessed from the private company concerned." +973,Copy of Cantonment Board Resolution sought under RTI,Cantonment Board,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"CIC directed the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to look into the matter afresh at a personal level for remedying the grievance of the appellant as per law and to ascertain the circumstances under which the decision of the board for repairing / reconstructing the damaged wall was not minuted, as alleged by the appellant.","Copy of Cantonment Board Resolution sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) act with the Cantonment Board seeking a copy of Board Resolution No. 30. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing the appellant submitted that the protection wall behind his house was damaged due to the blockage of the drain running alongside the wall. The blockage was caused by the contractors employed by the Cantonment Board. He also submitted that he made a request to the Board to either reconstruct / repair the damaged wall or to pay him compensation in regard thereto but to no avail. The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that the appellant had sought a copy of Board Resolution which was provided to him. The appellant admitted that he has received a copy of the said Resolution, but it is only a Resolution and not the minutes of the meeting which were required to be recorded as per section 43 of the Cantonment Act, 2006.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the public authority can supply only such documents as are available with it. If a document has not been made or is not available in record, it cannot be supplied to the appellant. The Commission also noted that the grievance of the appellant appears to be genuine and calls for remedial action by that Chief Executive Officer of the Board. CIC directed the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to look into the matter afresh at a personal level for remedying the grievance of the appellant as per law and to ascertain the circumstances under which the decision of the board for repairing / reconstructing the damaged wall was not minuted, as alleged by the appellant. + +Comments + +This case law shows that if the records have not been maintained as per the requirement of law, a public authority cannot wash away its hands claiming that the information cannot be provided as the same is not available." +974,Information regarding Naval War Room leak case sought under RTI,,,"['8(1)(a)', '8(1)(h)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the information sought falls within the exemption provisions contained in section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;and of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.","Information regarding Naval War Room leak case sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to the Naval War Room leak case through six separate Right to Information (RTI) applications. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information while in some others refused to disclose any information either on the ground that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had been excluded from the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by the Government of India notification or that the disclosure of the information would impede the process of investigation and prosecution of a criminal case. In some cases, the PIO stated that what had been sought was not information but the opinion.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) found that most of the queries of the appellant in all the cases were in the nature of seeking confirmation or opinion of the PIO rather than seeking any information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The Commission also stated that this is a sensitive matter concerning national security as one of the accused in the case had run away to England from where his extradition was being sought by the CBI. Therefore, until this entire matter is thoroughly investigated and the culprits, if any, are brought to book, records and documents relating to this case should not be ordinarily disclosed. The Commission also observed that the appellant has tried an indirect way for securing some information by demanding confirmation of either documents or assumptions which was not the right manner of seeking information under the RTI Act. + +The Commission held that the CBI had been excluded from the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act through a notification by the Government of India which was issued in the month of June 2011 but any RTI application filed before this date has to be considered on merit and cannot be dismissed out of hand by citing the above notification. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the information sought falls within the exemption provisions contained in section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;and of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act." +975,Letter written by MP to Prime Minister on Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics sought under RTI,,,['8(1)(e)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"Comments + +This interpretation of the CIC appears to vary from that of decisions of the other benches.","Letter written by MP to Prime Minister on Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the certified copies of all documents and a letter written by the Member of the Parliament to the Prime Minister of India on Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics (SINP) along with the action taken in response to the said letter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the available part of the letter is incomplete and confidential in nature. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) also denied the information stating that the letter has been marked and classified as Confidential’ & addressed to the Director, SINP, it cannot be de-classified at this level and handed over by the Director’s office and it is exempted under section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act being Fiduciary in nature.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant stating that the information provided in discharge of a statutory requirement cannot be considered to have been given in a fiduciary relationship. In the instant case the sought information was given by one public authority to another and this certainly cannot qualify information as exempt under fiduciary capacity. + +Comments + +This interpretation of the CIC appears to vary from that of decisions of the other benches. Third party, as per the definition of the RTI Act, includes a public authority and hence any information provided by a public authority to another public authority is includible in the definition of the third party information." +976,Is the misuse of RTI act intimidating the honest government officials?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission observed that they have to balance the citizens, right to information with the compulsions of the public authorities and that the ends of justice would be meet if the PIO is cautioned to be careful in future in responding to the RTI applications with due diligence and in prescribed time frame.","Is the misuse of RTI act intimidating the honest government officials? + +Background: +The appellant had sought the information on 26 paras relating to last ten years, about the officer cadre of Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Limited (KIOCL). During the hearing, the Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that the requisite information has been collected and can be disclosed to the appellant on payment of fee of Rs. 100/-. The appellant submitted that the PIO has deliberately delayed supply of information and therefore, punitive action should be taken against him.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) waived off the fee and directed the PIO to disclose the information free of cost stating that there had been a long delay in the supply of information. The Commission also observed that that there has been delay in the supply of information but the fact that the applicant has sought information on 26 paras relating to last ten years cannot be ignored. The Commission cited a Supreme Court’s decision [Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay], where the court had held that + +RTI Act should not be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The Commission observed that they have to balance the citizens, right to information with the compulsions of the public authorities and that the ends of justice would be meet if the PIO is cautioned to be careful in future in responding to the RTI applications with due diligence and in prescribed time frame." +977,To which First Appellate Authority should the first RTI appeal be filed?,,a person posted in the personal security of Smt,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission stated that MHA is not the single custodian of information pertaining to the RTI queries and advised the appellant to file separate first-appeals before the Appellate Authorities of each of the public authorities to which the information is related.,"To which First Appellate Authority should the first RTI appeal be filed? + +Background: +The appellant filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). In the first RTI application, he sought information pertaining to a person posted in the personal security of Smt. Indira Gandhi while in the second; he sought information regarding incoming and outgoing telephone calls of four ministers, meeting details of Smt. Indira Gandhi with Jurnail Singh Bhinderwala prior to Blue Star Operation etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO), MHA transferred both the RTI applications to Prime Minister Office (PMO), Ministry of Communications and Police Head Quarter (PHQ). The PHQ in turn transferred the RTI application to the respective Districts of Police. The PIOs of all the districts of Police denied the information stating that it does not pertains to them. The appellant filed first-appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Ministry of Home Affairs. The FAA advised the appellant to obtain the requisite information from the respective PIOs directly.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant had sought information from the MHA, which pertained to different public authorities. The Commission stated that MHA is not the single custodian of information pertaining to the RTI queries and advised the appellant to file separate first-appeals before the Appellate Authorities of each of the public authorities to which the information is related." +978,Investigation reports of the theft of insured vehicle sought under RTI,,,['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the arguments of the appellant and directed the PIO to provide the requested information to the appellant.,"Investigation reports of the theft of insured vehicle sought under RTI + +Background: +The applicant sought the copy of the investigation reports by Shri KRS Nair and Shri M Krishnan with reference to the theft of vehicle belonging to the applicant and insured by the company. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the order of the PIO stating that the appellant had not sought the information with reference to writ petition filed by the Company before the Honourable High Court of Kerala. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondent stated that the information was not provided to the appellant on account of the fact that the company had ordered a special investigation through the two investigators in order to protect the Company’s interests and therefore this information was not required to be provided to the appellant. Appellant submitted that he had been regularly paying premium in respect of the insurance policy which provided insurance cover to his above mentioned vehicle and that he had every right to go through the investigation report which pertained to the loss of his insured vehicle.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted the arguments of the appellant and directed the PIO to provide the requested information to the appellant. +979,"Disclosure of Cabinet Note for introducing The Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011 under RTI",,,['8(1)(i)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Under section 19(8)(a)(iii) of the RTI Act, the Commission also directed the Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy to display this Cabinet note and all Cabinet notes in future on the department’s website where such Cabinet notes relate to proposing a new bill to be tabled in Parliament.","Disclosure of Cabinet Note for introducing The Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011 under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought for a copy of the Cabinet Note prepared by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) seeking approval of the Union Cabinet for introducing ‘The Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011’ in the Lok Sabha along with all annexures; the total number of records and live files held by the DAE Secretariat and its units that have been assigned the security classification: top secret’, ‘secret’ and confidential’ along with their subject matter or topic. He also wanted a copy of the information submitted by DAE to the Central Information Commission under Section 25(3) of the RTI Act for a certain period. + +The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the copy of the Cabinet Note under section 8(l)(i) and the subject matter of the top secret’, ‘secret’ and confidential’ files under section 8(a) of the RTI Act. He also denied the total number of files stating that the information requested for is not available as no records are kept regarding the total number of such files centrally. He provided an extract of Annual return for the year 2010-Il submitted by DAE to CIC under Section 25(3) of the RTI Act. The appellant filed an appeal stating that the PIO has not given any reasons how it is exempted and on which ground. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the PIO’s order stating that The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment & Forests has deliberated on the report and forwarded its observations to the Hon’ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha and Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and thus the information cannot be provided. + +Proceedings + +The appellant filed second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC) stating that as the proviso to section 8(l) (i), the decision of the Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken and the matter is complete, or over. He submitted that as the Minister of State for Public Grievances and Pensions has tabled the said bill in the Lok Sabha in September 2011, the purpose of the Cabinet note was completed upon securing Cabinet approval and the subsequent tabling of the said Bill in Parliament. The contents of the Cabinet note now qualify for disclosure under the proviso to section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;as the matter is over. During the hearing, both the parties agreed that the cabinet note has been put up to the Cabinet, and after due approval a bill has been presented to the Parliament. + +The PIO claimed that the matter was not complete and over until the bill is enacted, duly gazetted, and a notification is issued that the bill comes into force. The appellant stated that section8(2)Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.suggests that if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interest, then access may be allowed. He also claimed that the disclosure of Cabinet papers at this stage of the bill will be in public interest. The PIO failed to give any explanation on the harm which could accrue if the information was disclosed. The appellant further stated that the NSRA bill has proposed amendments to the RTI Act and the DOPT has stated to the Parliament that no amendments are proposed to the RTI Act. He therefore needs to know the contents of the Cabinet note so that he may make representations to the elected representatives to ensure that no amendments are made to the RTI Act without widespread consultation. The PIO argued that the bill is already in the Public domain and hence, he is not able to appreciate the appellant’s contention.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the Bill is a property of the Parliament and hence the objective of the cabinet note is over with the presentation of the bill in Parliament. It may be worthwhile to glimpse the mind of the Parliament when passing the RTI Act to understand the frame of mind of the elected representatives. Once the Cabinet decision has been taken, the first part of the proviso that the decision had been taken would be fulfilled. With the tabling of the bill in Parliament the second part of the Proviso that the matter is complete or over would also have been met. + +The Commission observed that the PIO has not given any valid reasons showing that any harm could come to any protected interest, whereas it is obvious that if Citizens knew the contents of the Cabinet note based on which Parliament proposed to enact a law, it would lead to a better and meaningful democracy and enactments of laws which would indeed serve people’s needs. The Commission also stated that the citizen who gives legitimacy to the Members of Parliament and thereby to the institution of Parliament itself must be provided reasons which are behind the laws being made by Parliament. The Commission directed the PIO to provide an attested photocopy of the Cabinet Note sought by the appellant along with all the annexures. Under section 19(8)(a)(iii) of the RTI Act, the Commission also directed the Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy to display this Cabinet note and all Cabinet notes in future on the department’s website where such Cabinet notes relate to proposing a new bill to be tabled in Parliament. + +Comments + +From the order, one may infer that in all cases of bills tabled in the parliament after the cabinet nod, the contents of the cabinet note are liable to be made public. This would open up the cabinet note for critical examination by the citizens." +980,Can the appellant’s representative inspect the records under RTI?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission in this order had allowed the representative of the appellant to have an inspection, this opens up an opportunity for many applicants who due to some reason, are unable to inspect the records on their own.","Can the appellant’s representative inspect the records under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought a copy of records relating to the payment of Provident Fund, Gratuity, salary and other dues to the wife of a deceased employee of Chandrapur Ferro Alloy Plant. During the hearing the representative of the appellant submitted that the second wife of the deceased had entered into an agreement with the appellant and had agreed to pay 33% of the Provident Fund and Gratuity amount to the appellant. She had also agreed to pay 30% of the salary to the appellant but she has breached the contract and has only partially fulfilled her obligation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that appellant’s wife is the nominee of the deceased and the payment has been made to her as per rules and the Plant is in no way concerned with the agreement entered into by the appellant and his wife.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that the appellant or his representative may be given inspection of all the records relating to the payment of Provident Fund, Gratuity, salary and other dues paid to the deceased employee’s wife and to take extracts there-from. + +Comment + +Usually only the appellant is allowed to have an inspection under the RTI Act. The Commission in this order had allowed the representative of the appellant to have an inspection, this opens up an opportunity for many applicants who due to some reason, are unable to inspect the records on their own." +981,Should the names of unsuccessful candidates be disclosed under RTI?,,,"['8(1)(e)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that no larger public interest was demonstrated by the appellant in disclosing names of unsuccessful candidates.,"Should the names of unsuccessful candidates be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The applicant sought the names of the officers of the Company who scored less than 50% marks in the general category and less than 45% marks in the SC/ST category as evaluated by NIA, in the promotion exercises for certain years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that no larger public interest was demonstrated by the appellant in disclosing names of unsuccessful candidates. +982,Seeking time period of retention of Income Tax Return filed by an assessee under RTI,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide information to the appellant.,"Seeking time period of retention of Income Tax Return filed by an assessee under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the information regarding the period of retention of Income Tax Returns (ITR) filed by an assessee along with copy of government order and the period up to which Income Tax Officer (ITO) can ask assesse to submit ITRs along with copy of government order. He further wanted the copy of rules of the government order under which raid was conducted by ITOs and what records were required to be brought in connection with the raid. He also asked whether the competent officer at the time of the raid can take articles/accounts away by the officer conducting the raid without Mahazar statement and disconnect the phone connections. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information regarding the period of retention of ITR filed by the assesse and the period upto which the ITO can ask assesse to submit IT Returns, stating that the requisite information was not in possession of the PIO and hence cannot be provided. During the hearing, the PIO submitted that in his response, he had stated that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) was Director (ITA.II), CBDT, North Block, New Delhi and no appeal has been received from the appellant. Records indicate that an appeal had been filed but the appellant had marked it to the Chairman, CBDT and this has not been received by them.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the response of the PIO shows ignorance of the provisions of the RTI Act. If he did not possess the requisite information he should have transferred it to the PIO who was the repository of this information. The Commission also stated that the PIO is not able to provide any explanation for a considerable delay in replying to the application. The Commission issued a notice to the PIO to explain the circumstances under which the information sought was not provided and why action under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act should not be taken. The Commission directed the PIO to provide information to the appellant. + +Comments + +This case highlights the predicament of a PIO who is ignorant of the provisions of the RTI Act and does not know how to react to a RTI application if the information is not available with him." +983,Information relating to the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to send a copy of the OM, duly highlighting the relevant instructions to the appellant.","Information relating to the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme + +Background: +The appellant sought some information relating to the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) and the merger of scales. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that it was not his responsibility to provide any opinion or interpretation on hypothetical matters such as those raised by the appellant in her RTI application. He also advised the appellant to refer to the instructions contained in the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum (OM). During the hearing, the respondent further clarified that the OM on this scheme was quite clear and covered the very same query raised by the appellant in her RTI application. The OM shows that the promotion between the scales mentioned by the appellant would be ignored for determining the eligibility for the MACPS.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to send a copy of the OM, duly highlighting the relevant instructions to the appellant. + +Comments + +The PIO could have argued that the information is already in the public domain and hence there is no need for him to provide the copy of the same to an applicant. Under the RTI Act, it is not the duty of the PIO to provide the copy of information which is already in public domain." +984,Disclosure of sanctioned strength of assistants in LIC under RTI,,,['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The CIC observed that inter division transfer of assistants and cashier is an administrative matter which lies in the domain of the management who broadly adheres to the principles incorporated in the transfer and mobility policy of the Corporation while effecting transfers.,"Disclosure of sanctioned strength of assistants in LIC under RTI + +Background: +The applicant sought information regarding the sanctioned strength of assistants along with number of filled up and vacant posts and procedure followed for filling the vacant posts in respect of the offices under the Karnal Division of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) for three years. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act stating that the  disclosure would expose their business plans and make them vulnerable against their competitors. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the applicant that the strength of the assistants is not static and was decided on the basis of requirements from time to time. During the hearing, the respondent quoted Central Information Commission’s previous order [CIC/WB/A/2009/000883 – DS] to support their arguments in denying disclosure of the requested information.","Disagreeing with the reply of PIO, the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that there is bound to be an approved sanctioned strength for the cadre of assistants in the Karnal division which must be disclosed. CIC directed the PIO to disclose the current position of filled up posts (as in May 2011) and vacant posts along with the procedure adopted for reporting the vacancies and action taken on such report by the competent authority to fill up the vacant posts. The Commission further noted that the order cited by the respondent cannot support the PIO's argument because the functions and duties of the assistants are confined to examining and processing business proposals and other clerical jobs and this category of employees does not form part of the field force of the Corporation. + +Comments + +There was an observation from the Commission which the administrative authorities grappling with the transfer orders would find soothing. The CIC observed that inter division transfer of assistants and cashier is an administrative matter which lies in the domain of the management who broadly adheres to the principles incorporated in the transfer and mobility policy of the Corporation while effecting transfers. If the management is called upon to justify and explain every transfer decision it takes in the interest of the business operations of the Corporation, it would cripple the management and encroach upon the legitimate activities of the executive taken in the interest of the business activities of LIC of India." +985,Using RTI to get a copy of the death certificate,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) decided that the appellant has to visit the MCD office on a mutually convenient date along with an official of the Revenue Department who will facilitate the issuance of the certificate by the MCD.,"Using RTI to get a copy of the death certificate + +Background: +The appellant sought information with regard to action taken on an application filed by him for issue of a death certificate. As the Public Information Officer (PIO) did not reply, the applicant filed appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant within 15 days. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission. The respondent stated that as per computer records, the death order in respect of Late person was generated but the office is not able to trace the records regarding its dispatch to the applicant. Following a recent provision in the e Pramanpatra software, it has been possible to generate another copy of the death order for which the appellant has to approach the concerned officer in MCD.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) decided that the appellant has to visit the MCD office on a mutually convenient date along with an official of the Revenue Department who will facilitate the issuance of the certificate by the MCD. +986,Western Union Money Transfer Services under the RTI Act,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directs the PIO to furnish the information requested of appellant’s RTI application and also directs to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records to the appellant as aforesaid.,"Western Union Money Transfer Services under the RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant has sought information of Western Union Monet Transfer Services (WUMTS) like how many rupees have been spent for the customer of WUMTS, and also sought the Xerox copy of bill, voucher and ACG. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that matter is being looked into. The appellant stated that in response to his RTI application, he was informed that no records pertaining to expenses for the customers of WUMTS. The PIO stated that these are only petty expenses incurred for providing tea/coffee to such customers and information has to be compiled from the relevant vouchers. The appellant stated the he would like to inspect the original records, attested copies of which have already been provided to him. The PIO agreed to allow inspection to the appellant as aforesaid.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directs the PIO to furnish the information requested of appellant’s RTI application and also directs to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records to the appellant as aforesaid. The PIO is advised to exercise care for future to ensure that timely and adequate information is provided to RTI applicants as per provisions of the Act. +987,Inspection of records related to the grant of awards to scientists under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to give inspection of the relevant recorded to the appellant on a mutually convenient date and time.,"Inspection of records related to the grant of awards to scientists under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed a hand written application under Right to Information (RTI) act with Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO) seeking inspection of records related to the grant of awards to certain internationally renowned scientists. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that DRDO is placed in Second Schedule of RTI Act, 2005 and is exempted from disclosure of information under Section 24 (1) except information pertaining to the allegations of corruptions and human rights violations. PIO further informed that they are unable to comprehend and understand the information required by appellant. He also requested the appellant to write in a crystal clear way about his requirement without hiding it into long sentences so that the application may be considered.","During the hearing, the PIO submitted that he has no objection to give inspection of the relevant records to the appellant despite the fact that DRDO is an exempted organisation. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to give inspection of the relevant recorded to the appellant on a mutually convenient date and time. + +Comments + +The case demonstrates the transparent working of an organisation which has gone beyond the legal requirement of disclosure and should be applauded." +988,Auction of the goods confiscated by New Delhi Municipal Council,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,However the Commission directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the records relating to the auctioning of his goods on a mutually convenient date and time and to provide him with attested copies of documents identified by him.,"Auction of the goods confiscated by New Delhi Municipal Council + +Background: +The appellant alleged that his goods (belts) were confiscated from Jan Path by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC). He filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking the reasons for the confiscation and why the same were not returned to him even after the area inspector had verified that they belonged to him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that the appellant had not come to collect the goods even after being reminded twice over the telephone. Not receiving any information despite the orders of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the applicant filed a second appeal before Central Information Commission (CIC) stating that the goods should not have been auctioned and that if they have been auctioned and sold, the money should go to him. + +Comments + +During the hearing, the respondents submitted that since the appellant did not turn up to collect his goods, the same were auctioned and sold off along with other goods. The appellant requested that the money that was made on auctioning his goods should be returned to him.",The Commission observed that they cannot grant the relief being sought by the appellant as the same falls outside the ambit of the RTI Act. However the Commission directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the records relating to the auctioning of his goods on a mutually convenient date and time and to provide him with attested copies of documents identified by him. +989,Criteria to run TV channels through cable operators sought under RTI,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO has given some information but pointed out certain deficiencies in the order of the PIO and directed him to provide the information with respect to those deficiencies.,"Criteria to run TV channels through cable operators sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the requisite criteria to run TV channels through cable operators such as can the news channels run by the cable operators, whether there is any eligibility or qualification required, whether any clearance has been sought by the Ministry, the eligibility criteria to get an approval from the cable operator to run news channels at district and block levels, which office is certified by the government of India to give approval to run news channels at district and block levels, list of TV channels are running through cable operators without satellite cable in Haryana, to whom can the complaint be filed regarding the news channels running at regional level etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the sought information is available at the website of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO has given some information but pointed out certain deficiencies in the order of the PIO and directed him to provide the information with respect to those deficiencies. +990,RTI application should be filed to the authority which holds the information,Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal and advised the appellant to obtain the information from the Court after following the procedures laid down for obtaining such information.,"RTI application should be filed to the authority which holds the information + +Background: +The applicant filed an application under RTI Act with the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) seeking the copy of photographs and signature taken by FSL in a case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the case was examined by FSL on the directions of the High Court of Delhi and the photographs were prepared by the official of Finger Print Bureau, Delhi Police. As per practice, the laboratory does not provide any copy of examined documents but the same can be obtained from the concerned High Court or Investigating Agency. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) noted that the case was pending in the High Court of Delhi and that the report has already been submitted to the Court, the information cannot be disclosed as per RTI Act as disclosure of information sought attracts restrictions against disclosure given in the above provisions of law.","During the hearing, the appellant and respondent admitted that the High Court of Delhi is already seized of the subject matter. The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal and advised the appellant to obtain the information from the Court after following the procedures laid down for obtaining such information." +991,Can a bank deny details of company’s account under RTI to the proprietor?,,,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information noting that, if the contentions of the appellant are correct then, information should be provided as per the provisions of section8(2)Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.of the RTI Act.","Can a bank deny details of company’s account under RTI to the proprietor? + +Background: +The appellant was a proprietor of a company. He filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking information related to the account of his company. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the appellant stated that a fraud has been committed by someone who has opened an account in the name of his proprietary and fraudulently deposited a cheque of Rs. 2,15,620/- drawn in his favour by another company. He also claimed that a criminal action has been undertaken in this regard.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that ordinarily the information about a customer of the bank is held in a fiduciary capacity by the bank but the peculiar nature of this case shows that larger public interest would be served by disclosure of information and this would outweigh any harm to any protected interest. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information noting that, if the contentions of the appellant are correct then, information should be provided as per the provisions of section8(2)Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.of the RTI Act." +992,What to do if the PIO is not sure as to what is sought by the RTI applicant?,,all the constructions undertaken by the Engineering department only,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the to allow the appellant to inspect the complete records dealing with the Kumbh Mela 2010 so that he can compile the information required by him.,"What to do if the PIO is not sure as to what is sought by the RTI applicant? + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to the Kumbh Mela in Haridwar. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied provided point wise reply. During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the appellant has not sought specific information against some points and that the information sought was too general as the appellant had asked for details of all constructions that had been undertaken by the Construction Department over the last 5 years. The appellant explained that he wanted to know about all the constructions undertaken by the Engineering department only. The respondent then assured the appellant that information will be provided to him.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the available information regarding the constructions undertaken by the Engineering department. The Commission also directed the to allow the appellant to inspect the complete records dealing with the Kumbh Mela 2010 so that he can compile the information required by him. + +Comments + +If the PIO is not clear as to what is sought under the RTI Act, it would be appropriate to call the applicant for the inspection of the records." +993,Occupancy status of Tourism hotels during Indo- Pak World Cup semi-final Cricket match,,"the total occupancy at three hotels, under the Corporation at Chandigarh, for certain duration",['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also asked the PIO to provide the proof of payment made by the Ministry of External Affairs for the rooms booked by them in the three hotels.,"Occupancy status of Tourism hotels during Indo- Pak World Cup semi-final Cricket match + +Background: +The applicant filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Chandigarh Industrial & Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. (CITCO), seeking information regarding the total occupancy at three hotels, under the Corporation at Chandigarh, for certain duration . The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. During the hearing, the appellant stated that the three days for which he had sought information were when the India Pakistan World Cup semi final match was played at Mohali and that large number of people was denied bookings in these three hotels. PIO submitted that he had received directions from the Ministry of External Affairs to hold accommodation for a large contingent of guests accompanying the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India along with other VVIPs and that time they had to move out some of their guests who were already occupying rooms in these hotels to hostel accommodation.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide in writing the information given verbally to the Commission at the hearing. The Commission also asked the PIO to provide the proof of payment made by the Ministry of External Affairs for the rooms booked by them in the three hotels. +994,Can information of private body accessible to a public authority be sought under RTI?,,the services of contract employees,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"Comments + +The definition of ‘information’ which can be sought under the RTI Act includes records which can be accessed by a public authority under any law in force.’ Hence, even the information which may not be held by a public authority can be sought under the RTI Act.","Can information of private body accessible to a public authority be sought under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant had sought information regarding the services of contract employees. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the information could be sought from the concerned outsourcing company. During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the information sought relates to third party and was not provided to the applicant as it pertains to the terms and conditions of employment, working hours, safety conditions of the outsourcing companies. The respondent further submitted that the information has been subsequently provided to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the respondent cannot take the defense by saying that the information sought relates to third party information or that the information is with the outsourcing company and therefore cannot be provided by the PIO. The Commission further held that as per section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act, information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force constitutes ‘information’. The Commission closed the case noting that the information, initially denied by the PIO, has been obtained from the private body and subsequently provided to the appellant. + +Comments + +The definition of ‘information’ which can be sought under the RTI Act includes records which can be accessed by a public authority under any law in force.’ Hence, even the information which may not be held by a public authority can be sought under the RTI Act. With an increase in the outsourcing activities of the government, RTI application seeking information regarding them are likely to be filed." +995,Seeking investigation report of a train accident under RTI,"North Western Railway, Ajmer",,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The CIC directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant file and provide the appellant with copies of documents identified by him, on payment of fees.","Seeking investigation report of a train accident under RTI + +Background: +The applicant filed an RTI application with the North Western Railway, Ajmer seeking information in respect of accident that had occurred on 23.1.11 with the Gwalior-Udaipur Intercity express in which some youth who were travelling on the roof of the train collided with Martindel bridge and died during treatment. He wanted a copy of the investigation report of the accident and the name of the officer who conducted the investigation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) gave point wise information and stated that travelling on the roof of the train is punishable offence as per section 156 of the Railway Act. + +Proceedings + +The respondent submitted before the Central Information Commission (CIC) that investigation report had been provided. The appellant stated that only findings of the enquiry have been provided to him and not the complete report.","The CIC directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant file and provide the appellant with copies of documents identified by him, on payment of fees." +996,Queries about why certain action was taken in a vigilance enquiry raised under RTI,,whether the rumors that the enquiry was conducted in the retiring room were correct,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"He was only seeking the opinion of the PIO and that the PIO is not obligated to provide his opinion under RTI since such an opinion does not comply with the definition of information as given in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","Queries about why certain action was taken in a vigilance enquiry raised under RTI + +Background: +The appellant wanted to know why minor action was instituted against a Railway employee for having taken bribe even after the employee herself accepted that she had taken the bribe money, whether special favours were extended to the employee who had admitted to having accepted bribe money. He also wanted to know whether the rumors that the enquiry was conducted in the retiring room were correct. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the applicant that disciplinary proceeding against the employee was taken as per the merit/ gravity of offence detected during the investigation.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal holding that the appellant was not seeking information as defined in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.  He was only seeking the opinion of the PIO and that the PIO is not obligated to provide his opinion under RTI since such an opinion does not comply with the definition of information as given in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act." +997,RTI application with statements rather than questions,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that information available on the records has been provided and disposed the appeal.,"RTI application with statements rather than questions + +Background: +A detailed application was filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act about a property mortgaged with the bank giving many factual statement and ending with the question “At last the applicant wishes to know under the RTI Act that when it can come to take back its movable as well as immovable assets from the bank’s possession for which unnecessarily a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is continuously being deducted from the applicant’s account so as to pay the rent.” The PIO commented on the facts narrated in the application and provided point wise information. Not being satisfied with the reply of the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA) who did not pass any order.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that information available on the records has been provided and disposed the appeal. + +Comments + +This case highlights a common problem regarding the RTI applications in the country. One, the applicants file an application without realising what is the information they wish to seek and second, even the PIO’s continue to comment even on the statements which do not seek any information. Ignorance is too pervasive as of now." +998,Can personal information be disclosed under RTI to family members?,Ministry of Home Affairs,,['8(1)(j)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The Commission advised the appellant to establish his identity before the PIO, L&DO to enable him to provide requisite information.","Can personal information be disclosed under RTI to family members? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Ministry of Home Affairs seeking information in respect of a certain property. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and for the rest of the queries, transferred the application to Ministry of Urban Development, Land & Development Office (L&DO). He also informed the appellant to approach L&DO in the matter as the work relating to Government Built Properties situated in Delhi/ New Delhi already stands transferred to L&DO, Ministry of Urban Development. The PIO, Ministry of Urban Development denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act, stating no larger public interest appears to be involved.","The respondent from L&DO submitted that the sought information was third party information and was denied to the appellant as he did not establish that he is the family member of the owner. The PIO also stated that the information can be provided to the appellant in case he establishes himself to be a family member of the owner. The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the information required is in the nature of personal information of a third party. The Commission advised the appellant to establish his identity before the PIO, L&DO to enable him to provide requisite information. + +Comments + +Every citizen should file an RTI application in his own name rather than asking a family member to file an application. If an application is not filed on behalf of a family member, the same may be denied under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.." +999,What should a PIO do if a third party is not traceable?,,"whether between 1994 and 2002, the passport holder stayed in India at the said address or he was abroad",['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comments + +The question of privacy has received different interpretations from different benches of CIC.","What should a PIO do if a third party is not traceable? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding a person such as the year in which he has obtained the passport from the passport office, whether he utilized the passport for his foreign employment and the years in which he went abroad and return from foreign country to India. He also wanted to know whether between 1994 and 2002, the passport holder stayed in India at the said address or he was abroad. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the application fee was deposited by the way of court fee stamp which was not acceptable and instructed the appellant for the payment of fee by the prescribed mode. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) referred to the Delhi High Court decision [in WP(C) no. 9118 of 2009] and rejected the appeal stating that it pertained to third party and the same was barred from disclosure under section (8)(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that information sought by the appellant regarding the year of obtaining the passport may be available with the public authority but other information would not be available with the passport office. The Commission also noted that the respondent has refused to give the information claiming exemption under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act stating that the third party information cannot be disclosed without taking the views of the third party and further stated that the present whereabouts of the third parties were not maintained by the Ministry. The Commission ruled that if the third party’s address was not located it does not mean the citizen’s right to information would disappear as section 11 is a procedural requirement that gives third party an opportunity to voice an objection in releasing the information. The Commission held that the PIO should keep in mind that denial of information can only be on the basis of exemption under section 8 (1) of the RTI act. As per section 11(3), the PIO has to determine whether the information is exempt or not and inform the appellant and the third party of his decision. If no objection is received from third party, information has to be disclosed. If the third party sends an objection, the PIO has to determine whether the information is exempt under the provisions of the Act and the third party can file an appeal against the decision of the PIO under section 19 of the Act as per the provision of section 11(4). The Commission did not accept the PIO’s contention that information provided by an applicant when applying for passport is exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act and directed the PIO to provide the information the year of issue of passport, if it was available in record. + +Comments + +The question of privacy has received different interpretations from different benches of CIC. In this regard, a PIO often faces the dilemma whether to consider every information submitted to a public authority as liable to disclosure." +1000,PPP projects initiated by government of India in health sector sought under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +The readers may recall that in an earlier order, the CIC had held PHFI is a public authority.","PPP projects initiated by government of India in health sector sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought details of public partnership projects initiated by government of India through Ministry of Health & Family Welfare or any other agency related to health sector such as file noting of each project where sanction was awarded, details of promoters, consultancy assignments, details of members of the committee which took decision to award the consultancy assignments etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that no such project has been initiated by the government of India through Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in health sector. Ministry of Finance is in the process of formulating the PPP policy for the social sector viz. Education & Health. For some of the queries, the PIO transferred the application to the Public Health Foundation of India (PHFI) for providing the requisite information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the appellant pointed out that the PIO (Ministry of Health & Family Welfare) had informed him that no such project has been initiated by Government of India but PHFI had admitted to have received Rs.65 Crore. The PIO of PHFI states that the term PPP has been loosely used and PHFI is not a PPP Project and Rs. 65 Crore has been given as grand-in-aid.","To resolve the confusion, the Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO of the Ministry to send the appellant a copy of the letter and communication by which the Rs.65 Crore was given to PHFI. The Commission also directed the PIO, PHFI to send a copy of letter received by them in relation to Rs. 65 Crore from the Ministry. + +Comments + +The readers may recall that in an earlier order, the CIC had held PHFI is a public authority." +1001,Can the FAA give a hearing instead of passing an order under RTI?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the required details to the appellant.,"Can the FAA give a hearing instead of passing an order under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding leave taken by Executive Engineers of Andaman Public Works Department (APWD) such as the certified copies of the leave application, list of officers (Name, Designation & period) to whom the charges were handed over during the absence of regular Executive Engineer, copy of letter of attestation of signature of officers who had taken and handed over charges, copy of note sheet, sanctioning the leave etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to the application. The appellant claimed in the second appeal that instead of passing an order, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) gave a hearing and stated that the leave records of any official could not be provided in view of the order of the CIC. The FAA reportedly held that the leaves were sanctioned by the competent authority and as they were paid by the public money he was more concern about it and straightly refused to provide any information as the same was not covered under public interest.","The Deemed PIO submitted that since the FAA had stated in the hearing that the information was exempt he did not send the information. The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that FAA did not issue any order as required by the law and hence the FAA’s contention during the hearing that the information was exempt was flawed. The Commission stated that the information sought was about the leave of public servants and such information cannot be construed as information which can be considered to be an issue of privacy of public servants. The Commission further warned the PIO that information has to be sent within 30 days to appellant and if any exemptions were claimed reasons must be given explaining how exemption apply. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the required details to the appellant. + +Comments + +The PIO was lucky to have escaped a show-cause notice for not providing information despite not responding to the RTI application within stipulated time. All PIO/ FAA must keep in mind that appropriate written orders must be passed within 30 days of the receipt of the application / appeal." +1002,RTI Query - Who is eligible to handle critical care unit/neurosurgical ICU in a hospital?,Medical Council of India,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that no information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act has been sought.","RTI Query - Who is eligible to handle critical care unit/neurosurgical ICU in a hospital? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act, with the Medical Council of India seeking to know that a person holding MBBS degree from India and FCCP, American Board is eligible enough to handle Critical Care Unit/Neurosurgical ICU independently in India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that what has been sought is not information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. During the hearing the PIO stated that there is nothing on the record from which he can provide the information to the appellant. However, there is a method of determining the eligibility of the teacher’s qualification which he will explain to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that no information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act has been sought. + +Comment + +The appellant had raised a simple query and the PIO could have provided the copy of rules regarding the eligibility of a person to handle critical care unit/Neurosurgical ICU. If no rules regarding the subject were in existence, the same should have been communicated to the appellant." +1003,Allegation of fake bill under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the appellant was still complaining about non receipt of the information, the Commission therefore directed the PIO to send one more set of information to the appellant by speed post along with proof of dispatch of information to the appellant the first time.","Allegation of fake bill under RTI + +Background: +The applicant sought information and the file notings along with the documents related to an accident occurred involving a goods train because of which rail traffic was affected. The appellant stated that at the time of accident 20 Ticket Inspectors and 5 porters were entrusted with the duty of transporting passengers along with one commercial inspector NC railway was made the overall in-charge. The appellant alleged that the commercial inspector had made money by submitting fake bills and the case was widely reported in news papers. The applicant further complained that even after the payment of fee to the Public Information Officer (PIO), the information has not been provided to him. The respondent submitted that the information was sent to the appellant by registered post.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the appellant was still complaining about non receipt of the information, the Commission therefore directed the PIO to send one more set of information to the appellant by speed post along with proof of dispatch of information to the appellant the first time." +1004,Information regarding construction of foot over bridge on NH- 1,,,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant is exempt under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act and the disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party.","Information regarding construction of foot over bridge on NH- 1 + +Background: +The appellant sought certified copies of structural drawing, elevation drawing, section drawing, nomenclature and schedule of items, quantities of all planned Foot Over Bridge (FOB) in respect of National Highway (NH-1). The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA upheld the PIO’s reply) citing the order of Delhi High Court relating to disclosure of Zamrudpur Metro Pillar design. He also stated that the sought information was related to trade secret and intellectual property of concessionaire. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondent submitted that six laning of NH-1 was being executed as BOT (Toll) Project on DBFO (design, build, Finance and Operate) Pattern, through the Concession Agreement between the Concessionaire and National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). Larger public interest is served through operational and maintenance of the Project facilities in accordance with Concession Agreement. The respondent also stated that the Geometric and Structural Designs of various Project facilities such as FOB, are developed strictly in accordance with standards and specifications laid down under IRC Guidelines as per the Concession Agreement and would not warrant its disclosure, as no larger public interest is involved.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant is exempt under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act and the disclosure would harm the competitive position of a third party." +1005,Is the Pupil’s welfare fund in school covered under Government fund?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the PIO has provided the available information as per records and that he is under no obligation to interpret any order under the RTI Act, for the appellant.","Is the Pupil’s welfare fund in school covered under Government fund? + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to the VKS Committee’s existence in the school and utilization of VKS fund from the Directorate of Education of Delhi. The appellant further wanted know whether the Pupil Welfare Funds existed in Delhi Govt school were to be considered as Govt funds or Non government funds. The Public Information Office (PIO) enclosed the available copy of guideline of Pupil Welfare Fund issued by School branch and stated that the information sought against the rest of the points do not pertain to the school branch. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the required information.","The appellant desired to know whether the Pupil Welfare Funds in Delhi Govt school were to be considered as Govt funds or Non government funds. The respondent stated that the order wherein it was decided that Pupil’s Welfare Fund should be collected from the parents of the children has already been shared with the appellant, however the order does not specify whether the funds were Govt funds or Non Govt funds. The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the PIO has provided the available information as per records and that he is under no obligation to interpret any order under the RTI Act, for the appellant. Hence the appeal was dismissed." +1006,Can the Charter of Demands submitted by Trade Unions be disclosed under RTI?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to take action as per section 11 of the Act and seek submission of the third party and after receiving such submission, disclose the requested information in consonance with the provisions of the Act.","Can the Charter of Demands submitted by Trade Unions be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought the copy of the Charter of Demands submitted by all the Trade Unions for wage negotiations / revisions due by the Company’s Management from August 2007. The Public Information Officer (PIO) asked the appellant to deposit the fee of Rs. 298/- for obtaining the information involving 149 pages. The appellant objected that the PIO had not acted as per section 10(2)(b) and (e) of the Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) provided a speaking order explaining the reasons for severance of part of the information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to take action as per section 11 of the Act and seek submission of the third party and after receiving such submission, disclose the requested information in consonance with the provisions of the Act." +1007,Can details of insurance policy be disclosed under RTI?,,insurance policy taken by a person,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission also held that no larger public interest has been established by the appellant.,"Can details of insurance policy be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought information pertaining to insurance policy taken by a person. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. During the hearing, the respondent stated that in absence of policy number, no information can be provided to the appellant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal noting that the information sought was related to preserved information and the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion to the privacy of the individual. The Commission also held that no larger public interest has been established by the appellant. +1008,Should the entries made by officers in the APAR be disclosed?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide authenticated copies of annual performance appraisal report for the sought period, to the appellant.","Should the entries made by officers in the APAR be disclosed? + +Background: +The appellant sought certified copy of the entries made by all the officers in his Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for a certain period. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that his APAR grading was “Very Good” but the remarks made by the reporting/ reviewing officer are withheld under section10(1)Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the decision of the PIO with the observation that specific information has been provided to the appellant in accordance with the decision of CIC and also as per the instructions issued by the Directorate of Personnel and grievance (DoPT).","The appellant submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, for fairness and transparency in public administration, has held in their judgment in the case of (Civil Appeal No. 7631 of 2002) that the object of writing the confidential report and making entries is to give an opportunity to the public servant to improve the performance. In compliance with the above-said judgment of the Supreme Court, the Government has issued instructions to the effect that full APAR including the overall grading shall be communicated to the concerned officer. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide authenticated copies of annual performance appraisal report for the sought period, to the appellant." +1009,Records of complaint of sexual harassment sought under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that cases of sexual harassment were monitored on monthly basis at Head Office and directed the PIO to provide the details only in terms of numbers to the appellant for the period 2008 – 2011.,"Records of complaint of sexual harassment sought under RTI + +Background: +The applicant sought for the information pertaining to complaints of sexual harassment received, not registered/not investigated from the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC). The Public Information Officer (PIO) supplied point wise information which failed to satisfy the applicant.",The PIO stated that there was no record held by them pertaining to cases that were not registered or not investigated. The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that cases of sexual harassment were monitored on monthly basis at Head Office and directed the PIO to provide the details only in terms of numbers to the appellant for the period 2008 – 2011. +1010,Change of jurisdiction over the information should be informed to the RTI applicant,,date of de-sealing and proposed demolition of a particular property,[],UNKNOWN,,3000.0,"Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs.","Change of jurisdiction over the information should be informed to the RTI applicant + +Background: +An application under Right to Information (RTI) Act was filed to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) on 11 March 2010 seeking information regarding date of de-sealing and proposed demolition of a particular property. On that date, the said property was located within the area under the jurisdiction of DDA and the Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the information accordingly on 27 April 2010. The land area was transferred to Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) vide a notification dated on 4 June 2010. However, information was provided to the appellant by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and also through 10 letters over the period from 11 August 2010 to 29 February 2012 without ever mentioning the said notification or informing the appellant that the DDA no longer had any jurisdiction over the land area which was the subject matter of the RTI application. + +Proceedings + +The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has been put to a loss of two years during which he could have taken up the matter with the MCD and also that she has faced physical and mental harassment as well as financial loss. The Commission issued a show-cause notice to the PIO vide order dated 17 April 2012 to show-cause why compensation should not be awarded to the appellant.","The Commission stated that the respondent cannot dismiss the matter with the argument that they did not have knowledge of this notification. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 3000/- to the appellant." +1011,Information determining the career of a person is a “life and liberty’ issue,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the appellant to file the application and pay the required fees so that the OMR sheet can be inspected by her at the earliest – definitely within two to three days of the date of hearing.,"Information determining the career of a person is a “life and liberty’ issue + +Background: +The applicant sought information regarding examination for admission to PG/ MS / MD/ Diploma courses in Guru Gobind singh IP University such as details of the marks originally given to each candidate on the basis of evaluation of their OMR Sheets, merit list prepared by the University along with details of enhanced marks of all the candidates, basis for enhancing the marks for preparation of final merit list, copy of all the documents prepared by the University in the process of finalization of merit list and the copy of representation submitted by the candidates regarding reconsideration of the result of the PG/MS/MD/Diploma examination. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to the application. + +The applicant filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC) stating that the authorities of the University were going ahead with the counseling of the candidates included in the merit list. The applicant submitted that if further delay in supplying of information happens, then the purpose for which the information is being sought will be lost and she will not be able take remedial action before the admission process is complete. The applicant requested the Commission to treat her complaint in larger public interest and grant out of turn hearing. She informed that the Regular Courts where she could alternatively approach are closed for vacation and will be reconvened only on 8th July 2012 but by that time the admission process will attain finality and her “life and liberty’ would be severely affected. She stated that the information is required since the same will determine her career in life and therefore the matter may be considered a “life” of a young person. + +Proceeding + +The respondent brought the complete information to the hearing but objected to the observation of the appellant that it seems that marks of candidates have been ‘enhanced’ at will. They explained that marks were automatically given by the computer software and since the marks are automatically adjusted, based on a certain principle, there is no enhancement of marks as such. The appellant insisted for the copy of her OMR. The respondents stated that the OMR sheet can be inspected but copy can be provided to the appellant only after she applies for the same and pays the required fees.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the respondent to provide the information brought by them to appellant, immediately after the hearing. To clear the appellant’s doubts of the alleged ad hoc manner in which the mark of various candidates had been increased, the Commission also asked the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect all the records in the presence of the Dy. Registrar and provide the copies of documents required by her. The Commission directed the appellant to file the application and pay the required fees so that the OMR sheet can be inspected by her at the earliest – definitely within two to three days of the date of hearing. + +Comments + +In cases involving “life and liberty”, the information has to be provided within 48 hours of filing the RTI application. This order opens up a flood of possibilities where the clause of life and liberty can be used." +1012,Details of birth records maintained by a hospital under RTI,Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the print out of the computer record indicating that the birth record has indeed been sent to MCD has already been provided to the Complainant and thus no further disclosure of information is required.,"Details of birth records maintained by a hospital under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act, with the Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital seeking information related to birth records and in particular about the records of a child born to a specific person. The Public Information Officer (PIO) supplied the copy of record of birth of the child and point wise information against remaining queries. The applicant while filing the second appeal complained that he wanted to know why the hospital had not sent the record of birth of a specific person to Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) since in response to another RTI application, PIO MCD had informed him that no such hospital record has been received by them.","The respondents submitted that the details of the child born to the said person were fed into their data entry system and the print out of the entry report including the number has already been provided to the complainant. The respondents further submitted that MCD is expected to issue birth certificates after picking up the data sent by various hospitals and it appears that due to some fault either at the MCD end or during the transmission of information from the Hospital to MCD, the report got lost. The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the print out of the computer record indicating that the birth record has indeed been sent to MCD has already been provided to the Complainant and thus no further disclosure of information is required. + +Comments + +It is necessary to frame the question properly in the application filed for obtaining information." +1013,Who is empowered to issue a charge sheet?,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) closed the case, as the appellant accepted the explanation.","Who is empowered to issue a charge sheet? + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to powers given to ‘J’ grade officers including the act or rule by which Railway Board gives the power to any ‘J’ grade officer and group ‘B’ officer to misuse his designation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) furnished point wise information.","The appellant stated that he wanted to know whether a person with Rs. 4800 grade pay can punish an employee with Rs. 4200 grade pay and can issue a minor penalty charge sheet to him. The respondent submitted that before 6th Pay Commission recommendations came into force, Jr. Scale officer could issue the charge sheet whereas after May 2011, only a gazetted officer has the authority to do so. The appellant produced some documents to prove that information supplied by PIO was incorrect. The respondent produced the official document (SOP) in this connection confirming that the information they had provided was correct and that it was not known from where the appellant has picked up the document that he has produced since the same has not been issued by the office. The Central Information Commission (CIC) closed the case, as the appellant accepted the explanation." +1014,Disclosure of information of the bomb blast under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) remitted the matter back to the FAA with the direction to provide requisite information to the appellant to the extent available with the public authority.,"Disclosure of information of the bomb blast under RTI + +Background: +From the Ministry of Home Affairs, state-wise information related to number of bomb blasts that happened from 2002 to June 2011 in which terrorists were suspected to be involved was sought in a particular format under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that records/details of bomb blasts/terrorist attacks were kept by the concerned State/UT Governments and accordingly can be obtained from them directly. However, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the information (as available) which may have been collated by the Ministry while responding to Parliament Questions.","The appellant submitted that the PIO has failed to provide information despite the directions of the FAA. The respondent submitted that the direction of the FAA could not be acted upon, because the information was not available in the manner in which it was sought by the appellant. The Central Information Commission (CIC) remitted the matter back to the FAA with the direction to provide requisite information to the appellant to the extent available with the public authority." +1015,Supply of furniture to FSI without work order revealed under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the Dean, FSI to inquire into the matter and ensure that photocopies of all records in the Institute concerning the said furniture should be send to the appellant.","Supply of furniture to FSI without work order revealed under RTI + +Background: +The appellant claimed that he had supplied certain furniture worth about Rs.3.5/- lakhs to the Foreign Service Institute (FSI), on verbal orders by the Dean. He stated that he has the receipts for supply of the furniture items duly signed by the then Section Officer. He also claimed that he was promised that the work orders will be issued to him but no work order was issued to him and that the furniture supplied by him was still lying in FSI. But since no work order was issued the payment has not been made to him. To recover his money, he filed an RTI application seeking copies various letters pertaining to the supply of furniture by him. He filed the second appeal claiming unsatisfactory reply was given by the Public Information Officer (PIO) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA). During the hearing the appellant alleged that consequent to his filing the RTI application a letter was issued by Joint Secretary, asking him to take his furniture back. The respondent admitted that the bills sought by the appellant were on the files of FSI.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the circumstances described by the appellant shows that he had some corroboration with the FSI and transactions between them seems to show some very irregular transactions. The Commission directed the Dean, FSI to inquire into the matter and ensure that photocopies of all records in the Institute concerning the said furniture should be send to the appellant." +1016,Investigation report of an allegedly fraudulent account in SBI,,,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(j)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal while agreeing with the decision of PIO.,"Investigation report of an allegedly fraudulent account in SBI + +Background: +The appellant sought the information regarding an investigation report of an allegedly fraudulent account in State Bank of India (SBI). The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.  During the hearing it was revealed that an individual had opened an account in SBI through fake documents and ID and deposited a banker's cheque issued by another bank branch which was converted from a stolen cheque. The fraud was confirmed after an investigation. The investigation report could not be provided because of security considerations. The respondent also stated that the holder of the fraudulent account was a close family member of the appellant. The respondent explained that the investigation report cannot be furnished as it was an internal and privileged document containing information about security lapses and the steps to be taken to plug any future possibilities of committing fraud.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal while agreeing with the decision of PIO. +1017,Issue of non-official photo passes by Ministry of Home Affairs,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to provide the action taken on application for issue of non-official photo pass as well as the reasons for rejection of application, as per record.","Issue of non-official photo passes by Ministry of Home Affairs + +Background: +The appellant sought the action taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on the application of Pr. Secretary, Indian Newspaper and Journalist Society, for issuance of non-official photo pass/Identity Card. He also sought the name, organization and mobile number in respect of persons to whom MHA had issued photo pass since the year 2009 and the basis of issuance of non-official photo pass/ Identity Card by the MHA. The appellant filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) on the grounds of deemed refusal by the respondent. + +Proceeding + +During the hearing the respondent submitted that as per existing guidelines MHA, Non-Official Identity Card/Photo Passes are issued to senior most office bearers of reputed public limited companies, national level confederation/ association of industries, national level sectoral association, NGOs and National level institutions. Since the case was not covered under any guidelines for issue of Identity Card, the applicant was asked to apply for Press Information Bureau (PIB) Card issued by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B). The PIB cards are issued to Correspondents of the Press Information Bureau and to facilitate their access to the Government Building under MHA Security Cover, their PIB Card is accredited by MHA. The respondent also submitted that some of the queries in the RTI application was prefixed with why and what and since such queries do not come within the ambit of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act, they were not replied to. However for rest of the queries the appellant was requested to obtain the information after depositing the additional fee, which the appellant failed to do.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that as per provisions of the RTI Act, information held by the Public Authority in material form has to be provided to the information seeker, unless such information is denied under one of the exemption provisions of the RTI Act. The information cannot be denied merely because the appellant has prefixed his query with why and what. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the action taken on application for issue of non-official photo pass as well as the reasons for rejection of application, as per record." +1018,Receipts of loan taken by third party sought under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +The use of the term SPIO instead of CPIO by the Information Commissioner is strange as the cases related to the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) go to the State Information Commission.","Receipts of loan taken by third party sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the attested photocopies of receipts in respect of a loan taken by a person for a shop which was later refunded to the bank. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that there was lack of clarity about the information that was being sought along with the records. During the hearing, the respondent pointed out that it was third party information, which was held by the bank in fiduciary capacity. The respondent also submitted that the bank provides personal information only to those who are account holders and since the appellant was not the account holder, hence the information sought was not provided. The appellant stated that he wanted the information only for calculation purposes.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the respondent to take recourse to the provision in section 11 of the RTI Act to determine from the account holder about making available the information sought to the appellant, and take action accordingly. + +Comments + +The use of the term SPIO instead of CPIO by the Information Commissioner is strange as the cases related to the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) go to the State Information Commission. In this site, the term Public Information Officer (PIO) is deliberately used to avoid the confusion." +1019,Norms for construction of additional floor on the existing building,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that what is sought is not information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","Norms for construction of additional floor on the existing building + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding construction of an additional floor on the existing building like, whether the owner of the second floor of the property can construct additional third floor in the said property without consent of other co-owners, in case of the renovation of the floor what changes can the owner of the floor make, if all co-owner of the property agree for the construction of additional third floor i.e. third floor can be constructed on the existing structure of the building,  the sanction should be taken only for third floor from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) or for the entire building plan when the plan for existing building of the three floors was already sanctioned as per Delhi Development Authority (DDA) building construction Plan and what would be the share of each co-owner in the construction of building as well as in usage of building. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the sought information was a clarification and that the information was available in the Building Bye-Laws (B.B.L) and M.P.D, 2011 in open market purchase. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to supply the specific information as sought as per Building Bye-Laws.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that what is sought is not information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act." +1020,Information regarding enquiry proceedings against delinquent employees of bank under RTI,,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to provide the complete information as per available records to the appellant stating that the exemption claimed by the PIO under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.was not applicable in the instant case.","Information regarding enquiry proceedings against delinquent employees of bank under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the details about some delinquent employees of Bank of India viz. their names, details of enquiry proceedings, charge sheet issued to them, the replies thereof and the penalty details imposed on the employees. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) rejected the appeal who held that the PIO has rightly rejected the application under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, because in the RTI application the appellant did not state that any larger public interest is involved in the matter warranting disclosure of information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that proviso to section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.states that ‘Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.’ The Commission pointed that by this proviso, Parliament recognized the primacy to the individual citizen, who lends it legitimacy. Besides it wanted all PIOs to be aware that Parliament itself derives its legitimacy from the citizen who is therefore entitled to the same information. + +The Commission asked the PIO if he would deny this information to the Parliament or Legislature. The PIO stated that he would not deny this information to Parliament or Legislature. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the complete information as per available records to the appellant stating that the exemption claimed by the PIO under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.was not applicable in the instant case." +1021,Procedure followed by the bank for educational loan recovery,,"recovery of an educational loan given to his son, such as the complaint lodged by him, the action taken by the bank, bank’s code of conduct for loan recovery and any court orders in respect of it",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide specific information to the appellant on all the counts in the RTI application.,"Procedure followed by the bank for educational loan recovery + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding recovery of an educational loan given to his son, such as the complaint lodged by him, the action taken by the bank, bank’s code of conduct for loan recovery and any court orders in respect of it. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to the query. On directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO he sent the copy of the model code of the bank and explained that if family member is deceased the respective shares of a family were adjusted towards repayment of the loan. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the appellant stated that he sought two sets of information where one was related to the loan recovery procedures of the bank and second, the manner in which the bank serviced the son’s educational loan account via his deceased wife’s account. The appellant also alleged that the educational loan recovery was illegally set off from his deceased wife’s account and the bank had supplied only partial information in respect of his RTI application.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide specific information to the appellant on all the counts in the RTI application. +1022,Can the response sheet filled by the Interview Panel be sought under RTI?,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the (pre-standardized) interview score awarded to the appellant’s son.,"Can the response sheet filled by the Interview Panel be sought under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought information relating to National Talent Search Examination (NTSE) Interview conducted by National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), such as copy of response sheet filled by the Interview Panel for his son and for those students who scored more than22The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.marks in the interview. The Public Information Officer (PIO) suggested the appellant to refer the NTSE results on the website and denied to provide the copy of the score sheet in respect of his son in order to maintain the confidentiality of the Board members.","The appellant submitted that his son had secured 11 marks in the interview while others had got marks as high as22The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.and hence he wanted to seek the copies. The respondent explained that as there are multiple boards across the country, through a system of standardization, the raw scores are converted into standardized scores. The respondent also referred to an earlier CIC decision (CIC/DS/C/2011/000239) wherein third party information was denied but on the appellant’s request, interview scores awarded to his son were disclosed. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the (pre-standardized) interview score awarded to the appellant’s son." +1023,Disclosure under RTI of the reports to be placed before the parliament,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"As all the information as desired by the appellant has already been provided to him, the Central Information Commission (CIC) disposed the appeal accordingly.","Disclosure under RTI of the reports to be placed before the parliament + +Background: +The appellant sought a number of information related with the audit of some income tax returns/assessment proceedings carried out by the Income Tax officer related to HEPI. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided all the information except the copy of the audit report on the ground that the audit report was required to be submitted to the Parliament before it could be disclosed to the public.","The respondent informed that the withheld information had also been disclosed recently after the audit report was placed on the floor of the Parliament. As all the information as desired by the appellant has already been provided to him, the Central Information Commission (CIC) disposed the appeal accordingly." +1024,Applicants should avoid seeking clarifications or comments under RTI,Department of Personnel and Training,the appellate process followed under the RTI Act,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal suggesting the appellant to consult the provisions of the RTI Act himself or seek legal opinion from an appropriate legal expert to find out the answers to his queries.,"Applicants should avoid seeking clarifications or comments under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed a RTI application with the Department of Personnel and Training seeking information regarding the appellate process followed under the RTI Act. He also wanted to know if the Member of Parliament (MP) /Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA)/ Member of Legislative Council (MLC) were public authority within the meaning of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the queries made by the appellant do not amount to information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act and that he was seeking legal opinion on various provisions of the RTI Act which are beyond the scope of the RTI Act. The Commission also observed that the PIO is supposed to provide copies of the relevant government records and documents only in response to RTI requests and cannot be expected to provide any clarification or comment on any query. The Commission rejected the appeal suggesting the appellant to consult the provisions of the RTI Act himself or seek legal opinion from an appropriate legal expert to find out the answers to his queries." +1025,Information relating to moveable and immovable property of IIT employees,,,['8(1)(j)'],UNKNOWN,,,"In view of the past decisions of the CIC, the Commission upheld the orders of the PIO and FAA observing that no larger public interest has been established for disclosing the information.","Information relating to moveable and immovable property of IIT employees + +Background: +The appellant sought information relating to moveable and immovable property held by Director, the then Registrar and the then Deputy Registrar of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kanpur and their family members. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) in his order noted that the appellant and the PIO had been requested to come before him but the appellant did not turn up instead sent a letter a contending that there was no provision under the RTI Act for the PIO, Security Officer and the appellant to hold discussion with the FAA and this seems to be a conspiracy. The FAA upheld the decision of the PIO and also noted that there was no communication indicating presence of Security Officer. + +Proceeding + +The respondent submitted that he had sought the views of the officials concerned regarding disclosure of annual property returns and they had expressed their reservations. Hence the request had been denied under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The respondent also referred to earlier decisions of the Central Information Commission (CIC) [Appeal no. CIC/DS/A/2011/001048] and [FILE NO.CIC/SB/C/2010/000026-SM] which states that the immovable property returns filed by officers are their personal information and should not be ordinarily disclosed. Section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right of Information (RTI) Act exempts such information from disclosure.","In view of the past decisions of the CIC, the Commission upheld the orders of the PIO and FAA observing that no larger public interest has been established for disclosing the information. + +Comments + +The RTI Act does not have a provision for giving a personal hearing at the level of the PIO or the FAA. There is no necessity for giving a hearing to the applicant, but a FAA may consider giving a hearing depending upon the circumstances of the case. However, under no circumstance, should the applicant be forcefully brought for a hearing." +1026,Are the details submitted by a person for issue of PAN card personal?,Income Tax,,[],REMANDED,,,"In this case, the Commission has preferred to remand the matter rather than taking a decision as to whether the information provided by an individual for obtaining a PAN card is personal or otherwise.","Are the details submitted by a person for issue of PAN card personal? + +Background: +The appellant filed a RTI application with the Income Tax seeking copies of documents submitted by a person as proof of age and proof of address for issue of a PAN card. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section 8(i)(j) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the appellant that allotment of PAN was outsourced to National Securities Depository Ltd. (NSDL) and the information was not available with them. The appellant sent a written submission stating that when he sought the information from the NSDL, he was informed that NSDL does not come under the purview of RTI Act and that PAN related documents belong to the IT department and advised him to approach the Income Tax department directly for obtaining the required information.","The Central Information Commission observed that there is contradiction in the orders of the PIO and FAA. The PIO’s denial of information under section 8(i)(j) implies that the information is available, but cannot be disclosed under the section quoted. The FAA on the other hand, states that the records are not available with them but with the NSDL. The Commission also noted that in terms of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;and section2(j)“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; +(iii) taking certified samples of material; +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;of the RTI Act, the FAA has the right to obtain the information from the NSDL and provide it to the appellant. The Commission remanded the case to the FAA with directions to take appropriate action under the RTI Act. The Commission also advised the appellant to move the Commission again if he is dissatisfied with the orders of the FAA. + +Comments + +The FAA should be careful while giving orders and ensure that if there are any different grounds for the refusal of information, the same are adequately explained. In this case, the Commission has preferred to remand the matter rather than taking a decision as to whether the information provided by an individual for obtaining a PAN card is personal or otherwise." +1027,Information regarding cases against former Chief Minister of Haryana under RTI,,the institution of some cases against the former Chief Minister of Haryana,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide to the appellant a of the government notification conferring jurisdiction on the CBI for investigating the matter, observing that the document would explain clearly why the CBI had decided to file the final report in the Delhi Special Court instead of any such court in Haryana.","Information regarding cases against former Chief Minister of Haryana under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the institution of some cases against the former Chief Minister of Haryana. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some of the information. During the hearing, the appellant submitted that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had filed its final report in one of the cases against the former Chief Minister in the Special Court in Delhi instead of in Haryana; he wanted to know about the legal basis for such a decision on the part of the CBI i. e. he wanted to know how the Delhi Special Court acquired jurisdiction in the matter.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide to the appellant a of the government notification conferring jurisdiction on the CBI for investigating the matter, observing that the document would explain clearly why the CBI had decided to file the final report in the Delhi Special Court instead of any such court in Haryana." +1028,Procedure for changing the name of the student’s mother in the CBSE records,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to send another letter to the appellant clarifying the procedure which is required to be followed for changing the name of the child’s mother in the CBSE records.,"Procedure for changing the name of the student’s mother in the CBSE records + +Background: +The appellant had made a request with the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to change the name of the mother of a student in the CBSE records. Later, he filed an application under RTI to seek the exact status of his application. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant about the status of the case. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) explained the position to the appellant regarding the procedure to be followed for changing the name of the student’s mother in the CBSE’s records.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to send another letter to the appellant clarifying the procedure which is required to be followed for changing the name of the child’s mother in the CBSE records. +1029,Report on Integrated Strategy for Water Management by Group of Ministers (GoM),,,['8(1)(i)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal noting that no decision has been taken by the Cabinet and therefore the provisions of section 8(1) (i) of the RTI Act are attracted in the present case and no details can be disclosed.,"Report on Integrated Strategy for Water Management by Group of Ministers (GoM) + +Background: +The appellant sought copies of minutes of the meetings of the Group of Ministers (GoM) from 2005 till date and a copy of the report submitted by the GoM on Integrated Strategy for Water Management. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the minutes and the copy of report of the meeting of the GoM cannot be provided under section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of RTI Act, 2005 and the deliberations by the GoM were in progress and no report has yet been submitted to the Cabinet. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the PIO’s decision and stated that the ‘Cabinet papers’ have been defined as records of deliberations not only of the Council of Ministers but also of Secretaries and other Officers. The Group of Ministers (GoM) are ad hoc Committees, and the papers of GoM would constitute the papers for Cabinet consideration. These documents are exempt from disclosure as per section 8(1) (i) of RTI Act, till a decision is taken in the matter.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal noting that no decision has been taken by the Cabinet and therefore the provisions of section 8(1) (i) of the RTI Act are attracted in the present case and no details can be disclosed. +1030,Funds released by the Government of India to the State of Bihar,,the release of funds by the Government of India to the State Government of Bihar especially during the period when Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav and Smt,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the desired information cannot be given in the form in which it has been sought and there was nothing more to be disclosed in the case.,"Funds released by the Government of India to the State of Bihar + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Prime Minister’s Office seeking information regarding the release of funds by the Government of India to the State Government of Bihar especially during the period when Shri Lalu Prasad Yadav and Smt. Rabri Devi were the Chief Ministers of that State. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the application to the Department of Expenditure which provided some information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that it was not possible for any single public authority in the Government of India to provide such details about the funds released under various heads during the period when some individuals were the Chief Ministers of the State of Bihar. The Commission also noted that funds are released to the state governments by various ministries and departments of the government under numerous heads and unless such details are centrally maintained in any particular office, it would be impossible for any single PIO to collect and compile such information for the entire government spread over several years. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the desired information cannot be given in the form in which it has been sought and there was nothing more to be disclosed in the case." +1031,Can directions be issued to Police under RTI to take certain action?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission dismissed the appeal observing that the information available on the records has been provided to the appellant.,"Can directions be issued to Police under RTI to take certain action? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the Green Coconut Sellers such as the hawker license issued to them, the procedure for the certification of their identity by local police, the sanctioned size of the knife used for cutting the coconuts and whether any action was taken for using the bigger knives than the sanctioned one. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the queries do not pertain to the Health Department. On the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO provided some information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the PIO has given the information available as per records. It was pointed that the appellant was trying to highlight the issue of coconut vendors using very large sized knives, which was a matter connected with the Police Department and the PIO has appropriately transferred the RTI application to the Police Department. The Police Department has informed the appellant that carrying large knives is illegal. The appellant submitted that the Commission should intervene in the matter and ask the Police to take action against coconut venders who are using large knives.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the Commission do not have jurisdiction in the matter. The Commission dismissed the appeal observing that the information available on the records has been provided to the appellant. +1032,Details of the mining plans and Form H1 of the Mineral Concession Rules under RTI,,,['8(1)(d)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"Comments + +The pendency at the CIC level has been rising fast and the appellants have started approaching the High Court for an expeditious disposal of cases.","Details of the mining plans and Form H1 of the Mineral Concession Rules under RTI + +Background: +The appellant in two separate applications sought details of the Mining Plans and Form H1 of the Mineral Concession Rules in respect of a number of mines from the Indian Bureau of Mines. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the required information was third party information and was fiduciary in nature. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) endorsed the stand taken by the PIO in one of the applications stating that disclosable chapters of the Mining Plan had already been provided but the disclosure of remaining chapters of the Mining Plan would attract the exemption under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. However, for the second application he directed the PIO to furnish some parts of the annual return (Form H1) to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the appellant pleaded that the proviso to section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and section8(2)Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests.of the Act covers the present case as the disclosure of sought information was in larger public interest. He also quoted a number of judgments passed by the Supreme Court and the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the past and stated that the decision of the FAA directing the PIO for part disclosure was contrary to the decision of the Commission and suffered from complete application of mind. The respondent submitted that a Mining Plan prepared by private parties contained detailed information which was a closely guarded secret which might be misused by the competitors and others to the detriment of the original party. No party involved in commercial transaction would ever want that the information given in confidence and trust to a competent authority to enable them to arrive at a decision to approve the Mining Plan should fall into the hands of competitors or other unconnected persons or organizations. Thus, the information requested by the appellant is not only commercial, but also involves exclusive Research & Development effort of the third party as well as the innovations in management techniques. + +The appellant had also filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Bombay at Goa in which orders were passed on December 21, 2011 and January 4, 2012 respectively. The appellant sought leave to withdraw the petition on the condition that the CIC be directed to dispose of the two appeals of the appellant expeditiously. The High Court accepting the plea dismissed the Writ as withdrawn and directed the Commission to hear and dispose of the appeals filed by the appellant as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the receipt of that order.","Referring to one of the cases mentioned by the appellant, the Commission observed that the information sought in one of the applications was very much similar to the case of Sh. D Dhaya Devadas (CIC/SM/A/2010/000114, 115 & 119) in which a conscious decision was taken to disclose only three parts of the Mining Plans without any prejudice to the commercial and competitive interest of the third party. The Commission further noted that the order passed by the FAA directing the PIO to provide the necessary information was on the lines indicated in the order passed by the Commission in the case of D Dhaya Devadas as referred to above. Regarding the second application, the Commission observed that most of the admissible information has been provided and directed the PIO to provide further information in relation production, dispatches and stocks. The Commission also pointed that in compliance with the directions of the High Court, the appeals were heard on April 12, 2012 and both the cases were disposed. + +Comments + +The pendency at the CIC level has been rising fast and the appellants have started approaching the High Court for an expeditious disposal of cases. This is not a good omen for RTI Act." +1033,Possession of disproportionate assets by a teacher,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The Commission summoned the PIO of CBI to explain why he had failed to respond to the complainant in time.,"Possession of disproportionate assets by a teacher + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the CBI seeking information in respect of possession of disproportionate assets by a teacher of the government higher primary school of the State Government of Rajasthan. As the PIO of the CBI did not respond to the application, the appellant filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC).","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the allegation of possession of disproportionate assets by a teacher of the State Government of Rajasthan was beyond the jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) since the complaint/ allegation is against a State Government employee. The Commission also observed that as per section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:of the RTI Act, the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act would not normally apply to the CBI after June, 2011, except in cases involving information regarding allegations of corruption or human rights violations. The Commission summoned the PIO of CBI to explain why he had failed to respond to the complainant in time." +1034,Can RTI application be filed in Urdu language?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission also directed the PIO of the Art Culture and Language Dept, who attended the meeting to serve the order to the PIO, Office of the Chief Minister, Delhi.","Can RTI application be filed in Urdu language? + +Background: +The appellant filed the RTI application with the Office of the Chief Minister, Delhi in Urdu language. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred the application to the Art, Culture and Language Department whose PIO replied to the applicant. During the hearing, the appellant complained that the PIO of the Office of the Chief Minister, Delhi had returned his RTI application (in Urdu) on the ground that the Office of the Chief Minister, Delhi did not have any Urdu Translator. He called this act of the PIO as improper and against the spirit of the RTI Act and demanded that maximum penalty should be imposed on the PIO of Office of the Chief Minister, Delhi for this.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO had not withheld any information deliberately. The Commission also noted that it was just a practical difficulty being faced by the PIO on account of which he had returned the RTI application with a suggestion that the same may be submitted in Hindi or English language. The Commission recommended the Office of the Chief Minister, Delhi to take necessary steps to avoid such complaints from citizens. The Commission also directed the PIO of the Art Culture and Language Dept, who attended the meeting to serve the order to the PIO, Office of the Chief Minister, Delhi." +1035,The process of prosecution is in progress till judicial remedies have been exhausted,,,['8(1)(h)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Regarding the query whether a matter can be said to be under prosecution in terms of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act if , in view of the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, the CIC ruled that the process of prosecution is a continuing process which can be said to be over when all judicial remedies have been fully exhausted.","The process of prosecution is in progress till judicial remedies have been exhausted + +Background: +The appellant sought copies of records from the file of Shri Ajoy Kumar Singh pertaining to his promotion as Commissioner Income Tax (CIT), the prosecution sanction by the CBI and inspection of the files of 23 other persons, in respect of whom the department was seeking prosecution sanction from higher formations. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;stating that all these cases are at various stages of prosecution before judicial authorities while in some others investigations are under progress. During the hearing, the appellant submitted that section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;was not applicable as in the 23 cases cited, investigation was over and the matter was pending in the court of law. The PIO submitted that as per decision of the CIC in the Smt. Durgesh Kumari case [CIC/LS/A/2010/000685] it was held that if prosecution of a case was continuing, disclosure of information would impede the process of prosecution in terms of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. He also submitted that the Delhi High Court in [Surinder Pal Singh v. Union of India, dated 10.11.06] had held a similar position.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal referring to the decisions quoted by the appellant where it was observed that “Since prosecution of the offender is pending and has not been completed, it cannot be inferred that divulgence of information will not impede the prosecution of the offender. The CIC upheld the exemption claimed under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. Regarding the query whether a matter can be said to be under prosecution in terms of Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act if , in view of the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, the CIC ruled that the process of prosecution is a continuing process which can be said to be over when all judicial remedies have been fully exhausted. + +Comments + +Information can be denied under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;only if it impedes the process of investigation and a process which is completed cannot be impeded by any disclosure. The issue of charge sheer or pendency of an appeal at any judicial forum does not bring the prosecution to an end." +1036,Disclosure of statements given by witnesses under RTI,,,['8(1)(h)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the provisions of section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act would apply in the present case and the statement of a particular witness recorded by the Police during investigation cannot be provided to the appellant, since it may hamper the on-going pending investigation.","Disclosure of statements given by witnesses under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information in connection with case FIR like, the certified copies of a written statement submitted by a person, meeting minutes, note sheets of the file pertaining to the joint meeting and criminal complaint instituted in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, against the appellant. The Public Information Officer (PIO) gave a point wise reply that both the parties were heard along with the witnesses but minutes of meeting were not recorded; no particular note sheet has been prepared in the joint meeting; the query regarding the complaint was transferred to the Court under section 6(3) of the RTI Act for necessary action and denied the written statement of the witness under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondents submit that statement of a particular witness cannot be provided to the appellant as it would hamper the pending investigation into the case. The respondent also stated that various witnesses have given various statements, which are contradictory statements, if a copy of one witness is provided to the appellant it would definitely hamper the on-going investigation, which is already in a very advanced stage and the charge-sheet against the accused is likely to be filed before the Court.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the provisions of section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act would apply in the present case and the statement of a particular witness recorded by the Police during investigation cannot be provided to the appellant, since it may hamper the on-going pending investigation." +1037,Demand of bribe for providing documents under RTI,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,3000.0,The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIO to give reasons why penalty should not be levied on him as mandated under section 20(1).,"Demand of bribe for providing documents under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to the treatment of his wife, like copies of all the documents pertaining to her pre-natal treatment and copies of all the documents related to birth /treatment of her baby. The appellant filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC) stating that the information was not provided and bribe was demanded. He further submitted that despite repeated attempts, the information regarding his wife and daughter were received by him only after the issue of notice from the Commission for hearing was served to the PIO. The PIO was not able to give any satisfactory explanation for the delay.","Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 3000/- to the complainant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursing the appeal and getting the information late. Further, the Commission recommended for recovering the amount from the salary of the person responsible for refusing to give the information without any reasonable cause. The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIO to give reasons why penalty should not be levied on him as mandated under section 20(1)." +1038,RTI application seeking details of action taken on complaint regarding misbehaviour,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the explanation to the appellant.,"RTI application seeking details of action taken on complaint regarding misbehaviour + +Background: +The appellant had filed a complaint to the Registrar, Administrative Division, Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) regarding misbehaviour, negligence and use of filthy language by the Assistant Registrar and demanded an appropriate action against him. Later, he filed a RTI application seeking to know action taken on the complaint. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that his application has been forwarded to the concerned section for providing a suitable response and appropriate reply would be sent to him in due course of time. The same day the PIO sent another reply to the appellant that the complaint under reference had not been received in the Establishment Section of the Administrative Division; hence the information sought cannot be furnished. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the appellant that the Assistant Registrar had been called and advised to be polite and more careful in future.","The respondent submitted that on the complaint of the appellant, explanation of Assistant Registrar was called and based on that he was advised to be polite in the future. The appellant made a request that a copy of the explanation given by Assistant Registrar should be provided to him. The Central Information Commission directed the PIO to provide a copy of the explanation to the appellant. + +Comments + +RTI has gradually emerged as a tool for forcing a public authority for taking an affirmative action." +1039,Disclosure of security provided to an individual under RTI,,security provided to Dr,['8(1)(b)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the requisite information regarding the number of van/gypsy used as PCR Police Post in Delhi Police and how many cases have been registered by them.,"Disclosure of security provided to an individual under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding security provided to Dr. Praveen Gupta + +by the police department like, the names of officials who had gone at the residence of the Dr. Praveen Gupta for his security during last six months, whom did they meet, the proof of their going at the residence, whether they have marked Daily Diary entries or any report was written regarding the matter. He also asked about the number of van/gypsy used as PCR Police Post in Delhi Police and how many cases have been registered by them.  He desired a copy of the guidelines in respect of security arrangement of people, special citizen, officers, VIP by Delhi Police and some other matters. The appellant also referred to a matter ‘a guideline on media is under process before the Delhi High Court’; regarding this he sought the copy of documents and guidelines submitted by the Department before the High Court. The Public Information officer (PIO) provided some information and transferred the rest of the queries to the PIO, Police Control Room (PCR) and the PIO, Police Head Quarter (PHQ). The appellant filed the first-appeal before First Appellate Authority (FAA), PHQ. The FAA remitted the matter to the PIO, North West Division (NWD) with the directions to consider the points mentioned by the appellant in his appeal and provide the relevant information as permissible under RTI Act. On the directions of the FAA, the PIO provided some additional information but denied the copy of documents and guidelines submitted by the Department before the High Court under section8(1)(b)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;of the RTI Act stating that the matter is under the consideration of the High Court of Delhi.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that requisite has been provided to the appellant by the respondent. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the requisite information regarding the number of van/gypsy used as PCR Police Post in Delhi Police and how many cases have been registered by them. +1040,Is it necessary for a PIO to attend the hearing before CIC?,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,25000.0,,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission levied a penalty of Rs.","Is it necessary for a PIO to attend the hearing before CIC? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding  Akashvani Shahadol for a certain duration of time, such as, duration for which the Program Head of Akashvani was in office, how many days of EL medical leave was sought by the Chief organizer during the period, details of the monthly monetary expenditure on the petrol/diesel expenses and also on the maintenance and servicing of the vehicle, copy of the proposal and the acceptance letter regarding the purchase of the vehicle TATA Turin and details regarding T.D.S. amount deduction of each Akashvani employee during the period 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a point wise reply and asked the appellant to deposit an additional fee of Rs. 46/- as photocopying charges. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to furnish the information to the appellant.Proceedings + +During the hearing the appellant stated that he had deposited the additional fee of Rs.50/- by way of IPO. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the complete information as per available records to the appellant. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in having to pursue the appeals and getting the information late. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.the Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIO to give his reasons as to why penalty should not be levied on him. The CIC noted that the PIO Mr. G. P. Yadav had issued an order dated 26/04/2012 to Mr. J. P. Koshta, Assistant asking him to do all the work relating to RTI. The Commission held that this is apparently an administrative order to facilitate dealing with RTI Applications.","During the show cause hearing, the PIO did not appear before the Commission nor did he send any submission to explain the reasons for the delay in providing the information. Instead he sent his assistant who had no responsibility in the matter. The Commission observed that the PIO has no explanation for the inordinate delay in providing the information and he did not comply despite the clear order of the FAA. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission levied a penalty of Rs. 25000/- on the PIO for the delay in providing the information of over 100 days." +1041,Information regarding arrest of Anna Hazare sought under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission also stated that the appellant shall be entitled to receive attested copies of such documents, which he might select from the inspected file, free of cost.","Information regarding arrest of Anna Hazare sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the information regarding arrest of Shri Anna Hazare. The Public Information Officer (PIO) gave a point wise reply to the applicant. The appellant filed an appeal stating that false and misleading information was given to him. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) recorded that complete information has been given to the appellant and that he has not mentioned as to what is that in the information supplied to him which is false and misleading.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed that the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect complete records corresponding to his RTI application so that he could himself verify from them the authenticity of information furnished to him.  The Commission also stated that the appellant shall be entitled to receive attested copies of such documents, which he might select from the inspected file, free of cost." +1042,Seeking rules for allotment/ cancellation of allotment of Government property under RTI,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,12500.0,,"Noting that the RTI application was received on 13 October 2010 but the information was finally provided to the appellant only on 25 January 2012, the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs.","Seeking rules for allotment/ cancellation of allotment of Government property under RTI + +Background: +The Central Information Commission in earlier order had issued a show cause notice to the Public Information Officer (PIO) Directorate of Estates; PIO Office of Director General (Works) and PIO office of Chief Engineer, Bangalore, for personal hearing prior to imposition of penalty. The Commission observed that the original RTI application was addressed the Directorate of Estates whose PIO chose to dissipate his responsibilities by merely forwarding the RTI application instead of providing information as held by them to the appellant. The PIO (HQ), Bangalore provided part information and asked the appellant to approach the Directorate of Estates, New Delhi for information on the other points, stating that these were the matters of policy.","The argument of the PIO that they made several efforts to approach the appellant to ascertain as to the area/locality in respect of which information was sought was not accepted by the Commission as the RTI application was obvious that the information sought is not location specific and pertains to the general rules prescribed by the Directorate of Estates pertaining to the issues raised in the RTI application. The Commission observed that the guidelines and rules for allotment/cancellation of allotment are uniform across the country and are framed by the Directorate of Estates who is the principal owner of the Central government properties and thus it is not possible that the Directorate has no knowledge of these rules. Commission also rejected the arguments given by the respondents that they are not aware of any rules regarding who is required to pay for the outages of electricity for works done for maintaining/ renovating the government accommodation which is already occupied. Noting that the RTI application was received on 13 October 2010 but the information was finally provided to the appellant only on 25 January 2012, the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,500/- each on the PIO, Directorate of Estates and the PIO, SW III, Bangalore which is the maximum penalty that can be imposed as there had been delay of 385 days. + +Comments + +Unnecessary transfer of application to the sub-ordinate office is commonly done without caring to look whether the information is available with the office receiving the application. In this case, the PIO, Directorate of Estates to whom the original RTI application was addressed, transferred it to the Director (P&WA) and from him to the Chief engineer (SZ III) and finally to the CPIO office of Director General (Works) and CPIO office of Chief engineer, Bangalore. Such transfer of applications may lead to imposition of penalty. Further, this information should be made available to the citizens on the website of the organisation." +1043,Non availability of old records can be claimed only if destructed,,"his alleged irregularities in Gratuity, frauds etc",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO of Labour department to clearly inform the appellant whether the information is available or the relevant record pertaining to the gratuity of the appellant have been weeded out.,"Non availability of old records can be claimed only if destructed + +Background: +Vide three separate RTI applications, the appellant sought information regarding his alleged irregularities in Gratuity, frauds etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) forwarded the application to Labour Enforcement Officer (LEO), Central, who investigated the case and the RTI application was disposed off. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) referred to the report submitted by LEO which found that the application was vague and ambiguous and enclosed a copy of the above said report to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the appellant stated that there was gross non-compliance by Standard Chartered Bank with the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in respect of his gratuity entitlement. The Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), who had submitted a report, stated that since the appellant’s matter was more than 18 years old and the relevant records/documents were not readily available. However, Standard Chartered Bank gave a written reply that the provident fund and gratuity payment of the appellant would have been released.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) stated that the case was 18 years old and possibly attracts doctrine of latches, but under the RTI Act no such time period is prescribed for receiving information from the public authority. The Commission observed that section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act states that information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force is‘Information’. The Commission further noted that the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner is the concerned public authority which can access information from Standard Chartered Bank under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Commission directed the PIO of Labour department to clearly inform the appellant whether the information is available or the relevant record pertaining to the gratuity of the appellant have been weeded out. + +Comments + +There is no time bar for obtaining information under the RTI Act and the Doctrine of Laches is not applicable. The doctrine consists of the following elements:1. Unreasonable lapse of time.2. Neglect to assert a right or claim.3. To the detriment of another.If these three elements are met, then the Doctrine of Laches will act as a bar in court." +1044,FAA summoned for fixing the responsibility for not supplying the information,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The Commission dropped the Penalty proceedings and closed the matter.,"FAA summoned for fixing the responsibility for not supplying the information + +Background: +The appellant sought information in relation to a person working as Assistant Engineer in MCD, like his date of Birth, date of joining, copy of his appointment letter, Income Tax Return of last 10 years, details of salary including all allowances, details of RDA pending & issued against him in last 10 years, details regarding his children etc. No information was provided by the Public Information Officer (PIO), SE (I), despite the order of First Appellate Authority (FAA) to supply the available information as per points/ questions asked, free of cost. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent claimed that a reply was sent to the appellant stating that no information was available. He also admitted that the person about whom the information was sought was working in maintenance division and that the information would be available with AO (Engineering). The Commission observed that the PIO neither sought the assistance nor transferred the RTI application and despite the order of the FAA, no information was provided to the appellant. The Commission directed the PIO to obtain the information and send it to the appellant. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, a show cause notice was issued to the PIO by the Commission to give reasons as to why penalty should not be levied on him. During the show-cause hearing, the respondent stated that the RTI application was filed with SE (Project) Shahdara South Zone. The PIO further stated that the RTI application was never received in his office and thus, the FAA’s order could not be complied with. After the Commission’s order, the information was sent to the appellant through speed post, but the same was received back in his office mentioning that‘No such person/firm in this location’.","The CIC observed that the matter had shown a very serious problem in the working of the Public Authority. Under section 18 of the RTI Act, the Commission summoned the FAA and the then PIO to appear before the Commission to explain their actions and to help the Commission to fix the responsibility for not supplying the information to the appellant. The Commission also directed the FAA to bring the PIO, SE (Project) Shahdara South Zone, to the Commission to explain why the RTI application was not replied to. During the second hearing, the PIO and the FAA stated that the RTI application was filed online with SE (Project) and was never received by PIO/ SE-I Shahdara South Zone. Further, due to certain glitches the notice of hearing sent by the FAA also did not reach the PIO. The FAA who was newly posted did not realize that the RTI application had been addressed to SE (Project) who has a separate FAA. The PIO /SE-I stated that when he received the FAA’s order he was unable to implement it since he never had the RTI application. The Commission observed that lack of a proper system within MCD has resulted in the information not been supplied to the appellant and it is difficult to pinpoint responsibility on any one individual officer for this. The Commission dropped the Penalty proceedings and closed the matter." +1045,Calling applicant for inspection of documents which are supposed to be on display board,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,25000.0,,"Holding that the PIO needed reminders from the FAA and the Information Commission to provide the information to the appellant, the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs.","Calling applicant for inspection of documents which are supposed to be on display board + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding yearly budget approved for the Municipal Councilors within Narela Legislative Area, such as amount allocated for different works, amount of the budget cancelled owing to non-use of the budget money of each councilor every year and report of the current year’s budget allocation to different councilors along with the dates on which the allocated budget would be given. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the APIO (deemed PIO) to prepare the point wise reply and furnish it to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent claimed that he had asked the appellant to come and inspect the records. Further, after the order of the FAA, the information was sent to the appellant. The appellant pointed out that the information was provided on one page, giving only the amounts spent from the corporator’s funds and that the details of works have not been provided. The Commission observed that the sought information was supposed to be declared suo-motto by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and that despite the delay, the PIO did not provide the details of the works. The Commission held that the PIO should not summon citizens for inspection where the information is supposed to be put up suo-motto on their boards. + +Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 3000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in having to pursue the appeals and getting the information late. The Commission directed the deemed PIO to provide the details of works as sought by the appellant and issued a show-cause notice to the deemed PIO under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.to give reasons as to why penalty should not be levied on him. + +The appellant also claimed that he has been threatened since he is following this RTI application. He stated that he has received threats from the Corporator and Sanitary Inspector of MCD and has been physically manhandled. He also stated that has received unsigned anonymous letter threatening him and has filed a complaint at Narela Police Station. The Commission advised the Station House Officer of the Narela Police Station to take cognizance of this complaint with seriousness and after assessing the matter take appropriate actions if necessary. The Commission observed that the matters of threats to RTI users are taken very seriously and it will ensure that the state offers protection to RTI users and those who harass or intimidate them will have to pay the consequences. + +During the hearing of the show-cause for the imposition of penalty, the deemed PIO claimed that he asked the appellant to come and do inspection of the records as the information was very voluminous. When the Commission asked the deemed PIO to explain how he had only supplied a one page information copied from display boards to the appellant after the order of the FAA, he stated that he understood that was the information being sought by the appellant.","The Commission observed that if the understanding of the deemed PIO was that the appellant was only seeking information about the figures pertaining to the amount spent in four years from the corporator’s funds this was available on the boards displayed by MCD and should actually have been supplied within 05 days of receipt of the RTI application. It was evident that he understood that the RTI information sought by the appellant was related to the figures spent from corporator’s funds for the last four years and the work orders. Yet the PIO did not supply the work orders until the order of the Commission. Holding that the PIO needed reminders from the FAA and the Information Commission to provide the information to the appellant, the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 25000/- on the deemed PIO for providing the information with a delay of over 100 days." +1046,Disclosure of reports submitted by Forensic Lab to the CBI under RTI,,,['8(1)(h)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to look for the records and provide the copy of the purchase documents and if no such records exist, the appellant should be informed about its non- availability.","Disclosure of reports submitted by Forensic Lab to the CBI under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the copies of a large number of Central Forensic Science Lab (CFSL) reports submitted to the CBI in connection with some case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;stating that the disclosure of the information might affect the investigation/prosecution in the. The first Appellate Authority (FAA) cited a CIC order [CIC/SM/A/2011/001210] and endorsed the decision of the PIO.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the reports submitted by the CFSL to the CBI are part of records of the CBI and are to be used for investigation/prosecution of various cases. By disclosing such reports under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the CSFL can jeopardize and impede the process of investigation/prosecution of any case. The Commission advised the appellant to approach the CBI to seek copies of such reports and the CBI may consider giving him copies of the reports if the investigation and prosecution in the relevant case have already been completed and the entire legal process has come to an end. The appellant had also sought about the type and quantity of magnetic tape purchased by the laboratory in the month of June 2006. The respondent explained that such details might not be held by the laboratory. The Commission directed the PIO to look for the records and provide the copy of the purchase documents and if no such records exist, the appellant should be informed about its non- availability." +1047,One PIO cannot interpret the actions of other PIO,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The right course for the appellant should have been to come before the CIC in second appeal against the denial of information by the other department and not go back to the PIO of the DoPT seeking clarification on the rightness of the action of the other PIO.,"One PIO cannot interpret the actions of other PIO + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with a government department seeking some information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) declined to disclose the information on the ground that some guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) did not permit disclosure of such information. The appellant then filed a RTI application with the DoPT seeking whether the PIO of the other department was right in declining the information. The PIO of DoPT replied that it was not his duty to interpret any action of another PIO.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that whether the PIO concerned interpreted the guidelines correctly or not or whether he exceeded his brief and duty beyond what is laid down in the Right to Information (RTI) Act is an issue which can be adjudicated only by the CIC and not by another PIO. The right course for the appellant should have been to come before the CIC in second appeal against the denial of information by the other department and not go back to the PIO of the DoPT seeking clarification on the rightness of the action of the other PIO. +1048,Can the PIO ask the applicant to come to collect 7000 pages from his office?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also recommended to the Municipal Commissioner to consider recovering Rs.,"Can the PIO ask the applicant to come to collect 7000 pages from his office? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding installation of computer in all the zones & departments of MCD such as the copies of file noting with correspondence regarding installation of computer, the name of the company to whom the order was placed, the amount of work given to the company, the term & conditions on which the order was placed along with the cost of installation and the details along with the invoice copies of the original and pirated software of one computer of every zone. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant to submit amount of Rs. 14000/- for the certified copies against the 7000 pages. The appellant paid the additional fee of Rs.14000/- and on not receiving any information, he filed an appeal. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the 7000 pages within 15 days observing that the information was large and voluminous.","Considering the fact that the information was voluminous and comprised of 7000 pages, the Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed that more time would have been required by the PIO. However, the Commission noted that the PIO did not send the information but instead sent a letter asking the appellant to come and receive the information whereas under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, all information is being sent to the appellants at their house by speed post. Holding that the PIO could have sent these by messenger if it was felt appropriate the Commission asked the PIO to explain the reasons for summoning the appellant to come and receive the information. As the PIO was not able to give any rationale, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant and refund Rs.14000/- to him. The Commission also recommended to the Municipal Commissioner to consider recovering Rs. 14000/- from the salary of the PIO. + +Comments + +There is no specific provision for the recovery of additional fee from the PIO under the RTI Act. However, a public authority can take action for any loss suffered by it due to an action of any government employee." +1049,Applicability of the provision of Life and Liberty under RTI,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The Commission further observed that some information had been furnished to the appellant, but directed the PIO to provide the copy of the complaint and the names of the members of the inquiry committee along with the details requested by the appellant after the payment of additional fee by the appellant.","Applicability of the provision of Life and Liberty under RTI + +Background: +The appellant was the employee of Central Institute of Psychiatry and a complaint was filed against him with the institute. He filed a RTI application seeking information in relation to the complaint filed against him, such as the copy of complaint, office order for the enquiry, name of the members of the enquiry committee, date of enquiry, name of the persons enquired, letter asking ‘enquired persons’ to attend the enquiry of the committee, copy of statement of the witnesses, the enquiry report, action taken on the enquiry report by the competent authority and the basis of decision of competent authority with reference to provisions of the government rules under which the decision was taken. He also invoked the clause of ‘Life and Liberty’ and demanded the reply within 24 hours as per the proviso of section7(1)Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the information sought does not pertain to life and liberty and hence the reply would be sent in normal course duration i. e. within 30 days. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the PIO’s order stating that information will be provided within 30 days of normal course of time under section7(1)Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:of the RTI act as appellant’s request has not been accompanied with substantive evidence that a threat of life and liberty exists. During the hearing, the appellant admitted that he had received the information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) pointed out that the information sought by the appellant could not be categorized as information affecting life and liberty, as the provision can be applied only in cases where there is an imminent danger to the life or liberty of a person and the non-supply of the information may either lead to death or grievous injury to the concerned person. The Commission perused the RTI application and concluded that non-disclosure will not lead to an imminent threat to life or liberty of the appellant. The Commission further observed that some information had been furnished to the appellant, but directed the PIO to provide the copy of the complaint and the names of the members of the inquiry committee along with the details requested by the appellant after the payment of additional fee by the appellant. + +Comments + +The clause of ‘Life or Liberty’ can be invoked to obtain information within 48 hours of filing the RTI application. The ‘Life or Liberty’ clause can be applied only in cases where there is an imminent danger to the life or liberty of a person and the non-supply of the information may either lead to death or grievous injury to the concerned person. Such imminent danger or the fact that the disclosure of the information would obviate the danger to the life of liberty of an individual has to be demonstrably proven. Merely the fact that the disclosure of information may assist an appellant to lead a better life is not sufficient for invoking the proviso of Section7(1)Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:." +1050,Disclosure of affidavit filed in the SC on behalf of PM in 2G scam under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected his plea stating that a copy of the affidavit filed by the Prime Minister in the other matter cannot be given to him because he had not asked for this piece of information in his original RTI application and also because the affidavit filed by the Prime Minister of India in the Supreme Court was a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and orders framed by it for this purpose.,"Disclosure of affidavit filed in the SC on behalf of PM in 2G scam under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information relating to the action taken on his letter and the affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the Prime Minister of India in the 2G spectrum case. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the only affidavit which had been filed in the Supreme Court related to Subramanyam Swamy vs. Dr. Man Mohan Singh. Later, on the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), the PIO clarified that no affidavit had been filed in the 2G spectrum case. During the hearing, the appellant argued that the two responses of the PIO were contradictory. The respondents submitted that there was no contradiction and that only the facts were mentioned by the PIO.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO's response was quite clear and without any ambiguity. The appellant further submitted that the PIO should be directed to provide him with a copy of the affidavit filed by the Prime Minister in the other matter. The Commission rejected his plea stating that a copy of the affidavit filed by the Prime Minister in the other matter cannot be given to him because he had not asked for this piece of information in his original RTI application and also because the affidavit filed by the Prime Minister of India in the Supreme Court was a part of the judicial record and it could be disclosed by the Supreme Court alone under the rules and orders framed by it for this purpose. It cannot be given by the PMO merely because it might still retain a copy of that affidavit. +1051,Information about education policy for the children of sex workers under RTI,,policy in respect of providing education to the children of sex workers,[],UNKNOWN,,,"Regarding the rest of the queries, the Commission directed the appellant to do as advised by the FAA.","Information about education policy for the children of sex workers under RTI + +Background: +The applicant sought information about policy in respect of providing education to the children of sex workers. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied to the application but the appellant was not satisfied with the reply and filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA informed the applicant that as per the RTE Act, 2009 all children in the age group six to fourteen years were entitled to free and compulsory education and that there was no special provision of expenditure to be incurred on education of children of sex workers. The FAA also stated that the rest of the information desired by the appellant was under the purview of the concerned State Government and requested him to make a fresh application to the concerned Department.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that adequate information has been supplied to the appellant. Regarding the rest of the queries, the Commission directed the appellant to do as advised by the FAA." +1052,Correspondence by SEBI for acquiring power of intercepting the phone calls,,,['8(1)(e)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Therefore, the Commission ruled that this information should be disclosed.","Correspondence by SEBI for acquiring power of intercepting the phone calls + +Background: +The copies of the correspondence made by the SEBI with various government authorities for being appointed as an authorized enforcement agency for interception and monitoring as per the Indian Telegraph Act and for using call data records were desired under an application filed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section 8 (1)(e) and 8 (1)(h) stating that the desired information was held in a fiduciary capacity.","It was argued before the Central Information Commission (CIC) that the disclosure of the desired information could adversely affect the capacity of the SEBI to discharge its lawful duties for protecting the interests of the investors and the stock markets in India. The CIC did not accept the respondent’s arguments and directed the PIO to provide the photocopies of the entire correspondence on the subject to the appellant. The Commission observed that the information consists of correspondence between the SEBI and various government authorities on the SEBI's proposal to get powers under a certain law to intercept phone conversations and use such call records. Even if the objective of the SEBI in trying to secure such powers was to enable it to perform its duties better in the public interest, such powers can encroach on the privacy of individual citizens and, therefore, it is absolutely necessary that people know about it. Therefore, the Commission ruled that this information should be disclosed." +1053,Joint inspection of plot by the DDA and appellant,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,2500.0,,Under section 19(1)(8)(b) the Commission directed the DDA to compensate the complainant by paying him an amount of Rs.,"Joint inspection of plot by the DDA and appellant + +Background: +The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had been issued a show cause notice to appear before the Central Information Commission (CIC) for personal hearing before imposition of penalty. During the show-cause hearing the respondent stated that in the RTI application the particular land in respect of which information was sought was not identified very clearly through plot number etc. The said plot was stated to be close to Gauri Shanker Mandir but the exact building was not shown in the layout plan of Paschim Vihar. Therefore, efforts were on to identify the exact location of the site of the plot through LM (WZ) and Executive Engineer of the area. He further submitted that the appellant was requested to visit the office of the Assistant Director to assist in the matter but he did not respond to this request nor did he file an appeal before the first appellate authority. The respondent also informed that the said executive engineer and deputy director (LM) were asked to provide information directly to the appellant. Respondent also stated that the site was visited by Assistant Director and efforts were also made to meet the applicant at his residence. However, as the applicant was not at his residence, he could not be met. The respondent stated that all waste building material and extra earth will be removed from the site.","The Commission accepted the explanation provided by the respondents as credible and dropped the penalty proceedings. The Commission directed the respondents to have joint inspection of the site along with appellant. The Commission also noted that the appellant had to undergo considerable harassment to obtain the requested information to the extent that he had to make copies of all documents – numbering 75 pages – and submit them to each of the 12 departments within DDA before he could receive the information. As per the statement provided by the appellant, he has incurred an expenditure of approximately Rs. 2500/- and suffered mental and physical trauma over the period of about nine months in his endeavor to receive information which should have come to him in the normal course. Under section 19(1)(8)(b) the Commission directed the DDA to compensate the complainant by paying him an amount of Rs. 2500/-." +1054,Details of foreign collaboration of Reebok India Limited under RTI,,the foreign collaboration of Reebok India Ltd,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission advised the appellant that if he has any grievance in the matter, it should be taken up before the appropriate authority including a competent court of law.","Details of foreign collaboration of Reebok India Limited under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the foreign collaboration of Reebok India Ltd. and the declaration given by Adidas Sourcing Ltd. on behalf of Adidas group AG. The Public Information Officer (PIO) initially declined to give any information on the ground that Reebok India Ltd. as the third party had objection to the disclosure of any such information. Later, on the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), he provided all the information. The appellant filed the second appeal stating that he wanted to know if the FIPB had taken any action against the Adidas Sourcing Ltd. for giving false declaration on behalf of Adidas group AG.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant had not sought any relief in respect of the information given, instead he wanted to know if the FIPB had taken any action against the Adidas Sourcing Ltd., which was clearly beyond the scope of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Commission rejected the appeal noting that, whether the FIPB takes any action against any company for giving wrong or false declaration was not to be adjudicated by the CIC under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Commission advised the appellant that if he has any grievance in the matter, it should be taken up before the appropriate authority including a competent court of law." +1055,Allotment of a plot to ex-serviceman by the government,,the allotment of a plot to ex-serviceman,[],UNKNOWN,,,"However, the Commission observed that the appellant deposited the prescribed amount as per an existing scheme of the Government.","Allotment of a plot to ex-serviceman by the government + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the allotment of a plot to ex-serviceman. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the amount deposited by the appellant has been refunded as per the directions of Chandigarh Administration and the allotment of residential plot was not possible as there was no such scheme. During the hearing, the respondent stated that scheme for allotment of plots to Ex-servicemen in Industrial Area was announced in 1982 and appellant had deposited Rs. 3500/for allotment of one kanal plot. At the time of receiving this amount, the Government had taken an undertaking from the applicants that they would not ask for interest on the deposited amount. Subsequently in 2005, the Finance Secretary, Chandigarh Administration advised the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh to refund the amount deposited by the applicants without interest. Accordingly, the appellant was informed in response to the RTI application that no interest was due to him and the amount of Rs. 3500/deposited by him in 1982 was refunded to him without any interest payment on the said amount after a period of 23 years 4 months.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) was satisfied that information as held by the respondent has been provided to the appellant. However, the Commission observed that the appellant deposited the prescribed amount as per an existing scheme of the Government. After a lapse of over 23 years and without giving any reasons, the Government closed the scheme and refunded the basic amount thereby depriving him of the opportunity to invest this amount in another avenue, which would have given him income/ housing shelter. The appellant is now a senior citizen, well past his prime has been put to great disadvantage by this arbitrary action of the Government to close the scheme after over two decades during which period the Government continued to allot plots to other citizens and ex-servicemen through the same scheme. + +Comments + +The RTI Act was enacted in 2005 with the objective of holding the Governments and their instrumentalities accountable. The instant case has brought into light the stark fact of the level of accountability in the working of many institutions of the government. As the RTI Act is nearing 7 years of coming into existence, the pertinent question is whether there would be a change in the working?" +1056,Expenditure on treatment of Smt. Sonia Gandhi under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission also stated that the expenditure made by any individual on the treatment, in India or abroad, is private information and cannot be the subject matter of an RTI application.","Expenditure on treatment of Smt. Sonia Gandhi under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed a RTI application to PMO seeking the expenditure incurred on the treatment of Smt. Sonia Gandhi in the USA during August - September 2011. The Public Information Officer (PIO), PMO transferred his application to various other public authorities. The PIO concerned in each public authority informed the appellant that they had no record to show any expenditure having been made. The appellant was keen to know about the details of any expenditure incurred by the government in this regard.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that neither any reimbursement for any such expenditure was claimed by the individual concerned from the public authorities nor any expenditure was made in this regard. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the government has incurred no expenditure in this regard and that there is no information to be disclosed about the likely expenditure. The Commission also stated that the expenditure made by any individual on the treatment, in India or abroad, is private information and cannot be the subject matter of an RTI application." +1057,Disclosure of charge sheet in Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter Case by CBI,order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) passed earlier,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Under section 20, the Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO to give reasons as to why penalty should not be imposed on him.","Disclosure of charge sheet in Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter Case by CBI + +Background: +The appellant had filed two RTI applications with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Vide the first application he sought a copy of the charge sheet filed by the CBI in the Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter Case and the details about the reasons for not complying with the order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) passed earlier for disclosing the said information. In the second application he asked for the details of all the cases which the CBI, Mumbai had investigated between the 2000 and 2011. + +In reply to the first application, the Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the copy of the charge sheet could not be disclosed since the CBI had approached the Bombay High Court against the order of the CIC and that they had decided to await the orders of the High Court before disclosing the information. No reply was sent to the appellant regarding the second application. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the appellant insisted that the earlier order of the CIC (directing the PIO to provide a copy of the charge sheet in the Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter Case) should have been complied with by the CBI. The respondent argued that the copy of the charge sheet cannot be disclosed since it had already been presented to the trial court and has become a part of the judicial records of that court. He referred to a previous order of CIC [CIC/SM/C/2011/001328 & 1615] and submitted that merely because the CBI still retained a copy of the charge sheet, it was not the rightful owner of that charge sheet and it was the trial court which could decide if it should be disclosed to anyone or not.","Regarding the first application, the Commission noted that the CBI should have complied with the direction unless the High Court had issued a stay in the matter. But giving merit to the arguments of the respondent, the Commission stated that in matters where charge sheet and other records are filed by any investigating agency in a court of law, the copies of those records should be obtained from the relevant court alone and not from the public authority concerned. Observing that the copy of the charge sheet has already been filed, the Commission ruled that it would be appropriate for the appellant to seek a copy of the document from the relevant trial court rather than trying to get it from the CBI. + +Regarding the second application, the Commission observed that the CBI had been included in the Second Schedule of the RTI act by a notification issued by the Central Government in June 2011.  As per section 24 of the RTI Act, the provisions of the RTI Act would not apply to those organizations which are included in the second schedule except in cases where the information sought relates to allegation of corruption or human rights violation. All RTI applications filed in the CBI after the issue of the above notification would have to be examined in the light of these legal provisions and information will have to be given only when it is established that it relates to allegations of corruption or human rights violation. In the present case, the RTI application had been filed after the issue of the notification and therefore the PIO of the CBI was not obliged to entertain these applications since in neither of these applications the information sought had any relation to allegations of corruption or human rights violation. The Commission noted that despite the fact of CBI being an excluded agency, PIO should have responded to the appellant with an appropriate reply. Under section 20, the Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO to give reasons as to why penalty should not be imposed on him. + +Comments + +After June, 2011 the CBI is expected to provide the information under RTI Act only if it relates to corruption or human rights violation. In case of the judicial records, the custodian of the records is the court and not the investigating agency." +1058,RTI Query - What does the term ‘house-hold’ mean?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"The Commission directed the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to consider the issue raised by the appellant and have an appropriate decision made by the competent authority.","RTI Query - What does the term ‘house-hold’ mean? + +Background: +A government doctor was posted in a Government Allopathic Hospital at Lalpani while his wife was living along with the children at Kotdwar as she was serving as a lecturer in Government Inter College. The distance between the two places was about 11 kms. He claimed that since he is forced to live separately from his family he sought a LPG connection which was denied to him as per a notification issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, which defines the term ‘house-hold’. He further submitted that the two establishments cannot manage with one gas connection and the word ‘house hold’ should be interpreted widely and two gas connections be sanctioned in a situation like this. He filed an application under RTI raising a very interesting and complex question of law i.e. what is the definition of the word “house-hold” as per the notification? The respondent submitting the copy of notification explained that “house hold” means a family consisting of husband, wife and unmarried children, and as per the prevailing rules, “house hold” is entitled to only one LPG domestic connection.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the appellant has raised an interesting legal issue and the word “house hold” is required to be properly construed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The Commission directed the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to consider the issue raised by the appellant and have an appropriate decision made by the competent authority." +1059,"Disclosure of National Pharmaceutical Policy, 2006 under RTI",,,['8(1)(i)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the report of GoM was yet to be submitted to the Cabinet for its decision, thus the provisions of section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act were applicable to it.","Disclosure of National Pharmaceutical Policy, 2006 under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to the meetings Group of Ministers (GoM) regarding National Pharmaceutical Policy, 2006, such as the date/venue of meetings, certified copies of minutes of the meetings and a copy of the report submitted by the GoM for a certain period. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided details of date/venue of meetings held by the GoM but denied rest of the information under section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. During the hearing the respondent submitted that report was not yet finalized and subsequently it would be submitted to the Cabinet for final decision in the matter.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the report of GoM was yet to be submitted to the Cabinet for its decision, thus the provisions of section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act were applicable to it." +1060,The PIO should avoid harsh and impolite language in the RTI reply,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission further firmly advised the PIO to be careful, cautious and temperate in responding to the RTI applications in future and avoid using harsh and impolite language.","The PIO should avoid harsh and impolite language in the RTI reply + +Background: +The appellant alleged that the Jharkhand Housing Board had allotted some flats and shops to Indo Danish Tools Room (IDTR) for its officials. But the aforesaid flats and shops were not exclusively allotted to the departmental officers but some of them were allotted to the outsiders, which was against the agreement entered into between the Housing Board and the management of IDTR. The public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that some flats and some shops were allotted to the officers of IAIADA, an entity of the State Government because the officers of IDTR were not coming forth for allotment. The appellant also alleged that the PIO had threatened him with the registration of an FIR against him.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO that the appellant may be given inspection of the entire records relating to the matter and also permitted to take photo copies of documents, free of cost. The Commission further firmly advised the PIO to be careful, cautious and temperate in responding to the RTI applications in future and avoid using harsh and impolite language." +1061,Claim for restoration of entire pension to the second wife,Public Authority,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the address of the concerned official to whom the appellant can submit her representation.,"Claim for restoration of entire pension to the second wife + +Background: +The appellant was the second wife of an employee of East Coast Railway who died in a railway accident. After his death, she and the first wife were getting 50% of pension each, as per Muslim law and the court’s order. Later the first wife too expired and therefore she contended that the entire pension ought to have been restored in her favour. She claimed that in this connection she had submitted an application to the railways but no action was taken. Later she filed an application under RTI with the Public Authority seeking information related to the issue. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stating that in the absence of service particulars of ex-employee i.e. date of retirement/termination, PF Number, Copy of PPO order number, Office/place of last working etc., no information can be furnished. On directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) he furnished some information. The respondent submitted that the PPOs to the two ladies were not issued by their office and also not signed by the competent authority. He further added that if the appellant submits a representation to concerned officer dealing with pensions some relief may be granted to her. He reiterated that as such no action can be taken on the appellant’s representation since the relevant documents were not available with them.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the address of the concerned official to whom the appellant can submit her representation. +1062,Can information be sought under RTI for which a procedure has been prescribed under any other Act?,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the imposition of penalty.","Can information be sought under RTI for which a procedure has been prescribed under any other Act? + +Background: +of the Case + +Applicant sought certain information from the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana (ROC) seeking certain information in relation to company No. 056045 M/s Bloom Financial Services Limited. + +Reply of the PIO","The CIC Bench headed by Shailesh Gandhi referred to the previous orders of the bench of Shri A. N. Tiwari and Prof. M.M. Ansari of the CIC which had decided in favour of the ROC. + +The bench of Shri Shailesh Gandhi referred to these decisions and stated that “I would respectfully beg to differ from this decision”. The bench directed to disclose the information and issued show cause notice to the PIO for imposition of penalty. + +View of the Delhi High Court + +The High Court took the view that: + +1. The files kept by the ROC as well as the record of any fact required or authorized to be recorded by the Registrar or registered in pursuance of the Companies Act qualifies as “information” as defined under Section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. + +2. If there is information which is not accessible under the RTI Act, there is no ‘right to information’ in respect thereof. The expression ‘held by’ or ‘under the control of any public authority’, in relation to “information”, means that information which is held by the public authority under its control to the exclusion of others. It does not include:a) information which the public authority has already shared generally with the citizens, andb) information, in respect of which there is a statutory mechanism evolved, (independent of the RTI Act) which obliges the public authority to share the same with the citizenry by following the prescribed procedure, and upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions.There is no exclusivity in such holding or control and the control vests in the seeker of the information who has only to operate the statutorily prescribed mechanism to access the information. + +3. The mere prescription of a higher fee in the other statutory mechanism than that prescribed under the RTI Act does not make any difference whatsoever. The Companies (Central Government) General Rules & Forms, 1956 being statutory in nature and specific in their application, do not get overridden by the rules framed under the RTI Act with regard to prescription of fee for supply of information, which is general in nature, and apply to all kinds of applications made under the RTI Act to seek information. + +4. The right to information is required to be balanced with the need to optimize use of limited fiscal resources. If another statutory provision, created under any other law, vests the right to seek information and provides the mechanism for invoking the said right that mechanism should not be destroyed merely because another general law created to empower the citizens to access information has subsequently been framed. + +5. Section 610 of the Companies Act, and the Rules framed thereunder provide the facility to any person for obtaining information from the ROC. Therefore, there is nothing inconsistent between the scheme provided under Section 610 of the Companies Act and the provisions of the RTI Act. Merely because a different charge is collected for providing information under Section 610 of the Companies Act than that prescribed as the fee for providing information under the RTI Act does not lead to an inconsistency in the provisions of these two enactments. + +6. The provisions of the RTI Act would not override the provision contained in Section 610 of the Companies Act as the RTI Act is a general law/enactment which deals with the right of a citizen to access information available with a public authority, while Section 610 of the Companies Act is a piece of special legislation, which deals specifically with the right of any person to inspect and obtain records i.e. information from the ROC. + +7. The Central Information Commission functions as a quasi-judicial authority. It is a well-settled canon of judicial discipline that a bench dealing with a matter respects an earlier decision rendered by a coordinate bench (i.e., a bench of same strength), and is bound by the decision of a larger bench. If this discipline is breached, the same would lead to complete chaos and confusion in the minds of the litigating public and others. Breach of such discipline would result in discrimination and would shake the confidence of the consumers of justice. + +8. If the emergence of contradictory views is innocent i.e. due to ignorance of an earlier view, it is pardonable, but when such a situation is created consciously, with open eyes, and after having been put to notice, the judge/authority responsible for the later view should take the blame for creating confusion and for breaching judicial discipline. + +9. The Central Information Commissioner Sh. Shailesh Gandhi has demonstrated complete lack of judicial discipline while rendering the impugned decisions. If the Central Information Commissioner Sh. Shailesh Gandhi had a different view in the matter – which he was entitled to hold, judicial discipline demanded that he should have recorded his disagreement with the view of other Central Information Commissioner, and, for reasons to be recorded by him, required the constitution of a larger bench to re-examine the issue. He could not have ridden rough shot over the earlier decisions of Sh. A.N. Tiwari and Prof. M.M. Ansari, particularly when he was sitting singly to consider the same issue of law. + +10. If a PIO is guided by a departmental circular, the PIO has acted bonafide and without any malice. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the imposition of penalty. Personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed only in cases where the PIO, without reasonable cause:a) A refuses to receive the application, orb) provide the information, orc) knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, ord) destroys the information. + +Delhi HC in Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr in W.P.(C) 11271/2009" +1063,Disclosure pertaining to complaint of sexual harassment at CISF under RTI,Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under RTI,"her complaint, such as, existence of women cell in the department, whether DG Office received her SOS message, action taken thereon, result of enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Committee etc",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information sought by the appellant pertaining to her alleged complaint of sexual harassment at work place, entitles the appellant to get the information as sought by her under the Proviso of section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:“Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section.” The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copy of the Enquiry Committee report free of cost to the appellant.","Disclosure pertaining to complaint of sexual harassment at CISF under RTI + +Background: +The appellant had filed a complaint of sexual harassment at workplace by an Inspector, CISF. She filed an application with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) under RTI seeking information pertaining to her complaint, such as, existence of women cell in the department, whether DG Office received her SOS message, action taken thereon, result of enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Committee etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information to the appellant under section 24 with Second Schedule of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the PIO’s reply stating that the information sought cannot be provided as the CISF was exempt from providing information except the ones that relate to cases of corruption and human rights violation and since the information does not fall under either of these two categories, the application was not maintainable. + +Proceedings + +The appellant submitted that the enquiry regarding her complaint began after one and a half years in Mumbai in December, 2008. The proceedings had continued periodically till October, 2009, when the case was last heard by the Enquiry Committee. But she has not been provided with the outcome of the Enquiry Committee’s report. She cited a Supreme Court judgment (Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, August, 1997) wherein it was held that sexual harassment of women at the workplace is violative of Article 14, 15(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India and is also a violation of the fundamental rights under Article19(1)Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: +Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.(g) “to practice any profession or to carry out any occupation, trade or business.” She requested the Commission that proviso of section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:of the RTI entitles her to seek and obtain information.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information sought by the appellant pertaining to her alleged complaint of sexual harassment at work place, entitles the appellant to get the information as sought by her under the Proviso of section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:“Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section.” The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copy of the Enquiry Committee report free of cost to the appellant." +1064,Using RTI to elicit information for defending a case regarding a contract,,,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal accepting the apprehension expressed by ONGC officers that disclosure of requested information would prejudice their case in the judicial/quasi forum,"Using RTI to elicit information for defending a case regarding a contract + +Background: +A company was awarded a contract for exploration of hydro carbons which was later terminated due to certain reasons. The Director of the company sought copies of the Exploration Board’s decision supplemented with copy of the proposal submitted by the company persons. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act submitting  that ONGC has prepared a negative list and the requested information falls in this category. He claimed that the information was of commercial confidence for ONGC and had been generated after spending a huge amount of money and resources. During the hearing, the appellant referred to a certain para from the representation given by the company and submitted that he simply wants to know whether that para was approved by the Exploration Board of ONGC or not.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has managed to get a copy of the presentation informally from a source and armed with this information, he wants to upstage ONGC in the concerned judicial quasi judicial forum. The Commission rejected the appeal accepting the apprehension expressed by ONGC officers that disclosure of requested information would prejudice their case in the judicial/quasi forum" +1065,Information regarding a contempt case under RTI Act,,,['8(1)(b)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,2000.0,"Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs.","Information regarding a contempt case under RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant sought the copy of file noting and letters that came from or were sent to the various sister concern station/Directorate/Ministry duly signed by the Station Head in respect of contempt application. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the matter was related to a case which was subjudice and no reply can be given in the interest of natural justice. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide the required information if the disclosure does not violate the condition laid down under section8(1)(b)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to send the complete information to the appellant as per available records observing that section8(1)(b)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;of the RTI Act has not used the word sub-judice and that the PIO had completely misinterpreted the law. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in having to wait for the information and pursing the appeal." +1066,Information regarding Lokpal Bill and Baba Ramdev under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO of the DoPT to furnish the photocopy of the said Bill and the notification free of cost to the appellant stating that the information had not been provided to him within the stipulated period.,"Information regarding Lokpal Bill and Baba Ramdev under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under RTI with the Prime Minister's office seeking a variety of information relating to the Lokpal Bill and the related papers, the imposition of Section 144, details of ministers who visited Baba Ramdev etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the PMO transferred his queries to various other public authorities like Delhi Police, DoPT and the CBDT. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of those public authorities responded to the appellant and provided some information. The PIO of the DoPT asked the appellant to deposit the photocopying charges for the copy of Lokpal Bill and the related papers. During the hearing, the appellant submitted that he had not received the complete information and that the information should be provided free of charge as the mandated period of 30 days was over.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that most of the queries do not exactly amount to information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and appear to be seeking opinion of the PIO on his own assumption rather than seeking any information. The Commission directed the PIO in the office of the PMO to categorically inform the appellant if there was any information available on the number of ministers who visited Baba Ramdev in the Ramlila Maidan or/ and any hotel during the agitation staged by him and to provide the copy of any government notification or order or file noting authorising the visit of such ministers, if it exists. However, if there is no such record, it should be clearly mentioned that there is no record available based on which any such information can be given. The Commission also directed the PIO of the DoPT to furnish the photocopy of the said Bill and the notification free of cost to the appellant stating that the information had not been provided to him within the stipulated period." +1067,Information regarding the NPAs sold by IDBI,,the NPAs sold by IDBI to certain companies for particular years along with the book value and the price at which it was sold,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"However, the CIC directed the PIO to severe the information under section 10 of the RTI Act about the book value and the sale value of the NPAs and provide the balance information to the appellant.","Information regarding the NPAs sold by IDBI + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the NPAs sold by IDBI to certain companies for particular years along with the book value and the price at which it was sold. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that such details are not readily available and cited section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.that it would disproportionately divert the resources of the bank. In reply to the first appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to review his reply and send a fresh reply within 10 working days. The PIO again denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act stating that information regarding the book value of the NPA and price at which it is sold is of commercial confidence and disclosure of this information would hurt the competitive positions of the third party which have brought the NPAs. He also referred to section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question..","The Central Information Commission (CIC) accepted that the sought information would be exempt under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. However, the CIC directed the PIO to severe the information under section 10 of the RTI Act about the book value and the sale value of the NPAs and provide the balance information to the appellant." +1068,Demand of repeat inspection along with a companion under RTI Act,,"Bhopal gas tragedy like the copies of documents in relation to the use or ban on Sodium Thiosulphate for Bhopal gas victims, copies of meeting minutes, reports, correspondences with Dr",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission further noted that in case there are any records or file which the appellant believes should exist and are not shown to her, she will give this in writing to the PIO at the time of inspection and the PIO will either give the files/ records or give it in writing that such files/records do not exist.","Demand of repeat inspection along with a companion under RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding Bhopal gas tragedy like the copies of documents in relation to the use or ban on Sodium Thiosulphate for Bhopal gas victims, copies of meeting minutes, reports, correspondences with Dr. Max Daunderer, documents which prohibited the Publishing of research carried out by ICMR on Bhopal gas victims and certain information in relation to a report published by the Public Authority regarding the effect of gas leakage. She also sought for inspection of all documents relating to Bhopal Gas Disaster held by the Public Authority. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the documents/files sought by the appellant were not available with the Council as all the relevant documents and files were handed over to MP Gas Rehabilitation Department by ICMR Centre “Bhopal Gas Disaster Research Centre (BGDRC)”, Bhopal. He also provided a link to the website of the Council informing the appellant that the Council had brought out a series of three technical reports which can be accessed from the website of the ICMR. He also facilitated the inspection of records as desired by the appellant. The appellant submitted that she has done an inspection of the relevant records at the office of the PIO at Bhopal but would like to inspect the records at the New Delhi Office alongwith a companion.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to facilitate an inspection of the relevant records by the appellant. The Commission further noted that in case there are any records or file which the appellant believes should exist and are not shown to her, she will give this in writing to the PIO at the time of inspection and the PIO will either give the files/ records or give it in writing that such files/records do not exist. + +Comments + +If inspection of records has been done at the Bhopal Office, permitting inspection of the documents again at Delhi and that too, along with a companion is unusual." +1069,Should the donations given by the President be disclosed under RTI?,,,['8(1)(j)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The Commission also directed the PIO to take steps to publish the details such as the names of the receivers of the donations, their address and the amount of donation in each case in the website of the President Secretariat at the earliest.","Should the donations given by the President be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed nine applications under RTI seeking information concerning the functioning of the President of India. The information sought for included details of state visits by the President, guests received by her and expenses incurred, gifts given and received, donations given from time to time, decisions on mercy petitions etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the desired information against most of the queries as per the available records. The PIO denied the information related to the donations given by the President under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.","The Central Information Commission commended the PIO for providing the information on wide variety of matters and for periods ranging over several years. The Commission also noted that in some cases, even though the information was not available in the form it had been sought, the PIO took the pains to collect and compile it and provided the same. Further, the Commission held that the donations given by the President of India out of the public funds cannot be treated differently from the subsidy given by the government to the citizens under various welfare schemes. Holding that the people of India have a right to know about such donations, the Commission directed the PIO to furnish the details of the donations given by the President. The Commission also directed the PIO to take steps to publish the details such as the names of the receivers of the donations, their address and the amount of donation in each case in the website of the President Secretariat at the earliest." +1070,Details of domestic and commercial consumers of LPG under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the relevant information.,"Details of domestic and commercial consumers of LPG under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the names of the domestic and commercial consumers of LPG cylinders in a particular village. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the list of domestic consumers but refused for the list of commercial consumers claiming that the supply of LPG to commercial consumers was not subsidised by the Government. The appellant protested against non-supply of information alleging that LPG gas cylinders supplied to the domestic consumers are being diverted to the commercial consumers.","The Central Information (CIC) observed that ordinarily, the bench would have upheld the decision of the PIO but the appellant has alleged corruption in the matter of diversion of gas cylinders from domestic consumers to commercial consumers. Hence the disclosure of sought information would be in larger public interest in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering Ramgarh is a small village and the numbers of commercial consumers would not be very large. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the relevant information." +1071,Non- compliance of the orders issued under the RTI Act by CIC,,a vigilance case which had appeared in Annual Report of CVO of Bank of Maharashtra,"['8(1)(j)', '8(1)(e)', '8(1)(h)']",PENALTY_IMPOSED,17000.0,,"With different benches of the CIC taking a divergent view on the subject, the confusion in the matter is being compounded.","Non- compliance of the orders issued under the RTI Act by CIC + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding a vigilance case which had appeared in Annual Report of CVO of Bank of Maharashtra. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.stating that the sought information relates to the personal information and bank account of another person, which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and the disclosure of it would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. The PIO further justified the denial submitting that disclosing the information would disclose the Bank accounts of some other customers of the Bank which is held in the fiduciary relationship by the Bank [claiming exemption under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;] and that a Police investigation is ongoing and hence disclosing the information may affect the investigation [claiming exemption under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;]. + +The Central Information Commission did not accept the plea of exemption under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.stating that those who are public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets which are routinely collected by the Public Authority and routinely provided by the Public servants. The disclosure of this cannot be construed as an invasion on the privacy of an individual. The Commission also rejected the claim for exemption under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;stating that the PIO has not been able to show or justify how revealing the information could impede the process of investigation. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the sought information after severing the information (under section 10) relating to the Bank Customer’s accounts names and amounts noting that the same was held by the bank in fiduciary capacity and hence was exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +The respondents made a representation requesting for reconsideration of the Commission’s order and claiming exemption under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. The appellant also approached the Commission alleging non-compliance of the Commission’s order. The Commission issued a notice to the respondents to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action not be recommended against them for defying the orders of the commission and failing to comply with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. The Commission also observed that once a statutory order is given, all citizens have to obey or obtain a stay on such order by the manner prescribed in law and the only relief available is a writ before the appropriate forum. The PIO sent written submissions to the Commission explaining that the information had been sent to the appellant and requesting the Commission to condone the delay.","The Commission noted that it does not consider defiance of its orders as a legitimate exercise by a PIO. By sending a letter to the Commission asking for review, the PIO cannot escape the consequences of not following its order. It is evident that the information was sent only after receiving the show-cause notice of the Commission. The Commission levied a penalty of Rs. 17,000/- on the PIO for delaying the disclosure of information by 68 days. + +Comments + +This order raises the issue of the re-consideration or review of the orders by the CIC. Though the RTI Act does not explicitly provide for the power of review by the CIC, it has been held that the CIC may review its own orders in certain cases. This order also raises the crucial issue of ‘privacy’ in the context of RTI Act. With different benches of the CIC taking a divergent view on the subject, the confusion in the matter is being compounded." +1072,Information about Ad Hoc appointments under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission further observed that even if it is assumed that additional period of 05 days was used for the transfer of RTI application the total time available was not more than 35 days.,"Information about Ad Hoc appointments under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the authentic copy of the advertisements/ notifications issued for Ad Hoc appointment, list of applicants who applied for the same, copy of merit list of marks in the written test and the list of the Expectant /waiting candidates for the appointment after the interview. He also wanted information regarding reserve and non-reserved seats in the recruitment. The public Information Officer (PIO) asked the appellant to deposit an additional fee for photocopy charges so that the information could be furnished. The appellant claimed that the information should be provided free of cost to her because the reply from PIO came after the expiry of the stipulated time period of 30 days for providing the information as given in the RTI Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to furnish the information free of cost to the appellant observing that the PIO had asked for the payment of additional fees on the 39th day i.e. after the mandatory period was over. The Commission further observed that even if it is assumed that additional period of 05 days was used for the transfer of RTI application the total time available was not more than 35 days. +1073,Norms for allotment of the community hall to the public,,the completion of a construction of community hall/ marriage hall at Banda railway station along with the norms prescribed for ensuring that required facilities are provided to the employees,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal noting that the information has already been provided and no further action is required.,"Norms for allotment of the community hall to the public + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the completion of a construction of community hall/ marriage hall at Banda railway station along with the norms prescribed for ensuring that required facilities are provided to the employees. He also sought a copy of policy formulated to ensure that the Public Authority benefits from allotment of the hall to the public. Not satisfied by the reply given by the Public Information Officer (PIO), an appeal was filed to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) who held that part information has been provided to the appellant. He further informed that no such policy has been formulated till date. + +Proceedings + +The respondent submitted that while responding to the RTI application, the appellant was informed that the construction work of the marriage hall has almost been completed. Later, when the work was fully completed and the hall was ready, the appellant was informed about it. The respondent further stated that at the time the reply to the RTI application was given, no policy for allotment of the hall existed. However, now the policy is ready and the same was furnished to the appellant on a later date.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal noting that the information has already been provided and no further action is required. +1074,Responsibility for shortage of text books in the schools of NDMC,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that adequate information has been provided to the appellant.,"Responsibility for shortage of text books in the schools of NDMC + +Background: +The appellant wanted to know whether the text books being used in the schools under the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and under the Delhi Government for classes 3 to 5 were same or not, whether the syllabus set by the NCERT can be modified or changed by the Delhi Municipal Council and who is responsible for the shortage of text books. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied as per the information provided by the Deputy Education Officer, MCD. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the appellant wanted to know who is responsible for the shortage of text books, no information could be provided since this information does not fall under the definition of ‘Information’ as given in section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. Further, the appellant wanted to know as to whether the same text books are beings used by NDMC and Delhi Government the respondent submitted that they do not have the text books being used in the Delhi Government Schools and that the information sought by the appellant is not available with them. They stated that the NDMC text books are available with the applicant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) advised the appellant to purchase Delhi Government School text books from the market and compare the text books for himself and come to a conclusion whether the same text books are being used or not. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that adequate information has been provided to the appellant. +1075,Information regarding 1984 riots under RTI,Delhi Police,"that for how many effected innocent Sikh families, Delhi Police had taken up the case to the Honourable Court to punish the rioters and deliver due justice to the aggrieved",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the current status of the cases to the appellant.,"Information regarding 1984 riots under RTI + +Background: +The appellant had filed an application under RTI with the Delhi Police, seeking information in relation to 1984 riots, like, no. of FIRs registered; how many rioters were identified by Delhi/New Delhi Police; what action was initiated by the Commissioner of Delhi Police against rioters and their gang leaders; who was the Commissioner of Delhi Police in October, 1984 to December 1985 and from January 1985 to December, 1987; details of law of land existing in Delhi/New Delhi at the time of riots. He also wanted to know that for how many effected innocent Sikh families, Delhi Police had taken up the case to the Honourable Court to punish the rioters and deliver due justice to the aggrieved.  The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided requisite information pertaining to New Delhi District to the appellant. In his first-appeal, the appellant submitted that the PIO had not provided full information on the query pertaining to the case Delhi Police had taken up for the affected innocent Sikh families. + +The respondent submitted that the PIO had informed the appellant that “Accused were arrested and charge sheeted by the Court of Law.” Further the respondent stated that complete information on the number of FIRs registered and the number of persons arrested has been provided to the appellant and no further information remains to be provided in reply to his RTI application.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the current status of the cases to the appellant. +1076,Disclosure of the Censor board approval under RTI for a collection of songs,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission rejected the appeal observing that since the CBFC passes over 6000 short films in a year, it would not be possible for them to identify the particular film and comment on whether it was passed by CBFC or not, in the absence of the certificate.","Disclosure of the Censor board approval under RTI for a collection of songs + +Background: +The appellant claimed that an unauthorized person got the approval of Censor board for a collection of songs. He attached a script of songs, audio cassette and the video album made by the alleged unauthorized person and sought the name of the unauthorized person with address. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the certificate is mandatory in this matter and since the certificate issued by the Central Board of Films Certification (CBFC) is not enclosed, the information cannot be provided. He also informed the appellant that if the video is sold in the market without the certificate, then it can be declared illegal. + +Proceedings + +The appellant submitted before the Central Information Commission (CIC) that he had sent the lyrics of the song and the PIO must identify the film since Central Board of Films Certification (CBFC) has the lyrics of the song as well. The PIO informed that since the CD/ DVD sent by the appellant did not have any censorship certificate, it was not possible to know whether this was ever certified by CBFC as over 6000 such CD/DVD are passed every year.","The Commission rejected the appeal observing that since the CBFC passes over 6000 short films in a year, it would not be possible for them to identify the particular film and comment on whether it was passed by CBFC or not, in the absence of the certificate." +1077,Action taken on the letter written by the appellant to the PMO,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Central information Commission (CIC) agreed with the decision of the PIO and dismissed the appeal.,"Action taken on the letter written by the appellant to the PMO + +Background: +The appellant stated that he was a graduate in History and wanted to become script and dialogue writer for the bollywood movies. He claimed that he had written two films and wants Aamir khan and Arbaaz khan to have a look on my writings. In this regard he wrote a letter to PM’s office. Later he filed an application under RTI with the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting seeking what action has been taken on his letter. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that there is no such scheme in the Ministry to provide assistance to intending scriptwriters.","The respondent submitted that the appellant was not seeking information rather he wants the PIO to forward his application to Institutes where such courses would be conducted, which is beyond the purview of RTI act. The Central information Commission (CIC) agreed with the decision of the PIO and dismissed the appeal." +1078,"Under RTI, should the copies of documents be given after inspection?",,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed that the PIO to provide the sought information to the appellant.,"Under RTI, should the copies of documents be given after inspection? + +Background: +The appellant sought the copies of his Provident Fund entries and other related matters. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under sections8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act but gave the appellant an opportunity to inspect the relevant records. The First Appellate Authority rejected the grounds on which the PIO had withheld information and directed the Appellant to inspect the relevant documents. During the hearing before CIC, the appellant submitted that he had been permitted inspection of the ledgers but the photo copies of the same were not permitted.","The PIO agreed to provide the certified copies of the entries pertaining to the appellant in the two ledgers related to his Provident Fund account, and salary statement. The PIO also agreed to provide the computer printout of the above. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed that the PIO to provide the sought information to the appellant. + +Comments + +The provident fund details of an individual are his personal information which is not liable to be disclosed to anyone except himself." +1079,Disclosure of policy for appointment of persons on compassionate grounds under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also placed on record that the appellant seeks to give certain suggestions on this important matter to the Ministry.,"Disclosure of policy for appointment of persons on compassionate grounds under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the various details pertaining to the policy adopted in public sector banks for appointment of persons on compassionate grounds. The Public Information Officer (PIO) supplied part information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide full and complete information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the matter of appointment on compassionate grounds is a sensitive issue and draft proposals which are under consideration of the Ministry cannot be disclosed as there was every likelihood that the final shape of the document would greatly vary from the present draft. The premature disclosure of the draft proposals would only serve to create confusion with regard to this sensitive issue. The appellant stated that he wished to have a copy of the recommendations given to the respondent by the Indian Banking Association (IBA).","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to take action as per the provisions of section 11 of the RTI Act to seek the submission of the third party before disclosing the recommendations given by the IBA to the appellant. The Commission also placed on record that the appellant seeks to give certain suggestions on this important matter to the Ministry. The PIO, in his capacity as Under Secretary (IR) agreed to accept the same and pass on the suggestions to the right quarters. + +Comments + +The RTI Act places an obligation on the public authorities to consult the public before making policies (Section 4 of the RTI Act) and there should not be any hesitation in involving the people in the process of decision making." +1080,Can a complaint filed with the police be termed as third party information?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comments + +The view taken by the CIC for disclosure of the copy of the complaint has varied from case to case and a clear stand is yet to emerge.","Can a complaint filed with the police be termed as third party information? + +Background: +The appellant’s former daughter in law had filed a complaint with the police. The appellant filed an application under RTI seeking a copy of documents in relation to the complaint. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied for the documents stating that the document fall under the category of personal information of third party as per section 11 of the RTI Act and that the third party did not agree to supply her personal information to the appellant. However, a copy of the final report was provided to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the PIO adopted the provisions of section 11 of the RTI Act but the third party denied the same mentioning that the information was personal and confidential in nature and disclosure would not serve any public interest.  She also mentioned that the contents of information sought were already within the knowledge of the applicant and her marriage with appellant’s son stands dissolved vide order passed by the competent Court. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that as part of mutual settlement for closure of complaint, a compromise was reached between the parties i.e. the former daughter-in-law and son of the appellant. In terms of this mutual settlement, his former daughter-in-law agreed for closure of complaint filed in CAW Cell. The mutual settlement was signed by his daughter-in-law and his son and that he himself had signed the documents as one of the witnesses.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the complaint filed by appellant’s former daughter in law has been closed by the respondent on the basis of mutual settlement and since the matter has been closed by the Police, the complaint filed by the former daughter in law cannot be provided to the appellant in view of section 8(i)(j) read with section 11(2) of the RTI Act. Further, the appellant had failed to establish larger public interest for the disclosure of information. + +Comments + +The view taken by the CIC for disclosure of the copy of the complaint has varied from case to case and a clear stand is yet to emerge." +1081,Disclosure of recruitment of constables of SSB under RTI,,his complaint against the irregularities committed in the recruitment of constables,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the allegation of corruption made by the appellant in this case is not backed by any such evidence.,"Disclosure of recruitment of constables of SSB under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed a RTI application with the President’s Secretariat seeking information regarding his complaint against the irregularities committed in the recruitment of constables. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred his RTI application to the Ministry of Home Affairs which further transferred it to the Seema Shashastra Bal (SSB). The PIO of SSB informed the appellant that the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act did not apply to it as SSB has been included in the Second Schedule by the decision of the Central Government. The provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act do not apply to this organisation except in the case of allegations of corruption and human rights violation. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondents argued that although the appellant had alleged that there was corruption in the recruitment process, the allegation was unfounded and the appellant had not succeeded in the recruitment on merits.",The Commission observed that the SSB is not obliged to provide any information in terms of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The present case is not covered by the proviso to section 24 of the RTI Act in the sense that it is not information about human rights violation or about allegations of corruption. The Commission also noted that mere suspicion or allegation of corruption is not enough to warrant such exempted organisations to be brought under the purview of the RTI Act; the allegation of human rights violation or corruption must be backed by credible evidence. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the allegation of corruption made by the appellant in this case is not backed by any such evidence. +1082,Reason for denial of stagnation increment under RTI,"United India Insurance Company Limited, Jaipur",reasons for denial of stagnation increment to him,['8(1)(e)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,2008.0,The Commission also directed the PIO to provide a copy of the file notings (other than ACRs) according to which the matter of stopping of stagnation pay to the appellant was examined and finally approved by the competent authority.,"Reason for denial of stagnation increment under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed a RTI application with the United India Insurance Company Limited, Jaipur seeking information pertaining to reasons for denial of stagnation increment to him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Later, on the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA), part information was furnished to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before Central Information Commission (CIC), another PIO of the organisation from Chennai submitted that the matter of disclosure of ACRs was part of the petition filed by the Company before the Madras High Court who has granted stay on disclosure of ACR. He was not certain whether the order of the Madras High Court also covered stay on disclosure of overall ACR grading.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO, Chennai to verify the fact of the ACR’s stay and subject to the order of the Madras High Court either provide or deny disclosure of grading awarded to the appellant for the years 2008 – 2010. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide a copy of the file notings (other than ACRs) according to which the matter of stopping of stagnation pay to the appellant was examined and finally approved by the competent authority." +1083,Can SEBI call for any records from the different Stock Exchange?,Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comments + +There are many cases where an application has been filed under the RTI Act to the head office of an organisation where the applicants demand the compilation of information which is not held by the head office.","Can SEBI call for any records from the different Stock Exchange? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under RTI with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) seeking inspection of all the records of applications for in principle listing received by the Madras Stock Exchange from April 2008 to September 2010 and the files relating to the disposal thereof. He also demanded that the SEBI should access these records from the Madras Stock Exchange and provide to him in terms of the provisions of section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the desired information was not available with the SEBI. During the hearing, the appellant referred to the provisions of section 6 of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act 1956 and submitted that the SEBI had the powers to get such information from the Madras Stock Exchange.","Referring to the provisions of section 6(3) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act 1956, the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed as per the section, the power vested in the SEBI to call for any information from a recognized stock exchange is based on its satisfaction that it is in the interest of the trade or in the public interest so to do. The Commission held that this does not give an unfettered power to the SEBI to call for information from any stock exchange on the request of a citizen under the RTI Act. The Commission further noted that section 6(1) makes it mandatory for every stock exchange to furnish regular returns to the SEBI and section 6(2) mandates that stock exchange shall maintain and preserve various kinds of records as prescribed by the Central Government and that the SEBI would have the power to inspect such records. Thus, only if the SEBI has prescribed the information to be furnished to it on regular basis by way of return from a recognized stock, then the SEBI would have such information and the PIO will be in a position to provide it. The Commission rejected the appeal stating the SEBI cannot summon such information from the Madras Stock Exchange just to provide to the appellant. + +Comments + +There are many cases where an application has been filed under the RTI Act to the head office of an organisation where the applicants demand the compilation of information which is not held by the head office. That work is not mandated under the RTI Act." +1084,Complaints against the empanelled advocates of SC Legal Services Committee,,complaints received from litigants against the empanelled advocates of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) and action taken thereon,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed to take steps to post the list of beneficiaries of legal aid provided by Supreme Court Legal Services Committee on their website.,"Complaints against the empanelled advocates of SC Legal Services Committee + +Background: +The appellant sought information pertaining to complaints received from litigants against the empanelled advocates of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) and action taken thereon. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point-wise information to the appellant. + +Proceedings + +The respondent submitted to the Central Information Commission (CIC) that the requisite information has been provided to the appellant and if he desires, he can inspect the complaint register. The appellant submitted that the respondent have not fully complied with the provisions of section 4(1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The appellant also suggested that names of beneficiaries of legal aid provided by the SCLSC should be posted in their website.","The Commission observed that requisite information as per records and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant and if the appellant desires, he can inspect the complaint register of the public authority. The Commission also directed to take steps to post the list of beneficiaries of legal aid provided by Supreme Court Legal Services Committee on their website." +1085,Contradictory information given by two PIOs under RTI,,how a RPF constable can be present at two different places at the same time as per the attendance records,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission further directed to keep the appellant informed about the outcome of the enquiry and the action taken.,"Contradictory information given by two PIOs under RTI + +Background: +The appellant alleged that two stones had been placed by the Railways close to his residence. He filed an application under RTI seeking reasons why they had been placed at the wrong place. He also wanted to know how a RPF constable can be present at two different places at the same time as per the attendance records. The Public Information Officer (PIO) furnished the point wise information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the appellant stated that two railway stones were installed near his residence and that in response to an earlier RTI application, he was informed that these two stones were installed jointly by the employees of the Railways and Head Constable of RPF. The appellant also stated that in response to the instant RTI application a copy of a Joint Inspection Report was provided to him in which states that the report was prepared on 19.2.11 jointly by the Head Constable of RPF and Section Engineer (Works). The appellant further stated that while 19.2.11 has been given as the date in the joint inspection report, it is on 24.2.11 that these two stones were actually placed near his residence. The appellant wanted to know as to how the Head Constable of RPF could be present at two different places i.e. Mohan Nagar and in Shamli on the same day i.e. on 19.2.11 since from the copy of the attendance register which he had obtained in response to the earlier RTI application, he was very much present at Shamli (where the constable was posted) on that day.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the appellant’s complaint was related to some contradictory information provided to him, apparently by two PIOs. On perusal of records the CIC stated that the PIOs in both cases have made no attempts to hide any information and have provided the information as it existed in the records along with copies of supporting documents. The Commission directed the First Appellate Authority to enquire into the whereabouts of the constable on the said dates and take appropriate action if any irregularity is confirmed. The Commission further directed to keep the appellant informed about the outcome of the enquiry and the action taken. + +Comments + +This case law shows how the RTI Act can be used for a purpose beyond obtaining copies of documents. An enquiry, in this case about the whereabouts of the constable, would help in maintaining transparency in the working of the public authority." +1086,When should a PIO demand ‘further fee’?,,"the complete details of the officers / official suspended by the Commissioner, MCD along with the copy of charge sheet and suspension order",[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,2000.0,"The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIO and directed to give his reasons why penalty should not be levied on him under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the Right to Information (RTI)  Act.","When should a PIO demand ‘further fee’? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding a complaint against deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) such as the certified copies of CVC letter in relation to the said complaint, the Action Taken Report on the complaint, and the pending RDA & police case list with name, designation etc. He also wanted to know the complete details of the officers / official suspended by the Commissioner, MCD along with the copy of charge sheet and suspension order. After the order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) directing disclosure of information, the Public Information Officer (PIO) asked the appellant to pay an additional fee for 190 pages of information. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the respondent stated that the Right to Information (RTI) application submitted online by appellant was not received by the PIO. He also submitted that he was an Assistant Law Officer (ALO) in the MCD and he demanded for additional fee because he did not know the law. He further claimed that subsequently he realized that he had raised an illegal demand of money from the appellant and hence has sent the complete information to the appellant. The appellant argued that the information sent to him consisted of only 09 pages and was related to one of his queries only.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to send the complete information to the appellant observing that this was gross inefficiency and carelessness by the MCD officers and such behaviour by a law officer in the Vigilance Department were completely unacceptable. Under section 19(8)(b), the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursing the appeal and getting the information late. The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIO and directed to give his reasons why penalty should not be levied on him under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the Right to Information (RTI)  Act." +1087,Can the details of GPF be disclosed to one’s wife under RTI?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the required information to the appellant.,"Can the details of GPF be disclosed to one’s wife under RTI? + +Background: +On the second appeal of the appellant seeking the details of GPF of her husband, the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) in its earlier order dated 4.10.11 had observed that the information belonged to a third party. The CIC had directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) to follow the procedure laid out under section 11 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act with regard to third party information and take a decision on its disclosure on the basis of the submission of the third party. The appellant came with a complaint to the CIC claiming that no information was provided to her. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing before the CIC, the respondent stated that as directed by the Commission earlier, they had sought the submission of the third party and that the third party had denied the disclosure of information. Hence, they have not provided the information to the appellant. However, the respondent informed the Commission that the third party while denying the information has not given any reasons for the denial.","The Commission observed that the appellant was the legally married wife of the third party and as per the submission of the appellant, her husband has been refusing to pay her any maintenance allowance although she still remains his wife. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the required information to the appellant." +1088,Expenditure incurred in hosting state banquets to all visiting American Presidents,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that if the information is not available or even maintained in the form it has been sought, the PIO cannot be compelled to produce the information.","Expenditure incurred in hosting state banquets to all visiting American Presidents + +Background: +The appellant wanted details of the expenditure incurred in welcoming and hosting state banquets to all visiting American Presidents from the time of President Eisenhower to President Barack Obama. The Public information Officer (PIO) replied that all expenditure on banquets hosted were made from the general budget of the President Secretariat and no separate accounts were maintained for each of such banquets.","The appellant insisted that the desired information should be provided. The respondent submitted that the accounts were not maintained separately for each banquet hosted by the President Secretariat, and hence the information cannot be provided. The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that if the information is not available or even maintained in the form it has been sought, the PIO cannot be compelled to produce the information." +1089,Reason for denial of appointment on compassionate ground,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the photocopy of the file noting or any other record from the relevant file in which the case of the compassionate appointment of the mother of the appellant had been considered after the death of his father.,"Reason for denial of appointment on compassionate ground + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to the denial of compassionate appointment to the dependent of his deceased father who was an employee of the bank. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information. During the hearing, the appellant submitted that the information provided did not specify the reasons behind the denial of compassionate appointment to his mother after the demise of his father. The respondents clarified that all the available information had already been provided to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) stated that if there is any file noting or any other record showing the reasons for the bank deciding not to give any compassionate appointment to the mother of the appellant must be disclosed. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the photocopy of the file noting or any other record from the relevant file in which the case of the compassionate appointment of the mother of the appellant had been considered after the death of his father. If no such file noting or record is available, the PIO should state the same clearly." +1090,Disclosure of loan defaulters of a Cooperative Bank under RTI,Reserve Bank of India (RBI),,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal holding that the information sought by the Appellant is neither held by RBI nor is it expected to be with Public Authority.,"Disclosure of loan defaulters of a Cooperative Bank under RTI + +Background: +The appellant filed a Right to Information (RTI)  application with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) seeking detailed information regarding 100 Top loan defaulters of a Cooperative Bank, such as their names and addresses, names and addresses of the guarantors, their worth at the time of grant of advance and their present market value along with the value of the assets against which the loans were given to them. He also asked for the designation of the official who sanctioned the loans, the date on which the loans became NPA and the disciplinary actions taken by the Bank for auctioning the properties secured and the personal properties of the borrowers/ guarantors and the name/designation of the top official responsible for taking such actions. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the information sought by the appellant was not available with the department.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal holding that the information sought by the Appellant is neither held by RBI nor is it expected to be with Public Authority. +1091,"Under RTI, can the information be provided verbally?",,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,Verbal answers do not carry any weight during the proceedings before a CIC and a PIO may be liable for action for any delay.,"Under RTI, can the information be provided verbally? + +Background: +The appellant wanted details of the working hours of nursing department of all designations in the institute, the attendance register for a certain period and other related details. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not furnish any reply to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to supply information.","The appellant stated that he met the FAA and the PIO, full and complete information was provided to him verbally at the meeting and subsequently vide letter, which was dispatched under dispatch number 940. The appellant claimed that he had not received the said letter. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide a photocopy of the above mentioned letter to the appellant. The Commission closed the case observing that full and complete information have been provided. + +Comments + +A PIO should provide a written reply to a query received under the RTI Act and retain the proof of dispatch. Verbal answers do not carry any weight during the proceedings before a CIC and a PIO may be liable for action for any delay." +1092,Inspection of certain case files of the CBI under RTI,,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to show him only those records related to the transfer of the case from the State Police to the CBI.,"Inspection of certain case files of the CBI under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the permission to inspect certain case files of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Public information Officer (PIO) denied the inspection stating that the matter was under trial court and the information was exempted under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.","The appellant submitted that he was concerned only with those records which were registered by the State Police but got transferred to the CBI due to any circumstances. The respondent could not offer any credible argument against the disclosure of this information and the Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the disclosure of the information would not, in any way, impede the prosecution pending before the trial court. The Commission directed the PIO to show him only those records related to the transfer of the case from the State Police to the CBI. + +Comments + +Denial of information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;is justified only if the disclosure impedes the investigation or prosecution." +1093,Letters written to the Prime Minister – who holds the information as per RTI Act?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to make an attempt to identify and locate all or some of the letters and to decide which of those could be disclosed and communicate to the appellant.,"Letters written to the Prime Minister – who holds the information as per RTI Act? + +Background: +The appellant wanted to get the copies of all the letters written to the Prime Minister of India by the office of Governor of Andhra Pradesh. The Public Information Officer (PIO) advised the appellant to approach the office of the Governor for the desired information. Later, on the directions of First Appellate Authority (FAA) he transferred the application to the office of the Governor. The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the letters were held in the PMO and as per section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;and2(j)“right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- +(i) inspection of work, documents, records; +(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; +(iii) taking certified samples of material; +(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device;of the RTI Act, they constitute information and the decision to disclose such information rested entirely on the PIO of the PMO. It would not be right to direct the information seeker to the source of the letters as was done in this case. During the hearing, the PIO submitted that all letters received from various sources were usually marked to different officers within the office and, sometimes, even to other ministries and departments for appropriate action. So, in the absence of any particular reference, either in terms of the date of the letter or the subject matter, it was impossible for the PMO to identify and locate all such letters which the Governor of Andhra Pradesh might have written. Only after identifying and locating all such letters the PIO could decide whether those could be disclosed or not.","The Commission observed that the RTI request was too sweeping in its scope, stretched for a long period of time without any specific references. Thus the PIO cannot be expected to trace each letter from the receipt register and follow it up to its destination and provide it to the appellant. The Commission directed the PIO to make an attempt to identify and locate all or some of the letters and to decide which of those could be disclosed and communicate to the appellant. In case, the PIO decides not to disclose any of these letters, he should pass a speaking order citing the appropriate exemption provision. + +Comments + +In all such cases where one public authority holds letters originating from another public authority, a third party notice under section 11 must be issued to the public authority from whom the letter has originated." +1094,Commercial secrets can be disclosed under RTI only in larger public interest,,,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission also accepted the submission of the respondent that they do not maintain a list of cars that are insured by them as all references are through policy numbers only.,"Commercial secrets can be disclosed under RTI only in larger public interest + +Background: +The appellant sought the list of all cars insured by a particular division of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata in the year 2007 and 2008. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the Right to Information (RTI)  Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the PIO’s order stating that the information sought amounted to ‘commercial secret’, disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the Public Authority. During the hearing, the respondent also submitted that they do not maintain a list of cars that are insured by them as all references are through policy numbers only.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that information sought pertains to third party and the appellant has not shown any larger public interest in disclosure of the information. The Commission also accepted the submission of the respondent that they do not maintain a list of cars that are insured by them as all references are through policy numbers only. +1095,An RTI epic - RTI Applications consisting of 189 questions,,details about various policy dockets on the premium and other official documents deposited by him from in the year 1992 to 2003 through several points,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,The Commission pointed that the appellant had asked 189 questions in his previous two applications.,"An RTI epic - RTI Applications consisting of 189 questions + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding details about various policy dockets on the premium and other official documents deposited by him from in the year 1992 to 2003 through several points. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided partial information informing that the rest of the information has been destroyed as per the Schedule/circular of G. A. Department H.O. Chennai. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the information sought was voluminous in nature and to collect and compile such information which has been destroyed would only divert the resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. + +Proceedings + +The appellant submitted before the Central Information Commission (CIC) that complete information has not been given to him by the public authority as the information for the years 1992 - 2003 has been digitalised and must be available. He also argued that the information pertaining to his leave record, Muster roll/ Attendance record, ACR, Leave Travel Subsidy, Underwriting of Foreign Travel MITR Policy (General Insurance System) was also not been provided by the respondents. The respondent submitted that the information was not maintained as it has been destroyed as per the circular issued. The respondent further added that the leave records of the appellant have been lost and the matter regarding the disclosure of the ACRs has been stayed by the Madras High Court.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide specific point wise information to the appellant and to check up again with the technical department about the possibility of regeneration of any information. If the same were not available, the Commission held that the copy of the circular vide which the information sought has been destroyed should be provided. The Commission further directed to check up about the possibility of finding of the leave records, and also directed to check if the disclosure of grading of ACR has not been stayed, the same should be provided to the appellant. The Commission pointed that the appellant had asked 189 questions in his previous two applications. Appellants should understand that RTI Act is a formidable tool to fight corruption in governance; it should not be allowed to be misused or abused to obstruct national development or to settle personal scores. + +Comments + +In the case Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011, the Supreme Court made comments on the misuse of RTI as under: + +“…Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non-productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising ‘information furnishing’, at the cost of their normal and regular duties.”" +1096,Should the list of all Indians having accounts in foreign banks be disclosed under RTI?,,,['8(1)(a)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The reasons why the full bench order is not applicable ought to have been given by the Commission in its order.,"Should the list of all Indians having accounts in foreign banks be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant filed a RTI application with Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Ministry of Finance seeking list of all Indians having accounts in foreign banks along with their assets and the list which was provided by the German government. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. + +Proceedings + +During the hearing, the appellant referred to a decision made by full bench of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dated 28.9.2010 wherein the disclosure of information relating to the cases being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate was ordered. The respondent submitted that the secrecy clause in the Double Taxation Avoidance Treaty with Germany was the basis on which the sought information was withheld in terms of section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;and8(1)(f)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information received in confidence from foreign Government;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that the order of the full Bench of the CIC referred to by the appellant was not applicable in the instant case. + +Comments + +Without going into the merits of the case, it is worth noting that the order by the Commission has been in a single line and is a non-speaking order. The reasons why the full bench order is not applicable ought to have been given by the Commission in its order." +1097,Disclosure of leave records and attendance registers of employees under RTI,,leave applications of certain employees of Punjab & Sind Bank for appearing before Honourable Central Information Commission (CIC) and the High Court,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,2000.0,"Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs.","Disclosure of leave records and attendance registers of employees under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding leave applications of certain employees of Punjab & Sind Bank for appearing before Honourable Central Information Commission (CIC) and the High Court. He asked for documents like the certified copies of sanctioned leave application of some employees, copy of attendance register of the employees posted at LDA Branch, name & place of posting of the employee, name of the employee who was entrusted to hold the Cashier set of Cash keys during the absence of the said employees etc. He also sought a copy of the rules relied for paying the amount of Special Pay paid to an employee. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and denied for the rest under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. He also stated that the attendance register cannot be provided as it was third party information. During the hearing, the appellant stated that the sought information was related to certain official appearing before the CIC as appellants and the individual was being shown as present on the attendance register.","The Commission noted that information relating to leave and the attendance registers cannot be considered to be exempt information since this is the information regarding the public activity. Taking into the consideration the appellant’s contention that he was seeking information regarding people appearing before the Commission as appellants in their private capacity, it appears that the denial of information was with a purpose to hide the information. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the complete information to the appellant. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him." +1098,Can analysis reports of the CD be disclosed under RTI?,,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide a copy of the closure report to the appellant, observing that the PIO had failed to show as to how the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders.","Can analysis reports of the CD be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the controversial CD allegedly having conversation between member of Joint Drafting Committee for Lokpal Bill and Samajwadi Party Chief, such as, copies of analysis reports on examination of the CD analysed by CFSL, Chandigarh and other laboratories, copy of closure-report filed by Delhi Police in the case and file-notings on movement of the RTI petition. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the investigation of the case was complete and final report had been sent to the Court for judicial verdict. Thus, all the sought documents were attached with judicial file and submitted to the court and were no longer with the public authority. During the hearing the appellant emphasised for the supply of a copy of closure report by Delhi Police, claiming that the situation had changed since the filing of the RTI application and the closure report was rejected by the concerned Court and the matter had been remitted back for re-investigation. The PIO submitted that since the matter was now under investigation, the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;would apply and a copy of the final report cannot be provided to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide a copy of the closure report to the appellant, observing that the PIO had failed to show as to how the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders." +1099,Transfer policy of bank employees under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information available on the records has been provided to the appellant.,"Transfer policy of bank employees under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought various details related to Bank like list of new saving account/ current account/ loan account and other accounts opened and closed since 2006 up to 2011, the amount spent on medical expenses of the employees and their dependents for certain period and the details of transfer. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information in respect of the total expenses made towards the medical facilities for the Bank’s staff. He denied the rest of the details stating that the information was voluminous and not available in the form in which it was sought and it would disproportionately divert the resources of the Bank to collate the same under section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the RTI Act. The PIO further stated that there was no specific transfer ‘policy’ per se which mandates transfer of officers within a definite period. However, he asked the appellant to deposit additional fee, to obtain the Rules governing the transfer of Bank officers. The PIO submitted that whatever information was available on record has been furnished to the appellant and that the rest of the information was not maintained in the format he wanted and it would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information available on the records has been provided to the appellant. +1100,Details of account of a college under RTI,,,"['8(1)(d)', '8(1)(e)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Further, the CIC can take a different ground for denial of information and it is not imperative to follow the grounds given for refusal of information by the PIO/ FAA.","Details of account of a college under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the copy of accounts of the student fund, development fund and general fund of the financial year 2006-07 to 2010-11 of a college at Patna. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. He also stated that as per section 13(1) of Banking Companies Act, 1970 the Banker has to maintain secrecy of account details of its customer.","The appellant claimed that the college is a public body and therefore all details of a public body should be treated as being in public domain. The Central Information Commission (CIC) pointed out that this information is exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. The Commission observed that a clear fiduciary relationship exists as customers of a Bank come to it because of the implicit trust they have in the bank and the information is provided to the Bank for their own benefit. Customers also have a choice of which bank they wish to approach. Holding that no larger public interest has been demonstrated in the case, the Commission rejected the appeal stating that the information sought by the appellant is exempt under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. + +Comments + +The bank account details of a public authority are not liable to be disclosed in a routine manner. Further, the CIC can take a different ground for denial of information and it is not imperative to follow the grounds given for refusal of information by the PIO/ FAA." +1101,Information regarding unauthorized construction in front of the railway station,Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD),the details of the officer who looked in the matter and the certified copy of the action taken and the copy of the map passed by MCD etc,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,25000.0,,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act the Commission imposed the maximum penalty of Rs.","Information regarding unauthorized construction in front of the railway station + +Background: +The appellant had filed a complaint with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) regarding unauthorized construction in front of the railway station, Delhi. He later filed an application under RTI seeking the status of complaint and the action taken with respect to it. He also wanted to know the details of the officer who looked in the matter and the certified copy of the action taken and the copy of the map passed by MCD etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information stating that no action was taken on the said property, no notice was issued and the map was not sanctioned. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to re-visit the replies and send complete, point-wise reply to the appellant as per the available record. The appellant claimed that no information was provided to him despite the order of the FAA. + +The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant as per the order of the FAA. Under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, the Commission issued a show-cause notice to the PIO to give reasons as to why penalty should not be levied on him. The Commission also recommended disciplinary action under section20(2)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him.against the PIO for persistently refusing to give the information despite repeated reminders. The respondent submitted that the assistance of a Junior Engineer (JE) was taken to provide the information after the order of the FAA. JE submitted that the FAA’s order was never given to him and hence he cannot be held responsible for not providing the information to the appellant. Further he stated that the orders of the FAA were received by AE-I (Assistant Engineer) and another JE. The AE admitted that the order of the FAA was given to him for implementation but he gave the FAA’s order to JE (B) to provide the information without applying his mind. JE (B) stated that he was not the holder of the information but he assumed that AE must have made photocopies of the FAA’s order and have sent it to the various JEs as it was a routine practice.","The Commission noted that the information should have been provided to the appellant as per the order of the FAA but it was provided only after the order of the Information Commission. The Commission further observed that the responsibility for implementing the order of the FAA was that of AE who behaved irresponsibly. The Commission further observed that as per section19(5)In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.of the RTI Act, the burden of proving that denial of information was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO but it appears that the deemed PIO i.e. the AE was expecting CIC to act as reminder service. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act the Commission imposed the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on AE stating that the delay has been for over 100 days and no reasonable cause was offered for the delay." +1102,Reasons for illegal barricading & locking of streets under RTI,Delhi Police (East District),barricading and illegal locking of streets,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to inform the appellant whether the alleged locking of gates was legally permitted and whether the permission of the Local Police/ Traffic Police was taken for it.,"Reasons for illegal barricading & locking of streets under RTI + +Background: +The appellant alleged that illegal barricading and locking of streets was being done particularly in Gandhinagar area by some traders, without the permission of local Police, Traffic Police and Fire Brigade. The appellant also alleged that this was in total violation of the guidelines framed by the PHQ, MCD in compliance with Court orders and was causing inconvenience to the residents of the locality. The appellant filed an application under RTI with the Delhi Police (East District) seeking information pertaining to barricading and illegal locking of streets. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that barricades are being put in some streets for security reasons and denied the rest of the information stating that they were not related to East District. The appellant filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA directed the PIO to transfer the matter under section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the PIO, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), South Zone, Shahdara, for necessary action. The appellant submitted that the gates of some streets in Gandhinagar area were locked illegally at the instance of Traders Welfare Associations without consulting the Resident Welfare Associations, which was in violation of the orders of the High Court.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the respondent had not addressed the main issue of the RTI application which was the alleged illegal locking of gates in Gandhinagar area by the Traders Association. The Commission directed the PIO to inform the appellant whether the alleged locking of gates was legally permitted and whether the permission of the Local Police/ Traffic Police was taken for it. +1103,Using RTI for fraud committed by a Gas Agency,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that this was clearly a case of corruption and malfeasance and directed the PIO to obtain a copy of the enquiry report from any office of the HPCL where it is being held under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act and furnish it to the appellant.,"Using RTI for fraud committed by a Gas Agency + +Background: +The appellant had lodged a complaint with Chief Vigilance Officer, HPCL, regarding fraudulent activities of a gas agency. Later he filed an application under RTI seeking to know if an enquiry was conducted into the complaint and the action taken thereon.  The Public Information Officer (PIO) responded that the said gas agency was found to be indulging in certain irregularities consequent upon which a fine of Rs. 46,000/- had been imposed on it. He also informed the applicant that about 700 gas connections, issued by the said agency were found to be fake and further enquiry was being conducted into the matter. During the hearing the appellant submitted that he wanted to have a copy of the enquiry report so that he could take up the matter with CVC.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that this was clearly a case of corruption and malfeasance and directed the PIO to obtain a copy of the enquiry report from any office of the HPCL where it is being held under section 5 (4) of the RTI Act and furnish it to the appellant. +1104,"Details of courses, national seminar and conference conducted by an institute",,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIOs of all the concerned six departments to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon them for not providing full and complete information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act.,"Details of courses, national seminar and conference conducted by an institute + +Background: +The appellant sought the details of various short term courses/ national seminar/ conference conducted by an institute for a particular year along with the utilization certificates issued by different departments of the institute. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information to the appellant. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) informed the appellant that information sought was bulky in nature and the Public Authority will require additional time to furnish it. During the hearing, the appellant claimed that information with respect to utilization certificates (UC) has not been provided to him. The respondent submitted that information pertaining to the UC issued by five departments have been provided to the appellant whereas remaining six departments cannot provide the UC as the accounts have not been finalized. Later the remaining five out of six departments furnished the UCs.  The appellant alleged that there has been a delay of over22The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.months in providing the information by PIOs of all the concerned six departments.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that one of the utilization certificates (UC) was still under finalization by the Public Authority and directed the PIO to provide copies of the said UCs, as soon they are finalized. The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIOs of all the concerned six departments to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon them for not providing full and complete information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act." +1105,Information related to issuance of BPL Card,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"However, considering the appellant’s allegation that the respondents are willfully denying the presence of her original application for issuance of BPL card to her, the Commission directed the PIO to file a sworn affidavit affirming the fact that the original application of the appellant for issuance of BPL card to her was indeed not available in their records.","Information related to issuance of BPL Card + +Background: +The appellant had filed an application under RTI with the Department of Food, Supplies & Consumer Affairs, regarding an application for issuance of Below Poverty Line (BPL) card to his sister. While filing the second appeal the appellant had requested the Central Information Commission (CIC) to direct the Public Authority to issue the BPL card to his sister. When the respondent submitted that the relevant file dealing with the application was not traceable, the Commission had advised the appellant to once again give a copy of her application for issuance of BPL card to the PIO and had directed the PIO to take appropriate action on the same. + +Later, the appellant filed a complaint with the CIC alleging that the respondents have failed to comply with the Commission’s decision. The respondents submitted that the Additional Commissioner had rejected the appellant’s case for issuance of BPL card after examination of the verification report and other material on file. The appellant claimed that their decision to reject her case for issuance of BPL card does not contain any reason and that the respondents were willfully denying the presence of her original application since the said application contained the positive remarks.","The Commission noted that the respondents have taken the required action following the advice of the Commission and also have communicated the same to the appellant. However, considering the appellant’s allegation that the respondents are willfully denying the presence of her original application for issuance of BPL card to her, the Commission directed the PIO to file a sworn affidavit affirming the fact that the original application of the appellant for issuance of BPL card to her was indeed not available in their records." +1106,Entitlement of patients to medical facilities available in G.B. Pant hospital,decision of the HOD,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing that there shall be no further disclosure obligation on the respondents in respect of service records of the two Doctors to the appellant.,"Entitlement of patients to medical facilities available in G.B. Pant hospital + +Background: +A physically challenged person was running a PCO in the premises of G.B. Pant hospital. He claimed that a land/space was recommended to be allotted to him verbally for installing a tea stall in the premises of the hospital which the hospital HOD had later verbally denied him on the ground that they don’t need it at present. He filed a RTI application complaining that patients were being forced to get their medical test done from private clinics by the hospital despite the availability of required medical equipment with them for conducting said medical tests. The appellant asked the Vigilance Department, Delhi Secretariat, about the entitlement of patients to medical facilities (like M.R.I., C.T. scan, x-ray etc.) available in G.B. Pant hospital. He also sought the service record of the Director and the HOD of X-ray Department of G.B. Pant hospital. His application was transferred to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of G.B. Pant hospital. The GB Pant Hospital informed that they do not presently require any tea stall in their premises; there was no rule prescribing that the patients should not be advised to get their medical test done from private clinics and as far as possible patients are provided with the facilities of medical test in the hospital itself. The respondent denied the records of the Director and HOD stating that there was no public interest in providing this information. Dissatisfied with the reply given by the PIO, the appellant filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority (FAA), Vigilance Department, Delhi Secretariat. The FAA advised the appellant to file his appeal with the FAA of the G.B. Pant Hospital. The appellant thereafter, filed the second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC). The appellant submitted that he was seeking the service records of the HOD since was aggrieved with the decision of the HOD regarding allotment of space for his tea stall.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to formally communicate to the appellant that there was no Rule which stops them to advise the patients to get their medical tests done from private clinics. The Commission observed that the service records of Director and HOD were third party records and should not be disclosed without any larger public interest, and especially when the appellant was seeking those records in the light of the flimsy reason. The Commission rejected the appeal observing that there shall be no further disclosure obligation on the respondents in respect of service records of the two Doctors to the appellant." +1107,A case of change of the PIO in a public authority,Central Information Commission (CIC),,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,25000.0,,The Commission directed the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to recover the amount of Rs.,"A case of change of the PIO in a public authority + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under RTI with the Income Tax Department. He later sent another letter to the Public Information Officer (PIO) marked 'RTI modification' in which he had corrected his bank account number. He filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC) for the 15 months delay in receipt of reply to his RTI application. + +In between the two letters sent by the appellant, the PIO of the public authority had changed. The former PIO submitted that the RTI application sent by the appellant was not received. The appellant proved his argument by producing the copy of the certificate signed by the Senior Superintendent of postal services that said RTI application had been delivered to the department on the date mentioned by the appellant. The respondent accepted that as per record maintained in his Dak register, the second letter was received but that it had never been put up to him by his staff. The current PIO submitted that she learnt of the pending RTI application only when she received the order of the Commission directing the disclosure of information and that she had subsequently provided the sought information.","Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act the Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the former PIO for not having furnished the requested information to the appellant before handing over charge to the new PIO, stating that the explanation given by him was not credible. The Commission directed the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to recover the amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the salary of the PIO at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month. + +Comments + +Transfers and postings are part and parcel of any government job. A person who has worked as a PIO should remember that even after being removed from the charge of the PIO, penalty proceedings may catch up later. The time period for sending a reply should be strictly followed by every PIO." +1108,Can the departmental enquiry be questioned under RTI?,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,2000.0,2000.0,"However, under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;the Commission awarded compensation of Rs.","Can the departmental enquiry be questioned under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant had sought certain information from Northern Railway under RTI. Not receiving a proper response from the Public Authority he filed a second appeal with Central Information Commission (CIC) stating that only partial information had been given and that too with a delay. The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that part information had been furnished with the orders of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and part was transferred to the PIO, Jodhpur. The Commission directed the PIO, Jodhpur to furnish rest of the information. The Commission also observed that the delay happened because the PIO failed to put up the file to the FAA in time and thus the FAA could not dispose the appeal timely. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO as to why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for seemingly obstructing the supply of information by not putting up the file in time to the FAA. The Commission also directed that the amount collected from the appellant towards supply of information may be refunded to him because there had been a delay in supplying the information. + +The appellant later filed a complaint with the CIC stating that the information, which was said to have been enclosed with the order of the FAA, was actually not enclosed with the said order. The respondents handed over the relevant copies of documents to the appellant at the hearing. The appellant claimed that he has been wrongly penalised by the public authority, whereas the other co-accused in the case has been exonerated from the charges.","The CIC offered the inspection of relevant records which was refused by the appellant who continued to express his unhappiness with the decision of the public authority to penalise him. The CIC noted that the desired information had been provided to the appellant who is aggrieved with the decision of the public authority to penalise him under a separate departmental proceeding. The Commission held that the decision cannot be questioned under the RTI Act and therefore, there shall be no further disclosure obligation on the respondents. The Commission further noted that the failure of the FAA to dispose of the  first appeal on account of non- submission of file to him by the PIO led to multiple proceedings in the matter, but the intentions of the PIO were not malafide thus, no penalty need to be imposed on the PIO. However, under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;the Commission awarded compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the detriment he suffered due to the negligence of the officials of the public authority." +1109,Information regarding transmission tariff of natural gas sought under RTI,,,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal observing the query raised by the appellant is irrelevant as the fixation of tariff is to be ensured by PNGRB and not by GAIL.,"Information regarding transmission tariff of natural gas sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant submitted that GAIL was responsible for transmission of Natural Gas in the Cauvery Basin area for which it had entered into correspondence with Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) for fixation of tariff. In this context, he filed an application under RTI seeking the full set of copy of the application filed by GAIL with PNGRB for fixation of tariff. The Public Information Officer (PIO) disclosed the contents of GAIL’s letter to PNGRB but denied for the other information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act stating that it was of commercial confidence in nature and information related therewith can be disclosed only in the larger public interest. The appellant pleaded that he has sought the information with a view to ascertaining whether uniform procedure was being followed in the fixation of tariff or not. The respondent submitted that transmission tariff is fixed by PNGRB in the light of notification dated 20th November, 2008 issued by it.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that fixation of tariff is a matter of ‘commercial confidence’ and information related therewith can be disclosed only in the larger public interest. The Commission rejected the appeal observing the query raised by the appellant is irrelevant as the fixation of tariff is to be ensured by PNGRB and not by GAIL. +1110,Information regarding Principal Civil Judge of District Court,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission observed that in case of any denial of information by the District Court concerned, the complaint/second appeal would lie with the respective State Information Commission.","Information regarding Principal Civil Judge of District Court + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to a person posted as Principal Civil Judge (Judicial) in a civil court in the State of Gujarat such as the salary and other allowances paid to him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) advised the appellant to approach the Principal District Judge for the information as the High Court did not have the desired information in its possession. The respondent clarified that judges of subordinate courts drew their salary from the State Government and were part of the establishment of the respective District Judge. They further submitted that the High Court exercised only administrative control and superintendence over the Subordinate Courts and does not maintains all the information relating to the judges of those Court.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that it cannot give any direction to the PIO of the High Court to provide any of the information sought as it was not held by them. The Commission advised the appellant to obtain the desired information from the respective District Court. The Commission observed that in case of any denial of information by the District Court concerned, the complaint/second appeal would lie with the respective State Information Commission." +1111,Information regarding passengers travelling by Sri Lankan Airlines flight,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the respondents were not the custodian of requisite information and the appellant was suitably replied.,"Information regarding passengers travelling by Sri Lankan Airlines flight + +Background: +The appellant sought the names and addresses of passengers who arrived at Chennai Airport by a particular Sri Lankan Airlines flight from the Airports Authority of India (AAI). Under section 5(4) of the RTI Act, the Public Information Officer (PIO) of AAI forwarded the application to the Manager, Srilankan Airlines Ltd., Chennai and intimated the same to the appellant. The respondent submitted that they were not the custodian of information pertaining to list of passengers and they have rightly forwarded the RTI application to the Sri Lankan Airlines which was not a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005, hence the information cannot be provided.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the respondents were not the custodian of requisite information and the appellant was suitably replied. + +Comments + +While it is clear that the Sri Lankan Airlines is not a public authority of India, the order raises several crucial questions - whether the transfer of application should have taken place at all by the PIO of the AAI that too under section 5(4) of the RTI Act? Does the AAI not have any list of passengers with it?" +1112,Can the CIC invent new grounds for denial of information?,,,['8(1)(e)'],UNKNOWN,,,"Furthermore, instead of deciding the case, the Commission has left it to the PIO to make a decision regarding disclosure.","Can the CIC invent new grounds for denial of information? + +Background: +The appellant had sought copies of the bye-laws of all unions functioning in the Cordite factory. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to disclose this information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The PIO further submitted that he had consulted the majority of the unions under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act and the latter did not consent to the disclosure of the requested information. He also emphasizes that disclosure of this information would not be conducive to the industrial peace and tranquility in the factory.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) did not agree on the non-disclosure of the information to an individual observing that copies of the byelaws are required to be provided by a Union for seeking registration and should be placed in public domain. The Commission, however, left the disclosure of the information to the discretion of the PIO stating that, the Commission would not like to create a situation whereby industrial peace and tranquility is disturbed. + +Comments + +It is a strange case where the Commission has accepted disturbance of industrial peace and tranquility as a reason for denial of information. Furthermore, instead of deciding the case, the Commission has left it to the PIO to make a decision regarding disclosure." +1113,Contradictory reply of the PIO and FAA under RTI,,the action taken on the complaint made by Group-A woman officers working in the Chennai Telephones,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission upheld the order of the FAA and rejected the appeal.,"Contradictory reply of the PIO and FAA under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the action taken on the complaint made by Group-A woman officers working in the Chennai Telephones. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the requested information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) claimed that no complaint was made by Group-A woman officers. The appellant filed the second appeal with the Central Information Commission (CIC) contending that the replies of PIO and the FAA are contradictory.","The Commission observed that the appellant’s argument were true. If no such complaint was filed with the competent authority the PIO should have stated ‘nil’ information rather than invoking section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the order of the FAA and rejected the appeal." +1114,Award of punishment for medical negligence by MCI,Medical Council of India,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,3000.0,"These directions were given by the Commission under its powers under section 19(8) (a)(iii) and in conformance with the requirements of Section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;(xvii) of the RTI Act.","Award of punishment for medical negligence by MCI + +Background: +The appellant claimed that the Ethics Committee had held four doctors of Max Hospital, Pitampura guilty of medical negligence/ misconduct and it was stated that quantum of punishment will be decided at the next ethics committee meeting. In this regard the appellant filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) with the Medical Council of India seeking information like, what punishment was ordered against each of the four doctors, when was the punishment ordered, if punishment has not been yet ordered, the reason thereof, the present status in this case and copy of all correspondence /emails MCI had between Max Hospital & its doctors, Ethics Committee & its members, Board of Governors of MCI and any other organization/individual along with the  file noting. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that matter was under consideration. During the hearing, the respondent stated that the Ethics Committee meets every month and over 12 or 13 meetings have been held and the matter of punishment is claimed to have been still under consideration. The appellant pointed out that this was a case of medical negligence which resulted in his daughter’s death in May 2009 and he has been pursuing the matter in the MCI since last two years.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the Ethics Committee of MCI has reportedly found 04 doctors guilty but is now delaying awarding any punishment since past 14 months. The Commission held that complete collapse of mechanisms to punish people who have been found guilty is extremely damaging for society and denies victims a sense of justice being done. The Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 3000/- to the complainant as per the provisions of section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursing the appeal and getting the information late. The Commission further noted that the RTI Act envisions that all citizens shall receive information primarily by suo motto disclosures by various public authorities as prescribed by section (4) of the act and citizens would be required to specifically ask for information under section (6) only in a few cases. It is necessary that information about names of doctors who are found guilty by the Ethics Committee of Medical Negligence/Misconduct were displayed on the website of the Medical Council of India and when the punishment, is decided the quantum of punishment should also be displayed. The PIO was directed to ensure that the names of doctors who have been found guilty by the Ethics Committee since January 2011 are displayed on the website of the MCI and the quantum of punishment is also displayed whenever it is decided. The Commission held that the PIO has given no explanation for denying information with respect to the correspondence/emails which can be refused only under the section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO was directed to provide the information to the appellant and to ensure that the information displayed on the website of the Council is updated every month. These directions were given by the Commission under its powers under section 19(8) (a)(iii) and in conformance with the requirements of Section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;(xvii) of the RTI Act. + +Comments + +Information should be provided primarily by suo motto disclosures by the different public authorities as prescribed by section (4) of the RTI Act so that the need of the citizens to file an application for seeking information under section (6) is reduced to the minimum." +1115,Show cause notice to the PIO of CIC for imposition of penalty,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"Comments + +Many PIO’s would like to quote this argument put up by the PIO of CIC to protect them from levy of penalty.","Show cause notice to the PIO of CIC for imposition of penalty + +Background: +The appellant had sought information regarding certain notice served to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the bank by the Central Information Commission (CIC) such as the date on which the notice was sent, copy of comments of the PIO received by the Commission in response to the notice and the copy of all the file notings of the Commission in connection with processing of above case. The PIO of CIC denied the copy of comments and file notings stating that the file was submitted to the Chief Information Commissioner for adjudication and it was not possible to furnish any further information at this point of time. The appellant filed an appeal to the First Appellate Authority who ordered the PIO to furnish the information. When the PIO asked the appellant to pay the prescribed fee for obtaining copies of the information, the appellant filed the second appeal stating as per the provisions of section 7(6) of the (Right to Information) RTI Act, once a period of 30 days was over he was entitled to get the information free of cost but the PIO has asked for the fee. He also argued that he has not received information and that the PIO should have obtained the information by seeking assistance under section 5(4) if required and sent it. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO for not furnishing complete information within the stipulated time and for not obeying the orders of his superior officer. The PIO clarified that it was an error in thinking and he was under the impression that since he had provided the reply within 30 days he could ask for the additional fee to be paid.","The Commission dropped the penalty proceedings against the deemed PIO observing that it appears that the deemed PIO had made an error and he sincerely regrets the mistake. + +Comments + +Many PIO’s would like to quote this argument put up by the PIO of CIC to protect them from levy of penalty." +1116,Appointment of Assistant Solicitor General of India and Government Standing Counsels,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide complete information observing that information regarding the appointments by the public authorities cannot be said to be personal information and the disclosure of same would not cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of any person.,"Appointment of Assistant Solicitor General of India and Government Standing Counsels + +Background: +The appellant sought information pertaining to appointment of Assistant Solicitor General of India and Government Standing Counsels in the High Court of Jharkhand, their quota and procedure of appointment, copies of file notings, recommendations and approval by the competent authority along with the copies of the appointment letters. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and denied the rest claiming that it was a third party information and requested the appellant to be specific as to whose particular details he wanted.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide complete information observing that information regarding the appointments by the public authorities cannot be said to be personal information and the disclosure of same would not cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of any person. +1117,Information related to the transfer of employees on medical grounds,,,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"In most cases the CIC has held that if a concession is granted to an individual, the information because of which the concession is granted is liable to be put up in the public domain.","Information related to the transfer of employees on medical grounds + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to the transfer of employees on medical grounds. The Public information Officer (PIO) provided part information and denied the information related to the competent authority, who approved the transfer on the said grounds and the medical history/ condition of an employee under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed to inform the appellant whether the transfer of the third party was on medical grounds and the designation of the competent authority who gave approval for the transfer on the said grounds. However the Commission supported the decision of PIO for denial of the medical history/ condition of an employee under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. + +Comments + +When the personal information of an employee is used for a public activity, a PIO is often in the state of a dilemma whether such an information should be disclosed. In most cases the CIC has held that if a concession is granted to an individual, the information because of which the concession is granted is liable to be put up in the public domain." +1118,Who is empowered to represent the CIC before the Court?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing noted that no information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act has been sought by the appellant.","Who is empowered to represent the CIC before the Court? + +Background: +The appellant sought for the inspection and copies of documents regarding name and office address of the person/any officer, who administers oaths for purpose of affidavits in the Court of Central Information Commission and Chief Central Information Commissioner duly appointed by the Court along with the order regarding above information. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that no such information was available with them.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing noted that no information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act has been sought by the appellant." +1119,Should application fee be charged again on transfer of RTI application?,Central Information Commission (CIC) claiming that the High Court cannot ask him,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant or pass a speaking order in case of denial.,"Should application fee be charged again on transfer of RTI application? + +Background: +The appellant had filed an application under RTI with the Ministry of Law and Justice. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of that ministry provided some of the information and had transferred one of the queries to the PIO of the High Court of Gujarat. The Gujarat High Court asked the appellant to deposit the application fee of Rs. 50/- so that his application could be responded to. The appellant filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC) claiming that the High Court cannot ask him for depositing any application fee since he had already deposited the application fee with the Ministry of Law and Justice. The respondent argued that rule 8(A)(ii) of the Gujarat High Court (Right to Information) Rules 2005 had prescribed an application fee of Rs. 50/- for providing any information and, thus the information cannot be furnished without the prescribed application fee. However they gave an option to the appellant to deposit Rs. 40/- since he had already paid Rs. 10/- in the Ministry of Law and Justice.","The Commission noted that the RTI Act does not clearly state whether a public authority can charge application fee separately in addition to the application fee already paid by the information seeker, in case if the RTI application is transferred under section 6(4). The Commission further noted that the PIO was technically correct but it would have been far better if he had considered the request and provided the information because the cost of correspondence with the information seeker and the cost of going through the entire appellate process would be far more expensive than the Rs. 50 application fee which the PIO had demanded. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant or pass a speaking order in case of denial. + +Comments + +Having multiple ‘Competent authority’ with the powers to frame fee rules has created a situation wherein a citizen is forced to study the fee rules every time he wants to file a RTI application. This process is not only inconvenient but also delays the free flow of information. Should it not be made as on the lines of ‘India One’ – wherein there is a single set of fee rules for all public authority? In a federal country like ours, the Central Government can persuade all the state governments to follow a common practice." +1120,Disclosure of rules regarding interception of telephonic conversation under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission advised the appellant to access the relevant law from the same and rejected the appeal observing that it was not an RTI matter.,"Disclosure of rules regarding interception of telephonic conversation under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought copies of the Acts / Ruling which govern recording / interception of telephonic conversation and the related matters. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant to take up the matter with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.","The Central Information Commissioner (CIC) noted that telephone and other modes of communication are intercepted by the Intelligence / Security agencies in the interest of the security of the country. These interceptions are governed by the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885. The Commission advised the appellant to access the relevant law from the same and rejected the appeal observing that it was not an RTI matter." +1121,Information regarding action taken on withdrawal from contract,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also returned the IPO sent by the appellant with the second appeal stating no fee is required to be paid at the appeal stage.,"Information regarding action taken on withdrawal from contract + +Background: +The appellant was a contractor who had signed a contract with the Zonal Railway Training Institute. Later he was allegedly compelled to discontinue the contract despite having followed the rules of the contract. He filed an application regarding the matter seeking whether action will be taken against the contractor who withdraws from the contract after entering into the agreement and the details of the competent authority authorized to punish the contractor. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) provided some additional information but the appellant filed a second appeal claiming that the designation of the competent authority authorized to punish the contractor was not disclosed.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to disclose the designation of the competent authority who had taken the decision. The Commission also returned the IPO sent by the appellant with the second appeal stating no fee is required to be paid at the appeal stage. +1122,Verification of amount paid to casual labour by the Public Authority,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,1200.0,"1200/- from her pocket for the hearing which has remained inconclusive primarily because the relevant records have not produced before the Commission, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs.","Verification of amount paid to casual labour by the Public Authority + +Background: +The appellant was a wife of a casual labor working in Sub Post Office and claimed that her husband was paid a salary of Rs. 456/- per month which was far less than the amount prescribed by the Government. She also suspected that her husband was made to sign in token of having received a higher amount. She filed an application under RTI seeking the copy of documents in relation to the salary of her husband. She further alleged that her husband’s services were terminated when she raised the issue of payment of low wages to him. The respondent failed to justify whether the amount was being made as per the departmental instructions / rules. They also could not produce any instructions / rules according to which wages were being made to the appellant’s husband.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to produce the documents related with the rules / instructions during the relevant period and copies of the records regarding payments made to the appellant’s husband. Noting that the appellant had travelled all the way from Kanpur to Delhi along with her husband and has incurred expenditure of Rs. 1200/- from her pocket for the hearing which has remained inconclusive primarily because the relevant records have not produced before the Commission, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 1200/- to the appellant." +1123,Details of the employees who applied for tax exemption,,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information attracts the exemption provision under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act, as it pertains to “personal information” and no larger public interest has been established by the appellant for its disclosure.","Details of the employees who applied for tax exemption + +Background: +The appellant sought details of the tax exemptions facilities available for the government employees and other related details of the employees who applied for such exemptions in a district of Andhra Pradesh. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and denied the under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act, 2005. He also submitted that the sought information was not available with the Public Authority in the format as desired by the appellant and was available only under the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information attracts the exemption provision under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act, as it pertains to “personal information” and no larger public interest has been established by the appellant for its disclosure." +1124,"Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the PIO of CIC",,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,25000.0,,"Even after almost seven years of the coming in force of the RTI Act, it is pitiable to see that it is not being implemented at the level of CIC which is expected to foresee the implementation of the RTI Act all over the country.","Penalty of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on the PIO of CIC + +Background: +Through an application dated 20/04/2011 filed under the RTI Act, information about the work allocation to information commissioner to hear/decide second appeals filed by the citizens in respect of certain file of Bharat Scouts and guides was sought. Information about appeals and complaints was also sought. When no reply was received, the first appeal was filed on 31/05/2011 and through an order dated 08/06/2011, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO Mr. K.L. Das to provide complete information to the appellant within 10 working days to disclose the information. + +Proceedings + +The Appellant submitted before the Central Information Commission (CIC) that he has received the information satisfactorily only on 13/04/2012. Through a written submission, the PIO informed that the relevant file was not readily available/ traceable and hence could not furnish the information. He also stated that he could not comply with the order of the FAA given on 08/06/2011 since the file was not found. He further states that since a new ministry was allocated on 27/08/2010, around 3500 files and a number of related papers were transferred to his Registry. In the process of receiving and keeping these records the appellants’ file got mixed-up and could not be traced despite efforts. He admitted that an error was made in not sending the information to the Appellant and added that a similar situation exists in some other cases also.","The CIC noted that no information or communication was sent to the appellant and the information was finally sent to him only on 13/04/2012. The Commission observed that at the very least, the PIO should have informed the Appellant that the relevant file was misplaced/ untraceable. The Commission held that either the file should have been located within a reasonable time and the information provided or a Police Complaint should have been made for the loss of the said file. As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission found it a fit case for levying penalty on Mr.  K. L. Das, PIO & Dy. Secretary and imposed the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on him. The amount was directed to be deducted at the rate of Rs.5000/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. K. L. Das and remitted by the 10thof every month starting from June 2012. The total amount of Rs.25000 /- will be remitted by 10thof October, 2012. + +Comments + +The case highlights that even the PIO of the CIC is not immune from levy of penalty. Even after almost seven years of the coming in force of the RTI Act, it is pitiable to see that it is not being implemented at the level of CIC which is expected to foresee the implementation of the RTI Act all over the country. Readers may not from the reply of the PIO that “a similar condition exists in some other cases too” thereby meaning that many more cases of penalty are likely to follow. Hopefully, it would put set a precedent and lead to cleaning of the house and set things of order." +1125,Information regarding time bound disposal of cases by the judges,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that what the appellant had asked for does not relate to any particular document or record and that his request was in the form of a demand for a possible enactment.,"Information regarding time bound disposal of cases by the judges + +Background: +The appellant filed a long and rambling RTI application with the Prime Minister’s Office seeking the reasons as to why the judges were not being bound to dispose of cases pending before them in a time bound manner through legislation just as time limit was fixed for the disposal of RTI requests. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the request did not fall within the meaning of ‘information’ as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. During hearing, the appellant dwelt at length on the ills of the Indian judicial system and exhorted that if a law would be enacted fixing a time limit on disposal of all cases it would be in great public interest. The respondents submitted that they did not have any record relevant to the query of the appellant.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that what the appellant had asked for does not relate to any particular document or record and that his request was in the form of a demand for a possible enactment. He has not sought for information and was rather expecting the PIO to place his RTI application before the Prime Minister and get his views about the demands he had made. +1126,Mode of payment of fee with the RTI application,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission also advised the appellant to make a fresh application along with the application fee in the prescribed manner if he was interested in getting the information.,"Mode of payment of fee with the RTI application + +Background: +The appellant sought the information regarding some public interest litigation he had filed before the Bombay High Court. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not accept the application fee paid by way of postal order (IPO) stating that the Bombay High Court exercising the powers vested in it as a competent authority under section 28 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act had framed the Bombay High Court RTI Rules, 2009 according to which fee should be deposited by way of cash / demand draft / money order only. The appellant argued that since the Supreme Court of India accepts application fee through the IPO, the Bombay High Court should also accept the same.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the appellant cannot compel the PIO to accept an RTI application which is not accompanied with the application fee as prescribed under the Bombay High Court rules. The Commission also advised the appellant to make a fresh application along with the application fee in the prescribed manner if he was interested in getting the information. + +Comments + +While the order is technically right, having multiple ‘Competent authority’ with the powers to frame fee rules has created a problem wherein a citizen is forced to study the fee rules every time he wants to file a RTI application. Should it not be made as ‘India One’ – wherein there is a single set of rules for all public authority? In a federal structure, it is not too difficult." +1127,Lack of knowledge of the provisions of RTI act lands a PIO in the penalty zone,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission penalized the PIO for delay and said that an amount of Rs.","Lack of knowledge of the provisions of RTI act lands a PIO in the penalty zone + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under RTI with the State Bank of India (SBI) Manakpur branch. He received the information with a delay of one month. The Public Information Officer (PIO) claimed that due to lack of knowledge of the provisions of RTI act, he directed the appellant to approach the senior officer at Faizabad and after he had received directions from Faizabad, action on the RTI application was taken.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the reason given by the PIO cannot be accepted as credible explanation for the delay. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission penalized the PIO for delay and said that an amount of Rs. 8500/- may be deducted from the salary of the PIO in two installments. + +Comments + +Mere promulgation of the RTI Act cannot bring about the desired transparency in the working of Public Authorities. It’s high time that some serious steps are taken for training the Government officials in the field of RTI Act, so as to achieve the objective with which the act was framed." +1128,Information regarding complaint against Judges of HC and SC,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Noting that the Public Authority had failed to maintain their records in such a manner that it can be retrieved easily when requested for by information seekers under the RTI Act, the Commission directed the public authority to maintain the records properly.","Information regarding complaint against Judges of HC and SC + +Background: +A complaint was filed against serving and retired Judges of High Courts/Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India. The appellant sought for copies of those complaints and forwarding letters sent by Department of Justice to the Supreme Court and High Courts in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the sought letters were issued over three years and the clubbing of the copies would take time as the information were maintained in different files. The respondent also claimed that collation of sought information was a time consuming task and would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority. The appellant submitted that the copies of forwarding letters for past one year should be provided while for the rest, whatever information is readily available may be provided to him.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the copies of all the forwarding letters for the past one year and the copies of forwarding letters which they can trace for the past 3 years. Noting that the Public Authority had failed to maintain their records in such a manner that it can be retrieved easily when requested for by information seekers under the RTI Act, the Commission directed the public authority to maintain the records properly." +1129,Obtaining sample of material used for construction of highway under RTI,,"the widening of National Highway 10 (NH10), including the names of Chief Engineer and others who were involved in the widening of the road",[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also asked the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the records relating to the construction of road and to provide him with attested copies of documents sought by him.,"Obtaining sample of material used for construction of highway under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the widening of National Highway 10 (NH10), including the names of Chief Engineer and others who were involved in the widening of the road. He also sought enquiry reports prepared by various research laboratories to which the Engineers India Limited (EIL) had sent the construction material. The Public information Officer (PIO) gave a point wise reply to the queries asked by the appellant. The appellant alleged that sub-standard material was used in constructing the road and so he had asked for a sample of the road for core testing. During the hearing, the respondent pointed out that there was no sample left and they were willing to provide a small sample from a portion of the road on payment of Rs.7,500/. The appellant expressed his willingness to pay for the sample.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO provide a realistic estimate (indicating the complete breakup) of money to the appellant that needs to be deposited for obtaining the sample. The Commission also asked the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the records relating to the construction of road and to provide him with attested copies of documents sought by him. +1130,Information regarding a Service Tax investigation case,,,['8(1)(h)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant relates to an on-going investigation against the firm and attracts the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.","Information regarding a Service Tax investigation case + +Background: +The appellant sought information related to a case under investigation against a firm. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act, 2009 on the basis of the report received from the holder of information i.e. Assistant Commissioner (preventive). It was informed to the Commission during the hearing that earlier the case was taken up by Service Tax Range, and at that time, copies of summons and other documents related with the said case were already provided to the appellant under the RTI Act by the PIO. Now the case is under investigation by the preventive branch at headquarters. The PIO submitted that an investigation against the firm was in its final stages and was likely to be completed shortly","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant relates to an on-going investigation against the firm and attracts the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act." +1131,Can the fee for the RTI application be paid through postal order?,Central Information Commission (CIC) on the grounds of delay in supply of information and,,[],UNKNOWN,,5000.0,"Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded  a compensation of Rs.","Can the fee for the RTI application be paid through postal order? + +Background: +The appellant had filed an RTI application with the Central Bank of India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) declined to accept the application fee paid through postal order (IPO) and advised the applicant to send a demand draft instead. After receiving the demand draft, the PIO had written to the branch manager for sending the information. The applicant filed a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC) on the grounds of delay in supply of information and for non-acceptance of the IPO. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO to explain why the information was not provided in time and why the application fee paid by way of IPO was disallowed. The PIO produced a circular of the bank issued in which it was mentioned that the application fee should be deposited only by way of cash against receipt or demand draft or bankers’ cheque. The branch manager produced records to show that he had supplied the information to the PIO very promptly within 34 days of receiving his communication. The PIO pleaded that he should not be penalised for having returned the IPO in the first place because he was acting on the circular of the bank which did not include the IPO in its list of instruments and that he never received the information sent by the branch manager.","The Commission pointing at the shoddy manner of working in the bank observed that it is the bank which was clearly at the fault for not amending its circular in tune with the Central Government notifications and said that the whole story appears to be unbelievable but gave the benefit of doubt to the PIO. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded  a compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursuing the application for two years. + +Comments + +For any doubts related to fee, a PIO of any Central Government public authority should refer to the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005." +1132,Details of the election of the Sarpanch under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission advised the appellant to approach the he respective State Election Commission to obtain the sought information.,"Details of the election of the Sarpanch under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information in respect of the election of the Sarpanch from the Election Commission of India. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information related with the Election Commission of India while denying the rest observing that they did not have any information in respect of the remaining queries.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that most of the queries were related to the election process at the Panchayat level and such elections are conducted by the State Election Commission and not the Election Commission of India. The Commission advised the appellant to approach the he respective State Election Commission to obtain the sought information. + +Comments + +There have been many cases where the application has been filed with the nodal office where the applicant expects it to be transferred to the regional offices all over the country. This is not mandated under the RTI Act. An application should be filed to the PIO of the concerned public authority." +1133,RTI application filed by an individual in the capacity of an accountant,IDBI Bank,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to accept the application and take necessary action as per the provisions of the RTI Act observing that as long as the RTI application is in the name of a particular citizen of India, it is of no consequence whether the citizen is furnishing his designation or any other such details.","RTI application filed by an individual in the capacity of an accountant + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under RTI with the IDBI Bank seeking certain information. No reply was given by the Public Information Officer (PIO) forcing the appellant to file a complaint with the Central Information Commission (CIC) under section 18 of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the information to the complainant and also sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time. In response the PIO submitted that well within the stipulated time of 30 days the complainant was informed that the information cannot be provided as the same was not sought in an individual capacity but as an accountant of a certain organization.","The Commission noted that the RTI application was filed clearly as per the provisions of the RTI Act which bears the ‘name of the applicant’ and additionally mentions his designation and work address. The Commission directed the PIO to accept the application and take necessary action as per the provisions of the RTI Act observing that as long as the RTI application is in the name of a particular citizen of India, it is of no consequence whether the citizen is furnishing his designation or any other such details. The same does not detract the applicant from getting the sought information on such a ground that he/she has filed it in the capacity of being at a certain designation." +1134,Investigation report of helicopter crash and death of Reddy under RTI Act,,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission further noted that for the sake of transparency in respect of such a serious accident leading to the death of an important public personality, the desired information should be disclosed.","Investigation report of helicopter crash and death of Reddy under RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant sought for the copy of the investigation report of the helicopter crash that resulted in the death of Sri Y S Rajasekhar Reddy and four others. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act claiming that the report had been submitted to the District Collector of Kurnool district. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) endorsed this decision observing that the information would be disclosed only after the acceptance of the report by the District Collector.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that neither the PIO nor the FAA had given reasons as to how the information attracts the provisions of section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act. The Commission further noted that for the sake of transparency in respect of such a serious accident leading to the death of an important public personality, the desired information should be disclosed." +1135,Information regarding Group of Ministers (GoM) in the Ministry of Science & Technology,,,['8(1)(i)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) perused the minutes of GoM and rejected the appeal observing that the minutes contained information which had national security implications and thus cannot be disclosed to the appellant.,"Information regarding Group of Ministers (GoM) in the Ministry of Science & Technology + +Background: +The appellant sought information related with a Group of Ministers (GoM) in the Ministry of Science & Technology such as their constitution, their deliberations, minutes of meeting etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and refused for other information claiming that sought information was not available. The PIO denied the minutes of the meeting under section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act. Later the respondents submitted that some of the information was not provided to the appellant as the same had been provided to him separately by the Cabinet Secretariat.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) perused the minutes of GoM and rejected the appeal observing that the minutes contained information which had national security implications and thus cannot be disclosed to the appellant. +1136,Information regarding autonomous bodies under administrative control of Ministry of Finance,,legal nonentities working as autonomous bodies under administrative control of Ministry of Finance,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also instructed the appellant to desist from using the inappropriate language while exercising the right given to him under the transparency legislation.,"Information regarding autonomous bodies under administrative control of Ministry of Finance + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding legal nonentities working as autonomous bodies under administrative control of Ministry of Finance. He sought for the list of all such organisation, measures initiated by Ministry to ensure that unregistered and unregulated legal non entities like India's General Insurers Public Sector Association (GIPSA) do not become a forum of Tax embezzlement and Tax evasion, details of visit of officials of GIPSA to Ministry’s Office and the Officials of Ministry to GIPSA’s office. He also wanted a copy of the emails issued by Insurance Division Officials in consideration of RTI application /appeals filed by him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the information on the grounds that the queries in the RTI application were vague in nature. Later the respondent stated that list of such organisations and the Officer’s visit details were not maintained by them and therefore could not be furnished to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the matter pertaining to whether GIPSA was a public authority or not, was pending before the High Court. The Commission directed the appellant to provide a copy of the email letter written by the former Joint Secretary with reference to the RTI application to the PIO and the respondent to provide the information after ascertaining the information held by the Department. The Commission also instructed the appellant to desist from using the inappropriate language while exercising the right given to him under the transparency legislation." +1137,Are the political parties expected to furnish details of their income and expenditure to the Election Commission?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to inform the appellant if there was any legal provision or requirement for political parties to furnish returns of their annual income and expenditure to the Election Commission of India and to provide the copies of the documents after receiving the photocopying charges from the appellant.,"Are the political parties expected to furnish details of their income and expenditure to the Election Commission? + +Background: +The appellant sought some information regarding the income and expenditure of political parties along with the copies of their registration certificates. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the Election Commission did not maintain any information regarding the income and expenditure of the political parties. He asked the appellant to deposit Rs. 28/- as photocopying charges so that he could provide the copies of the registration certificates. The appellant did not send the desired amount and thus no documents were sent to him.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the appellant to deposit the additional fee if he desired the sought information. The Commission also directed the PIO to inform the appellant if there was any legal provision or requirement for political parties to furnish returns of their annual income and expenditure to the Election Commission of India and to provide the copies of the documents after receiving the photocopying charges from the appellant. +1138,To whom should the first appeal be filed in case of transfer of application?,Election Commission of India,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission also advised the appellant to pursue the matter with the District Election Officer.,"To whom should the first appeal be filed in case of transfer of application? + +Background: +The appellant filed an application under RTI with the Election Commission of India seeking some information related to the electoral rolls and the enrolment of citizens. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information and transferred the rest of the queries to the District Election Officer. The appellant filed an appeal with the Election Commission claiming that he had not received any information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) rejected the appeal holding that the appeal should be filed before the FAA in the district concerned. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and filed an appeal with the CIC.",The respondent submitted that the desired information could be found out only from the district level election authorities and not from the Election Commission of India because the Election Commission only exercised superintendence over the entire electoral machinery throughout the country but does not holds all the related information. The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the holder of the information was the District Election Officer and not the Election Commission of India. The Commission also advised the appellant to pursue the matter with the District Election Officer. +1139,Can the application fee be paid via banker’s cheque?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to disclose the information after checking if the appellant had sent a banker’s cheque or to pass a reasoned order if the information cannot be disclosed for any other reason.,"Can the application fee be paid via banker’s cheque? + +Background: +The appellant requested for the certified copy of the judgment passed in a particular case and had enclosed the fee through banker's cheque by way of application fee and further fee. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the application fee should be paid in cash or by money order or Indian postal order or a demand draft and not by way of cheque and the application was therefore defective. The appellant argued that it was not clear if the rules cited by the PIO had been framed by the Chief Justice of India, the competent authority for the Supreme Court of India. Aggrieved by the decision of the PIO the appellant filed a complaint directly with the Central Information Commission.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the appellant had deposited the fee through a banker's cheque and the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules 2005 rules framed by the DoPT, clearly prescribe the banker’s cheque as a valid mode of payment of application fee. Therefore, if these rules have been adopted by the Supreme Court, the PIO should not have rejected the application as invalid. The Commission directed the PIO to disclose the information after checking if the appellant had sent a banker’s cheque or to pass a reasoned order if the information cannot be disclosed for any other reason." +1140,Seeking answers to hypothetical situations under RTI,,the procedure to be followed for redressal of grievance against the higher officers of the bank who have acted arbitrarily and the authority to whom such a matter may be reported to,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that what was sought was not information as defined under Section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.","Seeking answers to hypothetical situations under RTI + +Background: +A Scale III officer of Bank sought information regarding the procedure to be followed for redressal of grievance against the higher officers of the bank who have acted arbitrarily and the authority to whom such a matter may be reported to. He further sought for the information regarding the FIRs recalled by the Bank against its employees. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and informed the appellant that FIR in fraud cases were filed as per the extent guidelines of RBI and there was no provision of recalling FIR once it is filed / lodged and the disciplinary authority is at liberty to accept or reject the advice of Industrial Law Division, HO. The rest of the information was denied claiming that what was sought was not ‘information’ as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. The PIO submitted that the appellant has given certain hypothetical situations and asked for rules and regulations for them which were not available on the records. The appellant is expecting the PIO to interpret rules and regulations which is beyond the purview of RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that what was sought was not information as defined under Section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act." +1141,In which election related activities can the school teachers be deployed?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"However, if in any State, the authorities are deploying teachers to perform duties other than specified by the Election Commission of India, this should be taken up locally with the respective State authorities and that the PIO of the Election Commission of India cannot be expected to explain for the conduct of State level authorities.","In which election related activities can the school teachers be deployed? + +Background: +The appellant sought a number of information regarding the deployment of teachers in election related duties consequent upon the decision by the Supreme Court of India in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information while holding that the Election Commission did not have any information in any material form in regard to the remaining queries. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to provide some additional information. The copies of the relevant documents reached the appellant more than a year after the FAA had passed his orders i.e. only after the Central Information Commission (CIC) notice for hearing reached the Election Commission. During the hearing, the respondents submitted that the delay was caused because the order of the FAA did not reach the PIO at all and that he came to know about this only after the CIC notice reached the Election Commission. The appellant also submitted that the documents sent by the Election Commission did not specify the categories of election related activities in which the school teachers could be deployed on a fulltime basis. The respondents explained that the PIO had forwarded all available instructions of the Election Commission in this regard and there was nothing more that could be provided.","While accepting the explanation given by the respondents for delay in furnishing the information, the Commission noted that in the matters of RTI requests, such lapses should not take place in future. The Commission rejected the appeal observing that clear instructions had been sent to the Chief Electoral Officers of the States specifying the activities for which the services of the teachers should be utilized. However, if in any State, the authorities are deploying teachers to perform duties other than specified by the Election Commission of India, this should be taken up locally with the respective State authorities and that the PIO of the Election Commission of India cannot be expected to explain for the conduct of State level authorities." +1142,Details of delivery of foreign parcel under the RTI Act,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) analysed the whole matter and directed the PIO to provide the copies of all available records related to this article to the appellant within the stipulated time.,"Details of delivery of foreign parcel under the RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant sought the information related with an article which came from Australia and was meant for his son. The article was received in Foreign Post Office, Kolkata, for Custom’s assessment. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information claiming non availability of the records.","The respondent submitted that as per record, an article was received from Australia for the appellant’s son and was duly received in Foreign Post Office for Custom’s assessment. However, as it was an unregistered article, no records are available to indicate whether it was delivered to the addressee or not. The Central Information Commission (CIC) analysed the whole matter and directed the PIO to provide the copies of all available records related to this article to the appellant within the stipulated time." +1143,Cleanliness of railway station taken up through RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,2000.0,The Commission also awarded a compensation of Rs.2000/- for the detriment he suffered in terms of time and money.,"Cleanliness of railway station taken up through RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought point wise information with respect to the cleanliness of circulating areas of Gulbarga station and action taken on his letter sent six months back. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated in a single line reply that the cleanliness work of Glulbarga station was being managed departmentally. The applicant filed second appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) stating that the PIO has provided incomplete information and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) has not disposed off the first appeal.","The Commission observed that point wise information had not been provided to the appellant and instead a one line answer has been furnished. The Commission directed the PIO to provide point wise information to the appellant, as available in the records along with copies of supporting documents and if information against any point is not available in the records the appellant should be informed accordingly. The Commission also awarded a compensation of Rs.2000/- for the detriment he suffered in terms of time and money." +1144,Disclosure of Income Tax returns of third party under RTI Act,,,['8(1)(e)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also pointed that disclosure of information was considered necessary for the speedy dispensation of justice and to provide a level playing field to the appellant to defend himself in a criminal case in which the State is arraigned against him based on a complaint made by the third party.,"Disclosure of Income Tax returns of third party under RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant sought the details of the PAN, Income Tax returns of several persons. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied to provide the related information under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act, 2005. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) upheld the PIO’s order stating that the appellant failed to establish any larger public interest.  The appellant submitted that he had sought the details of his father in law who had registered a dowry case against him and that he required the information to defend himself in the case.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) referring to a previous order No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001044DS, directed the PIO to provide the net taxable income of his father in law for the financial years 2003 – 04 and 2004 – 05 to the appellant. The Commission also pointed that disclosure of information was considered necessary for the speedy dispensation of justice and to provide a level playing field to the appellant to defend himself in a criminal case in which the State is arraigned against him based on a complaint made by the third party." +1145,Information regarding processing of complaint by CBI,,an observation report which the CBI had sent to the State government concerning him,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the photocopy of the relevant file noting showing the comments and observations of various officers of the CBI on the complaint and on the decision to forward the matter to the State Government.,"Information regarding processing of complaint by CBI + +Background: +The applicant was an employee of Life Insurance Corporation (LIC). A complaint was registered against him and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was investigating into it. He filed an RTI application with the CBI seeking information relating to an observation report which the CBI had sent to the State government concerning him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information which was endorsed by the FAA. The appellant filed the second appeal before the CIC arguing that the PIO should have provided the copies of the observations made by the superior officers who had decided that this matter be referred to the State Government. He submitted that since he was a State Government employee, the CBI could not have investigated a complaint against him and he should be advised about the statutory provision based on which the CBI had taken up this complaint against him. The respondent clarified that the complaint against the appellant was discreetly enquired and based on the information gathered from sources it was found that the role of the appellant needed to be looked into. Subsequently the entire matter had been sent to the State Government for further necessary action and that the CBI did not have any other information in this regard.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant has a right to get the copies of any file noting or comments in which the complaint had been processed before deciding to refer the matter to the State Government. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the photocopy of the relevant file noting showing the comments and observations of various officers of the CBI on the complaint and on the decision to forward the matter to the State Government. +1146,Information regarding a complaint filed with the Directorate of Enforcement,Directorate of Enforcement against a company and its directors,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,In view of which the Commission shall further issue an order.,"Information regarding a complaint filed with the Directorate of Enforcement + +Background: +The applicant had filed a complaint with the Directorate of Enforcement against a company and its directors regarding money laundering activities. He then filed an application seeking information with regard to his complaint such as the action taken on his complaint. The PIO informed the applicant that section 24 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act states “nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organizations specified in the Second Schedule”. The Directorate of Enforcement was listed in the second schedule of the RTI Act and thus the information could not be provided in view of exemption granted under section 24 of the RTI Act. The appellant submitted that the company was into money laundering and had connections with underworld elements. He also invoked the charges of corruption in the respondent department and named various officials for their collusion with the promoters of the company.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the organizations listed in the Second Schedule are exempt from the application of the RTI Act with the proviso that information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation shall not be excluded. Since the appellant had categorically made allegation of corruption the respondents were directed to submit a written submission in support of their contention that information sought by the appellant does not attract the aforesaid provision to section24(1)Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organisations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organisations to that Government: +Provided that the information pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be excluded under this sub-section:of RTI Act. In view of which the Commission shall further issue an order." +1147,Issue of license for storing explosives and sale of firecrackers under RTI,,issuance of license to a person for storing explosives and sale of firecrackers,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also ordered the PIO to provide a photocopy of the F I R registered for the loss of the particular file which held the records sought by the appellant.,"Issue of license for storing explosives and sale of firecrackers under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information pertaining to issuance of license to a person for storing explosives and sale of firecrackers. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that due to a fire accident record files of firecrackers licenses were not traceable. The appellant stated that he was the owner of the above mentioned property and that to his knowledge the ground floor was being used to store and sell firecrackers whereas the first floor was being used as residence having kitchen and gas connection which was a safety hazard for shoppers and other shopkeepers. The respondent submitted that as per their record, the previous licence for storing of firecrackers and explosives had already expired. The respondent also submitted that he would refer the matter to the Chief Fire Officer in larger public interest.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the respondent to make efforts to trace out records as held by them for the period 2000 – to date and provide the same to the appellant. The Commission also ordered the PIO to provide a photocopy of the F I R registered for the loss of the particular file which held the records sought by the appellant. +1148,Reasons for denial of promotion under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to inform the appellant the reasons for not granting him promotion in spite of submission of his caste certificate.,"Reasons for denial of promotion under RTI + +Background: +The appellant belonged to SC category and was an employee of the Western Coalfields.  He claimed that he stood at No. 13 in the seniority list and should have been promoted in the year 2004-05. He also submitted that he had sent his caste certificate to the Area Manager (Personnel) vide letter dated 14.1.2005in spite of which he was not given promotion. The appellant filed an application under RTI seeking as to why he was denied promotion in spite of the recommendation of the DPC. The respondent submitted that the appellant was found fit for promotion by the DPC held in 2004 but the competent authority had not concurred with the recommendations of the DPC on the grounds that the appellant had failed to produce his caste certificate for verification. Later even in the DPC held in 2006-07 and 2007-08 the appellant’s name was not considered for promotion because of poor performance and the copy of the DPC minutes was provided to the appellant. The respondent further noted that the appellant was found fit for promotion the in DPC held in 2008 and was promoted on 1.1.2009, the copy of the minutes of DPC has also been provided to the appellant.",The Commission observed that the appellant has been provided with certain documents but the reasons why the appellant was not granted promotion have not. The Commission directed the PIO to inform the appellant the reasons for not granting him promotion in spite of submission of his caste certificate. +1149,Information regarding landline connections of BSNL,,the two landline connections of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) like the name and address of the person to whom the phone no,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant observing that BSNL was a Public Sector Unit (PSU) of the Central Government which performs public functions and that there was no reason for denying the information to the appellant, especially when the third party has not responded to the notice issued to him under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act.","Information regarding landline connections of BSNL + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the two landline connections of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) like the name and address of the person to whom the phone no. was registered, date on which the said connections were released, copy of NOC taken from the landlord for telephone connection, copy of Rule under which the NOC from the landlord was required to be taken etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that he had sought consent of the third party under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act but no reply had been received from third party.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant observing that BSNL was a Public Sector Unit (PSU) of the Central Government which performs public functions and that there was no reason for denying the information to the appellant, especially when the third party has not responded to the notice issued to him under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act. + +Comments + +This case raises the serious question whether, in the absence of any reply from the third party, the information should be disclosed assuming that the third party has no objection to disclosure. Some public activities may have a component of personal information built in it. It may happen that the notice could not be served to the third party or the third party could not respond due to some exigencies. Who would compensate the third party for any loss or detriment in such cases?" +1150,Information about a contract between a public servant and government,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to inform the appellant categorically in writing.,"Information about a contract between a public servant and government + +Background: +The appellant sought the information related to various amounts of money which he had deposited at the time of his deputation to Saudi Arabia under the head “Special service contributions”. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information.",The appellant stated that he only wanted to know whether there was any agreement signed by him and Government of India (Any terms and conditions) or between Government of Saudi Arabia and Government of India and him before he left for Saudi Arabia. The respondent informed the Central Information Commission (CIC) that there was no agreement of any kind available in the records signed by the appellant including any terms and conditions between him and Government of India or between him and Government of India and Government of Saudi Arabia. The Commission directed the PIO to inform the appellant categorically in writing. +1151,Information regarding candidates of 15th Lok Sabha elections under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission further observed that the objective of the Right to Information (RTI) Act is not to compel the public authorities to keep giving the same information again and again even after disclosing it in an open source like the website.,"Information regarding candidates of 15th Lok Sabha elections under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding all the candidates who stood for election during the 15th Lok Sabha elections including details such as the number of votes polled by each candidate - assembly constituency wise, complete details of the candidates including their criminal background, if any, and elaborate analytical details about the voting pattern. The Public Information Officer (PIO) directed the appellant to visit the website of the Election Commission of India to obtain all the details. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) elaborated the sources from where the sought information could be accessed. The appellant argued that he had a right to get the information in the form he had sought in. The respondents submitted that collection of the information spanning the entire country and for thousands of candidates over thousands of assembly constituencies would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority and would be a waste of public resources.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that the resources of the Election Commission of India should be better spent than disclosing the same information which they have already through their websites and there was no reason why they should be providing this information again in hardcopy form to information seekers. The Commission further observed that the objective of the Right to Information (RTI) Act is not to compel the public authorities to keep giving the same information again and again even after disclosing it in an open source like the website. +1152,Information about the service conditions under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the appellant all the information as per submissions made before the CIC and also give the justifications for the previous years as available in the records and if not available, the appellant should be informed formally in writing about the non- availability of the information.","Information about the service conditions under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information with regard to SSE (Electrical) of the Rail Coach Factory such as whether the Steno to Deputy CME (I & L) was competent to issue orders on behalf of the Deputy CME; whether the SSE (Elec.) was empowered to reject the C L application to the staff working under him when the same lies to the credit of the subordinate staff and whether he can deduct his salary for those days at his will; which authority permitted for the creation of SSE/Coordination post under the control of Dy. CME(I&L)/TKJ and whether this post exists under the Railway Board’s order, along with the copy of the relevant order and why the department has deputed two supervisors for supervising merely four telephone operators. The Public Information Officer (PIO) submitted that the steno to the Deputy CME had signed the order in after receiving the approval to do so from the Deputy CME; the SSE (Elec.) was empowered to reject the Casual leave application; no approval by the Railway Board was given for the creation of SSE/Coordination post; the PIO provided justifications for last three years with regard to deputation of two telephone supervisors.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the appellant all the information as per submissions made before the CIC and also give the justifications for the previous years as available in the records and if not available, the appellant should be informed formally in writing about the non- availability of the information." +1153,Reasons for imposition of penalty on an employee by a Public Authority under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copies of the relevant pages from the file relating to the departmental enquiry in which the competent authority had recorded his comments leading to the imposition of the penalty.,"Reasons for imposition of penalty on an employee by a Public Authority under RTI + +Background: +The departmental enquiry was instituted against the appellant and thereafter a penalty was levied on him. The appellant filed an application under RTI seeking the reasons for imposing a penalty on him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond for several months. On receiving a notice from the Central Information Commission (CIC) for the hearing he denied the information invoking a ruling by the Supreme Court in support of his decision. The appellant argued that as per section4(1)(d)Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.of the RTI Act the public authority should convey the reasons for its administrative/quasi-judicial decisions and therefore, he had a right to know about the reasons for imposing a penalty on him.",The Commission noted that the information sought was nothing but material record. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the copies of the relevant pages from the file relating to the departmental enquiry in which the competent authority had recorded his comments leading to the imposition of the penalty. +1154,Disclosure of cost of shifting of office premises three times under RTI,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to provide the total cost incurred on hiring of trucks/vehicles and labor for shifting their office premises three times along with the details of the total number of fans, computers, almirahs and coolers that were shifted from the previous premises to the new office premises.","Disclosure of cost of shifting of office premises three times under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the details related to the Zonal Office of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. like the total stock of the office-fans, computers, almirahs, coolers etc., information related to hiring of vehicles and labour etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information to the appellant. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to furnish specific information to the appellant.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that information as requested by the appellant has been provided to him, but some additional information was required to be provided. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the total cost incurred on hiring of trucks/vehicles and labor for shifting their office premises three times along with the details of the total number of fans, computers, almirahs and coolers that were shifted from the previous premises to the new office premises." +1155,Endurance test reports of engines of Mahindra under RTI,,,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant pertains to commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party and thus attracts the provisions of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act, 2005.","Endurance test reports of engines of Mahindra under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought for the copies of endurance test reports of certain engine models of Mahindra & Mahindra from the Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI). The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act stating that the information sought is confidential information pertaining to third party and is the intellectual property of ARAI. The appellant argued that the reports asked for by him are the property of ARAI and was not furnished by third party, since it was issued and signed by ARAI. The respondent submitted that the endurance reports sought by the appellant are not connected with public function of the Institute. It was a development test conducted at the request of a third party for their product and that the disclosure of this information will harm the owner of the product.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the information sought by the appellant pertains to commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the third party and thus attracts the provisions of section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act, 2005." +1156,Disclosure of School Certificate submitted to LIC by a client,,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal upholding the order of the PIO that the sought information was personal information of third party and no public interest would be served by its disclosure.,"Disclosure of School Certificate submitted to LIC by a client + +Background: +The appellant sought the copy of the School Certificate submitted under certain policy, favoring an individual. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act, 2005. He also submitted that it was third party information and that appellant had not provided any larger public interest in disclosure of information.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal upholding the order of the PIO that the sought information was personal information of third party and no public interest would be served by its disclosure. +1157,Are there any rules regarding carrying the election symbols inside the polling stations?,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that if the appellant has any objection in this regard, he should take it up with the Election Commission of India or any appropriate court of law and that there is no remedy for this under the RTI Act.","Are there any rules regarding carrying the election symbols inside the polling stations? + +Background: +The appellant wanted to know under what rules the Election Commission of India allowed people to take certain election symbols (such as the hand and the glasses) inside the polling stations while preventing the carrying of some other symbols into such polling stations by others. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the extract of section 130 of the representation of the People Act 1951 and denied other details stating that the appellant was seeking an opinion of the PIO. The appellant argued that some of the symbols of political parties represented objects of common use which could be easily carried into a polling station and the authorities did not object to that, while, on the other hand, some others were debarred from carrying any such objects on the ground that they represented the symbols of some other political parties. The respondents clarified the relevant provision of the law prohibited any form of canvassing for votes inside the polling station and there was no prohibition against the presence of certain objects of common and regular usage inside the polling station just because those also happened to be the symbols of certain political parties.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that if the appellant has any objection in this regard, he should take it up with the Election Commission of India or any appropriate court of law and that there is no remedy for this under the RTI Act." +1158,Can the reasons for not issuing caste certificate be sought under RTI?,,"whether the landless Sikh community belonging to Jat caste, not having a movable or immovable property, was entitled to receive OBC certificate or not",[],UNKNOWN,,3000.0,"The Commission also directed the FAA to consider issuing the OBC certificates to the children expeditiously, especially since the parents of the children have already received their OBC certificates.","Can the reasons for not issuing caste certificate be sought under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant wanted to know whether the landless Sikh community belonging to Jat caste, not having a movable or immovable property, was entitled to receive OBC certificate or not. He also sought reasons for denial of the OBC certificates to his grandchildren in spite of submitting all the required documents although such certificates have been issued to their parents. The Public Information Officer (PIO) requested the appellant to submit a fresh application for issuance of OBC certificate claiming that his OBC application was not traceable in the office. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to trace out the appellant’s application for issuance of OBC certificate and issue necessary certificate to him. He further directed that if the said application was untraceable, the PIO should conduct an enquiry to pin point the responsibility and register an FIR in the matter. The appellant submitted that despite the orders of FAA he has not received any information. The respondents submitted that they received the order of the FAA along with the Commission’s hearing notice and have lodged the FIR for loss of file. The appellant refuted the respondent’s statement and asserted that he himself had seen the above file several times in the office of the public authority.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) remitted the matter back to the FAA directing him to enquire into the matter under section18(2)Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.of the RTI Act and submit a report to the Commission along with the action taken at his level on the basis of outcome of enquiry. He should also enquire into as to how his order did not reach its destination. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 3000/- to the appellant for the detriment he suffered due to systemic failure of the public authority. The Commission also directed the FAA to consider issuing the OBC certificates to the children expeditiously, especially since the parents of the children have already received their OBC certificates." +1159,Disclosure of explanation given by PIOs in response to a show cause notice,,,[],UNKNOWN,,3000.0,"Comments + +As per the RTI Act, the compensation is to be paid by the Public Authority to the complainant and in some cases like this one; the Commission has given the recommendation to the public authority to recover the compensation amount from the PIO.","Disclosure of explanation given by PIOs in response to a show cause notice + +Background: +The appellant sought for the certified copies of the explanation submitted by the Public Authority in compliance to the show cause notice issued by the Central Information Commission in regard of certain cases and the certified copies of the file noting of the final decisions of the Commission in the cases. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the information pertains to third party and any action of the same can be provided only after their consent is received under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act. He also denied for the certified copies of the final decisions claiming that the response from the concerned PIO was still awaited and the cases were yet to be processed.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information cannot be denied under section 11 and that this section does not give a third party an unrestrained veto to refuse disclosing information. It only gives the third party an opportunity to voice its objections to disclosing information. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs.3000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in having to pursue the appeals. The Commission also recommended that the Secretary, CIC may consider recovering this amount from the salary of the persons responsible for this. A show-cause notice was also issued to the PIO to explain the delay in disclosure of information. + +Comments + +As per the RTI Act, the compensation is to be paid by the Public Authority to the complainant and in some cases like this one; the Commission has given the recommendation to the public authority to recover the compensation amount from the PIO." +1160,Information regarding the irregularities in the marking of examination papers,,the irregularities in the marking of Maths and English examination papers in the exam held in a particular school to the Directorate of Education,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to provide one more set of information along with a copy of courier receipt (by which the information was sent earlier) to the appellant.,"Information regarding the irregularities in the marking of examination papers + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the irregularities in the marking of Maths and English examination papers in the exam held in a particular school to the Directorate of Education. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Directorate of Education asked the Head of the School to provide the information directly to the appellant. The Vice Principal of the School provided a point wise reply to the appellant. The appellant filed the second appeal before the Central Information Commission (CIC) complaining that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had not disposed the appeal. During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the FAA disposed the appeal directing the APIO to provide further information along with the copies of supporting documents. The respondent also produced a courier receipt by which the information was sent to the appellant. The appellant denied having received any information.",The Commission directed the PIO to provide one more set of information along with a copy of courier receipt (by which the information was sent earlier) to the appellant. +1161,Information regarding membership fee of the Congress Party,Election Commission (EC) of India,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the sought information had nothing to do with the Election Commission.,"Information regarding membership fee of the Congress Party + +Background: +The appellant alleged that someone in the Congress Party was collecting higher membership fee. In this regard he filed an application under RTI with the Election Commission (EC) of India seeking about the action taken by them against the said candidate. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed him that the query had no relation to the Election Commission and they did not have any such information to share.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the sought information had nothing to do with the Election Commission. +1162,PIO cannot take a punitive action under RTI,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the appellant had not sought any information rather he had argued certain matters and wanted the PIO to take certain actions which is clearly beyond the purview of the RTI Act.,"PIO cannot take a punitive action under RTI + +Background: +The applicant alleged that a person had deceptively claimed an excess amount on account of mobile reimbursement. He filed an application under RTI requesting to recover the same from him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the information sought was not covered within the term ‘Information’ as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the appellant had not sought any information rather he had argued certain matters and wanted the PIO to take certain actions which is clearly beyond the purview of the RTI Act. +1163,Information regarding punishment for breach of oath under Constitution,,the oath administered under the Constitution of India and the punishment for breaching the oath,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the appellant had sought foe the opinion and the PIO cannot be expected to provide any such opinion on his own.,"Information regarding punishment for breach of oath under Constitution + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the oath administered under the Constitution of India and the punishment for breaching the oath. The Public Information Office (PIO) provided part information stating that the oath of office and secrecy was administered to the members of the Union Council of Ministers in terms of Article 75(4) of the Constitution of India and that the exact wording of the oath could be found in the Third Schedule of the Constitution. The PIO denied the rest of the information stating that the appellant had not clarified the 'positions' about which he had sought the information. The Appellate Authority (FAA) endorsed the PIO’s reply stating that the appellant demanded interpretation of laws, rules and orders and it did not fall within the purview of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the appellant had sought foe the opinion and the PIO cannot be expected to provide any such opinion on his own. + +Comments + +Seeking the opinion of the PIO about the likely consequence of the violation of oath by those who had taken it or any similar hypothetical question is beyond the scope of the RTI Act." +1164,Transaction details between banks and customers,,the transactions between the bank and certain customer of the bank,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"As no larger public interest has been demonstrated, therefore, the Commission upheld the decision of the PIO and dismissed the appeal.","Transaction details between banks and customers + +Background: +The appellant sought information about the transactions between the bank and certain customer of the bank. The Bank denied the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act under a fiduciary capacity by the public authority.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that in the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since customers provide information to the Bank for their own benefit. Hence, unless a large public interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure. As no larger public interest has been demonstrated, therefore, the Commission upheld the decision of the PIO and dismissed the appeal." +1165,Disclosure of explanation given by PIOs in response to a show cause notice,,,[],UNKNOWN,,3000.0,"Comments + +As per the RTI Act, the compensation is to be paid by the Public Authority to the complainant and in some cases like this one; the Commission has given the recommendation to the public authority to recover the compensation amount from the PIO.","Disclosure of explanation given by PIOs in response to a show cause notice + +Background: +The appellant sought for the certified copies of the explanation submitted by the Public Authority in compliance to the show cause notice issued by the Central Information Commission in regard of certain cases and the certified copies of the file noting of the final decisions of the Commission in the cases. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the information pertains to third party and any action of the same can be provided only after their consent is received under section11(1)Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:of the RTI Act. He also denied for the certified copies of the final decisions claiming that the response from the concerned PIO was still awaited and the cases were yet to be processed.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information cannot be denied under section 11 and that this section does not give a third party an unrestrained veto to refuse disclosing information. It only gives the third party an opportunity to voice its objections to disclosing information. Under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs.3000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in having to pursue the appeals. The Commission also recommended that the Secretary, CIC may consider recovering this amount from the salary of the persons responsible for this. A show-cause notice was also issued to the PIO to explain the delay in disclosure of information. + +Comments + +As per the RTI Act, the compensation is to be paid by the Public Authority to the complainant and in some cases like this one; the Commission has given the recommendation to the public authority to recover the compensation amount from the PIO." +1166,Is the Bank of Maharashtra Employees Welfare Trust a Public Authority?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed that the appointed PIO should provide the complete information as per records to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act.,"Is the Bank of Maharashtra Employees Welfare Trust a Public Authority? + +Background: +The appellant sought information in relation to the Bank of Maharashtra Employees Welfare Trust like Copy of the constitution of the trust, list of the places where the holiday homes for staff members are provided, the copies of agreement between the bank and the Holiday home owners, the procedure followed while selection of particular property for Holiday Homes, names of selection committee members, total payment made to each Holiday Homes for the financial year and 2010-2011 etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the registered Trust was is a separate legal entity registered with the Charity Commissioner, Pune and was managed by independent Board of Trustee who has the entire management and control of the Trust fund. The appellant argued that the Trust receives a sum of Rs. 8 to 10 crores (approximately) from the respondent-public authority/Bank and that the Executive Director of the Bank is the ex-officio head of the Trust and other members of the Trust are employees of the Bank.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the Bank had provided substantial funds to the tune of Rs. 8 to 10 crores to the Trust since 1999. Further, a contribution or grant of Rs. 50.80 crores given by the Bank from its corpus of public funds cannot be considered as insignificant. This means that the Trust is being ‘substantially financed’ indirectly by Government funds. + +The Commission also noted that the registered office of the Trust is same as the head office of the Bank and the board of trustees consists of nine bank officials and the Chairman of the Trust is the Executive Director of the Bank. The Commission held that it be assumed that such officials must necessarily be acting on behalf of the Bank and that the Bank officers exercise a significant degree of control on the decisions of the Trust. Based on the reasons described above, the Commission ruled that the Bank of Maharashtra Employees Welfare Trust is controlled and substantially financed by the appropriate Government and is a public authority under Section2(h)“public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted +(a) by or under the Constitution; +(b) by any other law made by Parliament; +(c) by any other law made by State Legislature; +(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- +(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; +(ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;of the RTI Act. + +The Commission directed the Chairman of the Bank of Maharashtra Employees Welfare Trust to appoint a PIO and a First Appellate Authority as mandated under the RTI Act. The Commission also directed that the appointed PIO should provide the complete information as per records to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act." +1167,Disclosure of information regarding the pay arrears under RTI,,calculation of his pay arrears along with names and designations of the officers who had prepared the working sheets and sanctioned the approval,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to provide the name and designations of the persons who had prepared, verified and approved the arrear sheets.","Disclosure of information regarding the pay arrears under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought information pertaining to calculation of his pay arrears along with names and designations of the officers who had prepared the working sheets and sanctioned the approval. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part information and denied the names and designations of the officers handling the matter without giving any reasons for the denial. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the disclosure of the names of employees under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","The Central information Commission (CIC) disagreed with the view of the PIO that the information sought is exempt under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.. The Commission directed the PIO to provide the name and designations of the persons who had prepared, verified and approved the arrear sheets." +1168,Information regarding vasectomy of MPs and MLAs under RTI,,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission further noted that the RTI request is nothing but frivolous and a blatant attempt at sensationalism.,"Information regarding vasectomy of MPs and MLAs under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the list of male members of the Council of ministers, Parliament and State legislatures, Central and State Governments who had undergone vasectomy operation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the information was not maintained as it was desired. Besides it was of a personal nature having no relationship to any public activity or interest and that the disclosure of such information could cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual concerned.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that whether a public servant like a minister or a government servant has undergone vasectomy operation is entirely a personal matter of the individual concerned and is exempt under  section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act. The Commission further noted that the RTI request is nothing but frivolous and a blatant attempt at sensationalism." +1169,Information about Commonwealth Games 2010,,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also directed the PIO to disclose the rest of the information if the investigation/prosecution in the case was now over.,"Information about Commonwealth Games 2010 + +Background: +The appellant wanted various details related to the Commonwealth Games 2010. The Public Information Commission (PIO) refused to disclose part of the information under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, claiming that the matter was under investigation. For the rest of the information, he informed that the information sought extends to 3419 pages and that he should deposit the fee for obtaining the copies of document. The appellant claimed that the information should now be provided to him free of cost as the PIO has not furnished the same within the stipulated time of 30 days.",The Central Information Commission noted that within the stipulated period of 30 days the PIO had asked the appellant to deposit the fee for photocopies of the documents after collecting all the information and determining the total number of pages. The Commission directed the appellant to deposit the photocopying charges for obtaining the information. The Commission also directed the PIO to disclose the rest of the information if the investigation/prosecution in the case was now over. +1170,Information regarding ex-gratia payment to the Bhopal Gas Victims,,,['8(1)(i)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that the requisite information has already been given to the appellant.,"Information regarding ex-gratia payment to the Bhopal Gas Victims + +Background: +The appellant sought the copy of order of the Central Government and the Circular of the Welfare Commissioner on the subject of Exgratia payment to the Gas Victims. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that it was not possible for him to provide the information without giving any reasons. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) also rejected the appeal under section 8(1) (i) of the RTI Act stating that the decision of Group of Ministers was exempt from disclosure under the said section. Later the PIO of the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers claimed that a copy of the minutes of Cabinet meeting had been provided to the appellant. The PIO of the Welfare Commissioner also confirmed that they have provided to the appellant a copy of the order issued by the Welfare Commissioner on ex-gratia along with a copy of the Action Plan on procedure for disbursal of ex-gratia.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that the requisite information has already been given to the appellant. + +Comments + +The section8(1)(i)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: +Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: +Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;of the RTI Act does not apply to the minutes or circulars of Cabinet meeting after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over." +1171,Detailed information about examination and action taken on complaints,,,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the entire information noting that the information sought cannot be exempt from disclosure under sections8(1)(b)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;and8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act.","Detailed information about examination and action taken on complaints + +Background: +The appellant had lodged many letters/complaints regarding various matters such as discrimination by faculty, apprehension about potential misuse of signature, uncertainty in exam, harassment manipulation and instigations of other residents etc. He filed an application under RTI seeking actions taken on his letters/complaints along with various other details like copies of circulars/mark sheets for conduct of two model exams for MD candidates in PSM department, the list of examiners (external and internal examiners) for MD Community Medicine Exam in the past 5 years, copies of other complaints received from other residents, the copy(s) of complaint received regarding promotion of an employee, the deciding authority regarding MD examinations in Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), the duties and responsibilities of Dean in the conduct of MD examinations, etc. + +The  Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that the entire matter is sub-judice before the Honorable High Court of Judicature at Madras and the requested information regarding MD Examination is confidential information relating to examinations and cannot be provided under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(b)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) did not accept the contentions of the respondent observing that the respondents have not given any evidence to show that there was a specific prohibition or ban by any court/tribunal on disclosure of the information sought or as to how the disclosure would constitute a contempt of court. The mere claim that a matter is sub-judice cannot be used as a reason for denying information under the RTI Act. Further as per section19(5)In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.of the RTI Act, the burden of establishing the applicability of the exemption lies on the PIO. The respondent have failed to give explanations to show how the nature of the information sought falls within the ambit of section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act and was held by the public authority in a fiduciary capacity. The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the entire information noting that the information sought cannot be exempt from disclosure under sections8(1)(b)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;and8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act." +1172,Information related with action on obscene TV commercials,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide a copy of the decision taken.,"Information related with action on obscene TV commercials + +Background: +The appellant asked for the photocopy of letter, proceedings done or the copy of order on the letter sent to the President of India for taking some actions against the Ex-Legislator for showing obscene and slut advertisements on T.V. channels. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that decision was pending.",The respondent submitted that the matter has been examined and submitted to Joint Secretary and an appropriate decision would be taken very shortly. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide a copy of the decision taken. +1173,Disclosure of enquiry report of sexual harassment under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission held that if the file does not return from the Minister, the appellant should be informed accordingly.","Disclosure of enquiry report of sexual harassment under RTI + +Background: +An enquiry was conducted against a Post Master General regarding an allegation of sexual harassment of the female staff. He filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) seeking a copy of the entire file related to the issue. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused for the disclosure and stated that disclosure of information at this stage was not permissible as the file was under submission to the Minister and it was not known as to when it will be received back in the Department. The appellant argued that some time frame should be fixed for the supply of the requisite information lest it would remain pending ad-infinitum.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the submissions of the appellant are valid and directed the PIO to provide requisite information preferably within two months. The Commission held that if the file does not return from the Minister, the appellant should be informed accordingly." +1174,Disclosure of leave records of the Panchayat Secretaries,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the sought information was provided by the PIO.,"Disclosure of leave records of the Panchayat Secretaries + +Background: +The appellant sought information with respect to Panchayat Secretary like the detail of staff who applied for earned leave, maternity leave, child care leave; staff to whom leave was granted; rule under which leave was not sanctioned to some etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the available information. The appellant claimed that the PIO has not given information for Panchayat secretaries whose leave was not sanctioned.",The PIO submitted that no such persons were there whose leaves have not been sanctioned during the period for which the information was sought. The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that the sought information was provided by the PIO. +1175,Information related to the conference organized by a society funded by PSUs,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the entire records relating to the Conference and Exhibition in-question and also provide the extracts there-from on payment of requisite fee.,"Information related to the conference organized by a society funded by PSUs + +Background: +A registered society funded by several PSUs, including Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) organised an International Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition. In this context, the appellant filed an application under RTI with ONGC seeking copies of the tender, bidding procedure and other information related to the Conference and Exhibition. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the said Society was not covered under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and hence details cannot be provided. The appellant claimed that the Conference and Exhibition in question was largely funded by PSUs of the Central Government, including ONGC and thus the moneys spent on the Conference and Exhibition fall in public domain.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the Conference and Exhibition was funded by PSUs of the Central Government, including ONGC and thus the money spent on the Conference and Exhibition fall in public domain. The Commission directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the entire records relating to the Conference and Exhibition in-question and also provide the extracts there-from on payment of requisite fee." +1176,Disclosure under RTI of various high profile cases of CBI,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,,"The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIO for not providing the information within the stipulated period thus attracting the provisions of penalty under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act.","Disclosure under RTI of various high profile cases of CBI + +Background: +The appellant sought a variety of information regarding various high profile cases such as, the total amount of black money deposited outside India, the number of persons arrested in the 2 G scam, the total amount of expenditure on tours in connection with  Headley and Quottrochi matters, the total number and the names of the accused in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case, the number of staff deployed in the CBI in various groups, the names of the 50 most wanted accused and a number of accused arrested in the Madhumita Shukla case etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to any of the query.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed for disclosure of the sought information observing that most of the queries were related to statistical details which should have been disclosed by the PIO (as none of them are covered under any of the exemption provisions of the RTI Act), if it was maintained by the Public Authority. The Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIO for not providing the information within the stipulated period thus attracting the provisions of penalty under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act." +1177,Information related to the MPLAD funds,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO of the MCD to provide relevant information within the stipulated period.,"Information related to the MPLAD funds + +Background: +The appellant sought a number of information regarding the utilization of the MPLAD funds of a particular Member of Parliament from Delhi. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Lok Sabha provided the available information. He transferred part of the application to the Department of Programme Implementation which provided whatever information they had. The PIO of Lok Sabha transferred some items to the PIO of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) since the Member of Parliament had got some of the funds spent through the MCD.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO of the MCD to provide relevant information within the stipulated period. + +Comments + +This case points out that there is no centralised data maintained regarding the funds spent by each MP. If that is the situation in Delhi where nobody seems to be sure of where the funds are being spent, one can imagine the situation for the rest of the country." +1178,Disclosures of details of Government run hospitals under the RTI Act,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"Comments + +The Central Information Commission has no jurisdiction to hear appeals relating to the State organisations.","Disclosures of details of Government run hospitals under the RTI Act + +Background: +The appellant sought various information related with the hospitals run by Government of India in District Bijnour through trust, viz. the list of hospitals, the number of beds, the details of amount provided to hospitals from 2000 to 2011 with bank account details, formalities to be completed for opening of hospitals by trust, the name and address of officer who are in charge of the hospitals being run under the trust etc.. He also sought the details of money distributed under Pulse Polio programme. The Public Information Officer (PIO) supplied a few documents and transferred the RTI application informing that the rest of the information trust, fund, would be available with the Director, Health and Family Welfare, UP State Government. The appellant stated that he has not received any information from the State Public Information Officer.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) advised the appellant to file his appeal with the First Appellate Authority of the State PIO and the Second appeal with the State Information Commission as per the requirement. + +Comments + +The Central Information Commission has no jurisdiction to hear appeals relating to the State organisations." +1179,Status of minority Hindus living in Pakistan and Bangladesh under RTI,,,['8(1)(a)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the argument of the PIO and rejected the appeal observing that this may be covered under Section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act.","Status of minority Hindus living in Pakistan and Bangladesh under RTI + +Background: +The appellant wanted to know whether the Indian government was aware of pitiable situation of minority Hindus living in Pakistan and Bangladesh and what steps were taken to safeguard and protect rights of Hindu nationals of Pakistan and Bangladesh. He also sought the copies of documents, reports and correspondence with Pakistan and Bangladesh on the subject. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed the appellant that the Government has seen reports of unfair treatment to members of minority groups, including Hindus, residing in Pakistan but it is the responsibility of the Government of Pakistan to discharge its obligations towards its citizens, including minorities. The PIO denied the copies of the documents, reports and correspondence with Pakistan and Bangladesh on the subject under section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act stating that these were sensitive documents, concerned with the citizens of another country and relating to internal affairs of these countries, disclosure of which could prejudicially affect India’s relations with a foreign state.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) agreed with the argument of the PIO and rejected the appeal observing that this may be covered under Section8(1)(a)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;of the RTI Act. The appellant did not press for the issue after hearing the arguments of the PIO." +1180,Information about the search conducted by the CBI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission referred to its earlier decisions and observed that documents forming part of records of the investigating officer in a criminal case pending trial should not be disclosed before the completion of the trial in order to ensure that the prosecution is not adversely affected.,"Information about the search conducted by the CBI + +Background: +The appellant sought a variety of information regarding certain investigations made by the CBI against him including the search of his residence. The Public information Officer (PIO) provided some information and denied for rest claiming that much of the information sought form part of the case diary which was always considered to be a privileged document and even the law courts did not ordinarily ask for it. Further, the disclosure would impede the prosecution of the offender as the case was pending with the trial court.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide some additional information like the photocopies of the search warrant, the affidavit filed before the magistrate, the list of persons who constituted the search party, the copies of remaining court diaries etc. as per the available records. The Commission referred to its earlier decisions and observed that documents forming part of records of the investigating officer in a criminal case pending trial should not be disclosed before the completion of the trial in order to ensure that the prosecution is not adversely affected. The record or evidence relied upon by the prosecution is either made available or can be made available to the accused by the court of law." +1181,Disclosure of the purpose and details of tour done for Doordarshan Maintenance Centre under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,1000.0,The Commission directed to provide the information.,"Disclosure of the purpose and details of tour done for Doordarshan Maintenance Centre under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the details and the purpose of all tours done for Doordarshan Maintenance Centre (DMC), Kanpur by the Center Engineer, DMC and the details of the officers who undertook tours and the reasons for the said tours. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not furnish the information stating that the name of the accountant is not mentioned in the postal order and asked the applicant to send the postal order in favour of DDO, DMC, Kanpur.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the appellant had followed provision-3 of the Central Rules of the RTI Act which states, “A request for obtaining information under section 6(1) application shall be accompanied by an application fee of Rs. 10/- by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque payable to the Accounts Officer of the Public authority.”The Commission held that PIO erred in not accepting the IPO made as per the rules framed by the Government and filed in providing the information. Holding that it is for the government officers to understand the rules in existence and understand and treat them properly, the Commission granted a compensation of Rs. 1000/- to the applicant under section 19(8) (b), for the loss and detriment suffered by him. The Commission directed to provide the information." +1182,Disclosure of NPA bank accounts under RTI,,,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,CIC/SG/A/2012/000471/18467,"Disclosure of NPA bank accounts under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the information regarding NPA accounts of the bank such as the account figures and the related units along with names and addresses of NPA borrowers. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided part of the information and denied the name and addresses of NPA borrowers under sections8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that all the customers of the bank come to it because of the implicit trust they have and they provide information to the bank for their own benefit. Customers also have a choice of which bank they wish to approach. Thus, the information sought was clearly held by the bank in fiduciary relationship and fulfills all the requirements of exemption under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act. Further no larger public interest was established, the disclosure was held as exempt. + +CitationMr. Sandeep Godika v UCO Bank in Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000471/18467" +1183,What is required to be provided under RTI by a PIO?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission further noted that the names of the officers who dealt with the petition can also be disclosed unless there was a reasonable ground to believe that the disclosure of the names would endanger the physical safety of those individuals.,"What is required to be provided under RTI by a PIO? + +Background: +The appellant had filed a complaint with a Public Authority. He later filed the RTI application seeking the action taken against his complaint and the names of the two officers who dealt with his complaint. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information stating that it was not information as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. He also denied the names of officials claiming that they had performed their role in a collective basis.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the information observing that every citizen has a right to know about the action taken on any petition or representation or complaint he files before any public authority. Such a request is eminently covered in the definition of information and in such a case, the photocopy of the relevant file noting and correspondence generated in the processing of the complaint should be disclosed. The Commission further noted that the names of the officers who dealt with the petition can also be disclosed unless there was a reasonable ground to believe that the disclosure of the names would endanger the physical safety of those individuals." +1184,Action taken for occupying building without completion certificate to be disclosed under RTI,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,,2000.0,"2000/- to the appellant under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursuing the matter.","Action taken for occupying building without completion certificate to be disclosed under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought various details regarding Building Construction Plans such as how many plans have been sanctioned, number of plans for which Completion Certificates have been issued and what action has been taken against the occupancies done without obtaining completion certificate. The Public Information Officer (PIO) directed the appellant to obtain the information from the MCD Website and denied for the ‘action taken’ stating that the ‘reasoning’ was not covered under RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) ordered the PIO to disclose the information completely.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to disclose the sought information observing that the appellant had not sought any reasons in the RTI application. The Commission issued a show cause notice to the PIO under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act for not furnishing complete information within the stipulated time and refusing to obey the orders of his superior officer. The Commission also awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant under section19(8)(b)In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;of the RTI Act for the loss and detriment suffered by him in pursuing the matter." +1185,Voluminous information about the medical entrance examination,,,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission rejected the complaint observing that appellant had sought voluminous information which was to be procured from various offices in the country and most of the information has been already provided to him.,"Voluminous information about the medical entrance examination + +Background: +The appellant sought various details about the undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) degree holder doctors working in Ministry of health and Family Welfare like number of candidates allotted to various departments. + +He sought details of Physically Handicapped (PH) quota category candidates, the details of the department or ministry allotted to them, highest and lowest cut off marks obtained by General/ SC/ ST/ PH/ OBC in All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination (AIPGMEE) and detailed list of marks attained by the each candidates in PH category, their category Rank, Overall rank and PH rank and branch, college allotted up to 2nd round of counseling for year 2010 and 2011. He also wanted to know the situation of backlog in class A, B C and D for various reserved category, name and address of health institutions working under MCD and NDMC in Delhi, total number of PG seats (degree/diploma) available through AIPGMEE (college wise and specific branch wise). The Public Information Officer (PIO) furnished most of the information and transferred the rest of the queries to the concerned departments which subsequently provided all the relevant information to the appellant.",The Central Information Commission rejected the complaint observing that appellant had sought voluminous information which was to be procured from various offices in the country and most of the information has been already provided to him. +1186,Information regarding Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000,,the constitution of Juvenile Justice Committees under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 and the follow up action taken by the High Court of Bombay,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the constitution of the Juvenile Justice Board/Committee, nomination of Judges for overseeing the constitution and functioning of such Board/Committee, details of the members of such Committee in case it exists and the minutes of the meetings of such Committee if such meetings have been held.","Information regarding Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the constitution of Juvenile Justice Committees under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 and the follow up action taken by the High Court of Bombay. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information observing that none of the queries were applicable to the High Court.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO should have explained as to why the queries were not applicable. If the public authority does not have any material on record relating to the information sought the PIO should clearly state so. The PIO cannot avoid or dismiss an RTI request by merely stating that it is not applicable. The Commission directed the PIO to provide to the appellant the constitution of the Juvenile Justice Board/Committee, nomination of Judges for overseeing the constitution and functioning of such Board/Committee, details of the members of such Committee in case it exists and the minutes of the meetings of such Committee if such meetings have been held. If no records exist on any of these items of queries the same should be clearly communicated to the appellant." +1187,Disclosure of Income Tax Returns and Tax Evasion Petition under RTI for criminal defence,,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"Comments + +Ordinarily ITR is held as personal information which is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act.","Disclosure of Income Tax Returns and Tax Evasion Petition under RTI for criminal defence + +Background: +The appellant sought details of the income tax returns of his father in law, wife and sister in law as he wished to defend himself in a criminal case. He submitted that a criminal dowry case had been instituted against him and a FIR had been filed. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that his father in law has not filed income tax returns (ITR) for the years 2009 – 10 and 2010 – 11information and denied disclosure of information sought in respect of appellant’s wife under the provisions of section 8 (1)(j) of the Act. The PIO denied the details of the enquiry on the Tax Evasion Petition (TEP) submitted by him on the grounds that disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO has already informed the appellant that his father in law has not filed income tax returns and directed the PIO that in the ITRs for the above period have now been filed, then the net taxable income for that period should be provided to the appellant along with the net taxable income details of his wife for the above period. The Commission noted that the appellant had submitted TEP over one year ago and held that it is reasonable on the part of any person who has submitted TEP before the Department to expect to be informed of the status of the ongoing enquiry based on his TEP. The Commission observed that in the interest of transparency and good governance, it is expected that the Department will not unduly delay the process of enquiry. The PIO was directed that after concluding the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, the Department shall provide information to the appellant about the outcome regarding whether the facts provided by him in his TEP were found to be true/partially true/false. The Commission upheld the decision of the PIO not to disclose the information of the sister in law as it was related with the third party details. + +Comments + +Ordinarily ITR is held as personal information which is exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act. However, the criminal prosecution is a public activity and if the disclosure of any documents would help in the disposition of justice, one may lay a claim to it under RTI." +1188,Allahabad High Court advised to revisit the procedure for supplying information under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission referred to earlier cases and hoped that the Allahabad High Court would revisit its procedure.,"Allahabad High Court advised to revisit the procedure for supplying information under RTI + +Background: +The appellant had requested for the information regarding the action taken by the High Court on an enquiry report submitted by the District Judge. The Public Information Officer (PIO), with a delay of nearly 5 weeks, informed the appellant that the report was sought from the District Judge and the relevant file was submitted to the Administrative Judge concerned. However, it was not clear if any order was passed in the matter. The respondents explained that the PIO collected the information and put up to the Committee of Judges well within the stipulated period as per the rules/practice followed in the Allahabad High Court for its approval before sending it to the appellant. The delay occurred only because the approval of the Committee was received nearly 4 weeks after it had been put up.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the PIO had not stated whether the report had been received from the District Judge or not and if the High Court had taken any decision/action on that report. The Commission directed the PIO to find out the facts again and communicate the same to the appellant and to provide the photocopies of the relevant records showing the decision taken in the matter. The Commission also noted that the procedure laid down by the High Court for disclosure of information seems to be cumbersome and, therefore, necessarily result in delayed disclosure of information. In most of these cases the PIO cannot be held responsible since he has put up the information before the Committee of Judges in time. The Commission referred to earlier cases and hoped that the Allahabad High Court would revisit its procedure. + +Comments + +The information seekers are sometimes rendered helpless in spite of a powerful law like the Right to Information (RTI) Act in place. The High Courts are the dispensers of justice and it can only be hoped that they would revisit the procedures and ensure that the timelines prescribed in the Right to Information (RTI) Act are invariably met." +1189,Amount released by the bank for Widow Pension and to each Job Card holder,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"However, the Commission directed the PIO to disclose the information in this particular case stating that the information regarding subsidies, beneficiaries and concessions given by the government policy have to be declared suo-motu by all public authorities under section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;(xii) and (xiii) of the RTI Act and thus any information related to such transactions cannot be considered to be exempt under the RTI Act.","Amount released by the bank for Widow Pension and to each Job Card holder + +Background: +The appellant wanted year wise details of the amount released for the Vradhavastha and Widow Pension and the amount paid to each Job Card holder of Mishri village panchayat along with the copies of the withdrawal slip. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under sections8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI act stating that the information sought is related to third party.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that in normal course the information about a customer is held by the Bank in a fiduciary capacity and hence information about such accounts or transactions need not be provided. However, the Commission directed the PIO to disclose the information in this particular case stating that the information regarding subsidies, beneficiaries and concessions given by the government policy have to be declared suo-motu by all public authorities under section4(1)(b)Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- +(i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; +(ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; +(iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; +(iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; +(v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; +(vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; +(vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; +(viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; +(ix) a directory of its officers and employees; +(x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; +(xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; +(xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; +(xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; +(xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; +(xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; +(xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; +(xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year;(xii) and (xiii) of the RTI Act and thus any information related to such transactions cannot be considered to be exempt under the RTI Act." +1190,Information related to logbook and visitors register of CBI office under RTI,,the details of the dispatch and receipt of fax messages related to a particular case,['8(1)(g)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"However with regard to the fax messages, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the copies to the appellant.","Information related to logbook and visitors register of CBI office under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought a photocopy of the visitors register showing the entry and exit of all the persons inside the office premises and the motor vehicle logbook showing entries of the vehicle used by the authorities of the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to provide the information under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;and8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act claiming that the disclosure of the information would endanger the physical safety of some individuals or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement. The appellant had also sought information about the details of the dispatch and receipt of fax messages related to a particular case. In this regard, the PIO advised the appellant to specify the exact matter in respect of which the information was being sought.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is an investigation organization. Many people including witnesses and informers in connection with investigation cases may be visiting the CBI office. The visitors register and the vehicle logbook maintained in the office of the Anticorruption Branch (ACB) would reflect both the names of all such individuals and the places and persons whom the CBI officials visit. The disclosure of this would compromise the confidentiality of individuals and can have adverse effect on the capacity of the CBI to conduct effective investigation. However with regard to the fax messages, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the copies to the appellant." +1191,Penalty on PIO and refund of fee for delay under RTI,,,[],PENALTY_IMPOSED,12500.0,,"Comments + +As per section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission can impose a penalty if the PIO refuses to receive an application; does not furnishes the information within the stipulated time; denies the request for information with a malafide intent; knowingly gives an incorrect, incomplete or misleading information; destroys the information which was the subject of the request; obstructs the disclosure in any manner.","Penalty on PIO and refund of fee for delay under RTI + +Background: +The appellant had filed a complaint of fraud with the office of the Deputy Commissioner (DC) of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). Later, he filed an application under RTI seeking copies of all documents relating to his complaint, the action taken against the accused persons and decisions of DC of MCD and Deputy Assessment & Collection (A & C) of MCD. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the copies of the complaint but denied the rest of the information stating that MCD is not an Investigating Agency and hence no action has been taken and no decision has been passed. A further fee of Rs. 590/- was collected from the appellant as a cost of providing the information. The First Appellate Authority ordered for disclosure of information. The appellant argued that despite paying the further fee no information has been provided to him. He also produced the evidence that the MCD had filed a complaint with the Police about the said fraud and despite the police complaint the PIO gave the false information.","The respondents submitted that on a later date, photocopies of all the files had been given to the applicant. The Central Information Commission (CIC) ordered the PIO to refund the additional fee of Rs. 590/- charged from the appellant. Under section20(1)Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: +Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: +Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.of the RTI Act, the Commission levied a penalty of Rs. 12,500/- on the PIO for the delay of 50 days and observing that the PIO had failed to submit any reasonable cause for the delay. + +Comments + +As per section 20 of the RTI Act, the Commission can impose a penalty if the PIO refuses to receive an application; does not furnishes the information within the stipulated time; denies the request for information with a malafide intent; knowingly gives an incorrect, incomplete or misleading information; destroys the information which was the subject of the request; obstructs the disclosure in any manner. If the PIO is found guilty to any of the above causes the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently lies on him." +1192,Difference in the data of the Ministry of Commerce and information provided by Customs,,quantity and value of Potassium Chloride imported from OMAN through Mundra port during the period from 1,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission disposed the appeal observing that requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant.,"Difference in the data of the Ministry of Commerce and information provided by Customs + +Background: +The appellant sought information on quantity and value of Potassium Chloride imported from OMAN through Mundra port during the period from 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 indicating quantity and value under ITC (HS) Code: 31042000. The Public Information Officer (PIO) informed that there was no import of the said item during the said period. The appellant submitted a copy of India’s Import under ITC (HS) Code 31042000 during 2009-10 obtained from the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence & Statistics (Ministry of Commerce) showing import from OMAN through the Mundra Port and requested to furnish correct information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) rejected the appeal with the observation that the importer had declared the items under ITC (HS) 31042000 i.e. Potassium Chloride but the same was assessed under ITC (HS) 31021000 as Bulk Granular Urea as per data retrieved from Indian Customs EDI System.",The appellant argued that the information provided to him was false and not correct. The Central Information Commission (CIC) held that it was incorrect to allege that the information furnished was false and misleading. The Commission disposed the appeal observing that requisite information as per record and permissible under the RTI Act has been provided to the appellant. +1193,Enquiry into missing report in the Ministry of Tourism,,,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"Hence, the Commission directed the Secretary, Ministry of Tourism to inquire into the matter and send a report to the appellant treating the copy of the report given by the appellant as evidence in the inquiry.","Enquiry into missing report in the Ministry of Tourism + +Background: +The appellant wanted an authenticated photocopy along with the file noting regarding the Project Report for Development of Ayurvedic Health Resort and Herbal Garden at Vagamon, submitted by the Department of Tourism, Kerala to the Ministry of Tourism (MOT), New Delhi. The Public Information Officer (PIO) replied that the mentioned project has not been received in the MOT, hence the copy cannot be provided. The appellant filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) where he produced the cover page of the Project Report with the noting initials claiming that the Report was received in MOT. The FAA directed the PIO to make a thorough search for the said project report and records pertaining to its receipt and movement in the Ministry. The FAA also directed that if the report is traced, its authenticated copy should be supplied and if the report is not traceable, but records are found which confirm that the report was received in the MOT, a report may be lodged with Police regarding the missing documents under intimation to the appellant.","The respondent stated that though a thorough search for the said project reports and records pertaining to its receipt and movement were made it could not be found anywhere. The appellant produced a photocopy of the report purportedly sent by the Kerala Tourism before the Central Information Commission (CIC) containing about 144 pages with the signatures of Joint Secretary and Director of MOT. The Commission observed that this could be either a matter where the PIO or some other officer is hiding the information or a matter in which the report being submitted is forged. Hence, the Commission directed the Secretary, Ministry of Tourism to inquire into the matter and send a report to the appellant treating the copy of the report given by the appellant as evidence in the inquiry." +1194,Disclosure of treatment details of deceased sister-in-law,,,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission advised the appellant to produce a letter from late Mrs.,"Disclosure of treatment details of deceased sister-in-law + +Background: +The appellant complained that the Chief Medical Director has not provided the documents collected along with the statements of the concerned doctors, treatment details and the latest developments of the case related to his late sister-in-law. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the same belongs to a third party and is personal in nature. He asked for the consent of the husband of the deceased to disclose the information sought by the applicant as per Section 11 of the RTI Act.","The appellant informed that he is the brother in law of Late Smt. Reba Biswas and that he wants details of treatment given to his late sister in law by the Doctors in Lihua Hospital. He was however not able to convince the Central Information Commission (CIC) that any public interest was involved in disclosure of this information to him. The Commission held that the information that was available with the Hospital in respect of the treatment given to late Ms. Reba Biswas does indeed belong to a third party and is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(e)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act since the same is being held in a fiduciary relationship by the Doctor. The Commission held that only the husband has the right to receive the information about the treatment given to her late wife. The Commission advised the appellant to produce a letter from late Mrs. Reba’s husband indicating his consent to the information being disclosed to the him), based on which the PIO may provide the details of treatment." +1195,Updating information about swimming pool in the website of the school,,what is covered under the head “others” in the school fees that she was paying for her children,[],UNKNOWN,,,"Regarding the appellant’s complaint about the website not having been updated in respect of information about the swimming pool, the PIO was directed to remind the manager of the school to do the needful, if not already done, within two weeks of receipt of this order.","Updating information about swimming pool in the website of the school + +Background: +The appellant wanted to know what is covered under the head “others” in the school fees that she was paying for her children. She also complained that the school has not yet bothered to update the school website. The School’s website had carried some information in respect of construction of swimming pool in the school premises while the School was no longer interested in constructing any such swimming pool. + +The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that in order to enable them to obtain details of fees being paid under the head “others” they require a copy of the fee receipt from the appellant which has not been provided. The Manager of the school conveyed his regret at not having updated the website immediately and assured the Public Authority that the school’s website has since been updated and that information about the swimming pool has been removed.","The Commission noted the explanation provided by the School Manager that no fee under the Head “Others” is being charged by the school, has already been shared with the appellant along with copies of bills provided by the manager in support of his statement. Since the manager has provided the required clarification, the Commission ruled that no further information needs to be disclosed. Regarding the appellant’s complaint about the website not having been updated in respect of information about the swimming pool, the PIO was directed to remind the manager of the school to do the needful, if not already done, within two weeks of receipt of this order. + +Comments + +In case of an unaided and recognised school, an applicant can obtain information from the director of education which may obtain the information from the school u/s 50(viii)(xviii) of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973." +1196,Reasons for transfer of an employee to be disclosed under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission also issued a show-cause notice to the PIO for obstructing the supply of information despite the information being available with the Public Authority.,"Reasons for transfer of an employee to be disclosed under RTI + +Background: +The wife of a railway employee filed an application under Right to Information (RTI) Act seeking reasons for transfer of her husband from Lucknow to Faizabad. The Public Information Officer (PIO) stated that the grievance of the appellant has been already readdressed, and her husband has been posted back from Faizabad to Lucknow. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information claiming that the sought information pertains to personal grievance which has been already readdressed by the Public Authority.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to allow the appellant to inspect the file dealing with the transfers of her husband to Faizabad and back to Lucknow and provide the copies of documents and file notings as sought by the appellant during inspection free of cost. The Commission also issued a show-cause notice to the PIO for obstructing the supply of information despite the information being available with the Public Authority. + +Comments + +A PIO cannot claim that there is no need to provide information as the grievance of the applicant has been solved. The Right to Information (RTI) Act mandates providing the information within 30 days of the filing of the application irrespective of the action taken simultaneously on the application." +1197,Only a citizen of India can seek information under RTI,,"the eligibility for obtaining Licence for Arms, hotel, eating, entertainment etc",[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,Hence the Commission ruled that the applicant is not entitled to seek information as per section 3 of the RTI Act 2005.,"Only a citizen of India can seek information under RTI + +Background: +The applicant, acting in the capacity of the Secretary of a Registered NGO, filed an application under RTI before the Office of the DCP (Licensing). He sought information about the eligibility for obtaining Licence for Arms, hotel, eating, entertainment etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not respond to the application. The applicant filed a complaint directly with the Central Information Commission (CIC).","Referring to various past decisions (Appeal No.CIC/WB/A/2006/00336, No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00410), the Commission dismissed the complaint holding that neither the RTI application nor the Complaint bears the name of the signatory. The RTI application indicated the name of the applicant but it cannot be ascertained whether it has been actually signed by the same person. The Commission inferred that the information has not been sought by a citizen but by the Secretary of an NGO. The Commission further observed that only a citizen of India can seek information whereas in the instant case, the RTI application and the Complaint were signed simply by the Secretary of the NGO. The applicant is effectively the Secretary which is not a natural person and hence not a citizen. Hence the Commission ruled that the applicant is not entitled to seek information as per section 3 of the RTI Act 2005. + +Comments + +A juristic person cannot be a citizen and is not entitled to file an application under the RTI Act." +1198,Dispatch clerk on leave is a sufficient cause for delay under RTI,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,"Therefore, the Commission didn’t impose any penalty.","Dispatch clerk on leave is a sufficient cause for delay under RTI + +Background: +The Commission had directed the PIO to explain why penalty should not be imposed for delay in providing the information in its order dated 9th March 2012.","The respondents explained that the letter signed by the CPIO was posted 11 days later as the dispatch clerk was on leave at the relevant time and, the letter remained in his desk until he returned. The Central Information Commission held that the Public Information Officer (PIO) cannot be held responsible for the late dispatch of the letter by the dispatch clerk and the fact of the dispatch clerk being on leave during the period can not be ignored. Therefore, the Commission didn’t impose any penalty." +1199,Should SEBI collect information from private entities for providing to RTI applicants?,,,[],UNKNOWN,,,The Commission dismissed the appeal as the available information was provided to the appellant.,"Should SEBI collect information from private entities for providing to RTI applicants? + +Background: +The appellant sought a variety of information regarding transactions between several brokers and the stock exchanges from Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided the available information and stated that the SEBI did not have the relevant records in its possession. The appellant argued that being the regulator of the stock exchanges and the brokers, it has the duty of SEBI to collect the desired information from all concerned and provide it to him. He added that the SEBI has the responsibility to protect the investors and, therefore, cannot take the plea that it does not have the information. SEBI submitted that it was completely beyond its capacity to maintain and retain all the records generated by hundreds of thousands of brokers and their associates in the course of their transactions. SEBI submitted that it did not maintain the kind of information sought by the appellant in the normal course of its functioning and, therefore, the information cannot be provided.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) referred to the Section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of RTI Act which defines ‘information’ to mean that material too which is held by a private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force. The Commission noted that the SEBI cannot be expected to collect all kinds of information sought by information seekers from thousands of entities it regulates, on a case to case basis, and provide the same. The Commission observed that the SEBI may like to clarify in its website what kind of information it normally holds and the kind of information it, in the normal course of its functioning, obtains, by way of reports and returns, from the regulated entities. The Commission dismissed the appeal as the available information was provided to the appellant." +1200,File notings relating to sanction of prosecution to be disclosed after completion of process,,,['8(1)(g)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"The Commission observed that the PIO may withhold the names of individuals, if mentioned in the file noting, who might have provided any information in confidence.","File notings relating to sanction of prosecution to be disclosed after completion of process + +Background: +The appellant sought a variety of information concerning both the sanction of prosecution in respect of IAS/IPS/IFS officers and about the implementation of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer (PIO) transferred parts of his request to the respective PIOs and replied to the appellant about the cases pending for sanction of prosecution of IAS officers. The PIO refused to disclose the copies of the file noting as being exempt under section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;and8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission held that once the prosecution is over and the competent court has passed its orders, the copies of the file noting relating to the sanction of persecution should be disclosed without any fear of such information impeding the prosecution of the offender. Invoking the provisions of section8(1)(g)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;can be justified only if there is anything on record to believe that the disclosure of the information would result in the identification of the source of information or assistance given in confidence or would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. As the respondents could not bring any on record which could justify such apprehension, the Commission directed the PIO to provide the photocopies of the relevant file noting in which the prosecution is now over to the appellant. The Commission observed that the PIO may withhold the names of individuals, if mentioned in the file noting, who might have provided any information in confidence." +1201,Can the investigation report be disclosed to the initial complainant?,,,"['8(1)(e)', '8(1)(g)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to furnish the copies of investigation report and other relied upon documents,except for copies of the statements of witnesses, after severing from it, under section10(1)Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.of the RTI Act, the names of the Investigation officer and the names of witnesses which attract the exemption under Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act.","Can the investigation report be disclosed to the initial complainant? + +Background: +The applicant had filed a complaint with the CVC against an employee of railways. He later filed the RTI application seeking information related to his complaint like, name of the investigating agency; date of the commencement of investigation; copy of final report etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) furnished partial information and transferred the application to the PIO, Railway Board for rest of the information. The appellant did not receive any information regarding the investigation report. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied for the disclosure of the investigation report under section 8(1) (e) & 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act stating that the investigation report contains names of the investigating officers, name of the witnesses, their statement etc. which, if disclosed, may expose the life of the officers/persons, who contributed in the investigation process, to danger.","The appellant argued that the denial of the FAA for the disclosure of investigation report to him was incorrect since it was his complaint on the basis of which the public authority had conducted the said investigation and prepared a report. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to furnish the copies of investigation report and other relied upon documents,except for copies of the statements of witnesses, after severing from it, under section10(1)Where a request for access to information is rejected on the ground that it is in relation to information which is exempt from disclosure, then, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, access may be provided to that part of the record which does not contain any information which is exempt from disclosure under this Act and which can reasonably be severed from any part that contains exempt information.of the RTI Act, the names of the Investigation officer and the names of witnesses which attract the exemption under Section 8(1) (g) of the RTI Act." +1202,Disclosure of reasons for referring a matter to the full bench of CIC under RTI,,,['8(1)(b)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"Therefore, the Commission directed the PIO to provide this information to the appellant.","Disclosure of reasons for referring a matter to the full bench of CIC under RTI + +Background: +The appellant wanted the certified copies of the recommendation made by the Central Information Commissioner Shri ML Sharma in a particular case file while referring the matter to a full bench. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information claiming exemption under Section 8(1) (b) of the RTI Act. On appeal, the First Appellate Authority remanded the matter to the CPIO in order to ascertain as to whether the disclosure of the information had been barred by the Commission. The PIO held that in terms of the Central Information Commission (CIC) decision dated 18 September 2007 in the appeal number CIC/AT/A/2006/00586, the internal noting /correspondence of tribunals were protected from disclosure.","The appellant argued that he had every right to know about the basis for referring this matter to a full bench and the recommendation of the CIC including the file notings could not be classified under any of the exemption provisions. The Commission held that all orders including noting made by the presiding Information Commissioner in any case file are part and parcel of the case and are in the nature of quasi judicial records to which the citizens have a right to get the certified copies by following the laid down procedure. The Commissionn ruled that when the CIC decides to refer a matter to a larger bench, the copy of the decision if recorded in a file noting, cannot be denied to a citizen under the Right to Information (RTI) Act as it is clearly information within the meaning of Section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.  Therefore, the Commission directed the PIO to provide this information to the appellant." +1203,Information regarding the written off accounts of the bank under RTI,,,['8(1)(d)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that the PIO cannot be compelled to collect and compile the information as required by the appellant.,"Information regarding the written off accounts of the bank under RTI + +Background: +The appellant wanted the details of the written off accounts of the bank since 2007 to June 2010, the name of the borrower, the nature of the loan, the amount written off and the relevant resolutions of the Board of Directors etc. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) denied the information stating that it was of commercial confidence of third party customers of the bank and exempt under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and (e) of the RTI Act. The respondent further submitted that the bank had a practice of collecting the total amount of loan written off every year all over the bank but does not maintain the details in the form as sought by the appellant, namely, the name of the borrower, the nature of the loan, the amount written off and the relevant resolutions of the Board of Directors and such information would have to be collected from some 5000 branches of the bank and 65 Circle Offices.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that the PIO cannot be compelled to collect and compile the information as required by the appellant. +1204,RTI Application seeking records of investigation against a company,,,"['8(1)(g)', '8(1)(h)']",APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that though the matter is currently not under investigation but it has also not been formally closed by the order of the Ministry which is the competent authority to do so, hence the sought information is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of RTI Act.","RTI Application seeking records of investigation against a company + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding an investigation taken up by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against a company, such as the indexes of records of investigation, records of approval sought for investigation, copy of intimation to SFIO to withdraw investigation, letter issued to ICICI bank, HDFC bank and other banks etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused for the information under section 8(1) (g) & (h) of the RTI Act, stating that the investigation proceedings were initially stayed by the Hon’ble High Court, Madras, due to certain technical infirmities in the order of Government. However, the Hon’ble Court ordered that once technical infirmities are rectified by the Government, the investigation may proceed.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal observing that though the matter is currently not under investigation but it has also not been formally closed by the order of the Ministry which is the competent authority to do so, hence the sought information is exempt from disclosure under section8(1)(h)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;of RTI Act." +1205,Can the information be denied under section 8(1)(h) after the charge-sheet has been filed?,,"the FIR against him such as the details of the private cars hired by the raiding party, duty hours of the private cars, the payment made for hire of these cars and copy of receipt for payment etc",['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Central Information Commission partially upheld the order and directed the PIO to provide copies of the relevant D.D.,"Can the information be denied under section 8(1)(h) after the charge-sheet has been filed? + +Background: +The appellant was an employee of the Navy and claimed that he has wrongly held by the police under the Official Secrets Act.  To prove his innocence before the court he filed the RTI application seeking information regarding the FIR against him such as the details of the private cars hired by the raiding party, duty hours of the private cars, the payment made for hire of these cars and copy of receipt for payment etc. He also wanted to know the details of the persons who accompanied the Investigation officer for the raid along with their rank, number and the time the raiding party left the office etc. as per DD entry. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act and stated that the case was pending in the CMM Court. The respondent during the hearing submitted that the appellant was arrested on the report of the Intelligence Branch which is an organization exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act in terms of section 24 read with the schedule II.","The Central Information Commission partially upheld the order and directed the PIO to provide copies of the relevant D.D. entries as requested by the appellant, the constitution of the raiding party and date of journey to Mumbai, stating that the disclosure of such information does not attract the provision of section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act." +1206,Disclosure of information related to issuance of currency coins by RBI,,,['8(1)(d)'],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"Further, the Commission accepted that information pertaining to correspondence between RBI and SBI cannot be provided as it is maintained in the fiduciary capacity by the Public Authority.","Disclosure of information related to issuance of currency coins by RBI + +Background: +The appellant sought various details of the currency coins issued by the RBI to one of the SBI branch from year 2005 till date. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided partial information to the appellant and denied the rest claiming exemption under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;of the RTI Act, 2005.","The respondents submitted that the currencies in the change form are issued to the Individuals and as such no records are maintained by the particular branch of the Public Authority as there are nearly 1200 branches in the city. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the total value/ consolidated amount of the coins disbursed to the particular branch of SBI since the year 2005. Further, the Commission accepted that information pertaining to correspondence between RBI and SBI cannot be provided as it is maintained in the fiduciary capacity by the Public Authority." +1207,Residential property details of Commissioner DDA sought under RTI,,,['8(1)(j)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the personal information of the third party can be disclosed only if larger public interest is involved but the appellant was not able to establish any larger public interest in the disclosure of the information.,"Residential property details of Commissioner DDA sought under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought the information related with the allotment of residential property to the Housing Commissioner (DDA) under the lucky draw system. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused to provide details under section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 claiming it to be a personal information of the third party.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) found that the sought information pertains to ‘third party’ and attracts exemption provision of section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission rejected the appeal stating that the personal information of the third party can be disclosed only if larger public interest is involved but the appellant was not able to establish any larger public interest in the disclosure of the information." +1208,Using RTI to obtain information related to domestic violence case,,,['8(1)(h)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the rest of the details.,"Using RTI to obtain information related to domestic violence case + +Background: +On a matter regarding complaint of domestic violence pending with the Crime against Women Cell, the appellant sought for the various details viz. hearings conducted since the filing of the complaint, the number of hearings attended by the accused, details of the proceedings of each hearing, name of department of the Delhi Police in which one of the accused is employed, rules laid down by the Delhi Police for employees accused under some complaint proceedings and the action taken report on the FIR filed by the complainant etc.. The Public Information Officer (PIO) refused for the information under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act stating that the matter was pending and the investigation was in progress.","The respondent submitted that the copy of complaint, attendance sheet and day to day progress report was provided to the appellant after the first appeal and regarding the FIR details, the appellant has been informed that the investigation was pending. The Central Information Commission observed that the appellant had sought vague information regarding the rules laid down by the Delhi Police for employees accused under some complaint proceedings. The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the rest of the details." +1209,Award of compensation under RTI due to mindless transfer of the application,,what action was taken on his representation,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,10000.0,The Commission also issued a show-cause notice to the PIO of MHRD to explain why the information was not given on time and the appellant was wrongly directed to approach the BHU for getting the information.,"Award of compensation under RTI due to mindless transfer of the application + +Background: +The appellant had made a representation against the Vice Chancellor of the BHU. He later filed an RTI application to the PMO seeking information about what action was taken on his representation. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the PMO transferred the application to the Department of Higher Education in Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) who later informed the appellant to approach the BHU to obtain the information. The appellant alleged that his RTI application was dealt with in an extremely casual manner due to which he was forced to go through the entire appellate process and nearly one year after he filed his original RTI application, he has yet to get the exact information he wanted.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that due to improper dealing of the application the appellant has suffered a lot of detriment and loss. Exercising the powers under section 19(8) (b) of the RTI Act, the Commission directed the Department of Higher Education, Ministry of HRD to pay to the appellant a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. The Commission also issued a show-cause notice to the PIO of MHRD to explain why the information was not given on time and the appellant was wrongly directed to approach the BHU for getting the information." +1210,Can a Director obtain information about his company account from the bank using RTI?,,,['8(1)(d)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to disclose the information only if the appellant furnishes any document/ authorisation from the competent authority showing him as a director of the said company.,"Can a Director obtain information about his company account from the bank using RTI? + +Background: +The appellant claimed that the Registrar of Companies had declared him as a director of a company but the bank had stated in one of its communications that he was not a director. In this regard, the appellant filed the RTI application seeking a copy of the form number 32 furnished by the company to find out whether his name appeared on that form or not. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under section8(1)(d)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;and (e) of the RTI Act stating that it was a third party information and involved commercial confidence.","The Central Information Commission observed that the information sought clearly relates to the account of a third party customer of the bank and unless the appellant has any connection to that account, in normal course, no information about the account can be disclosed to him. The Commission directed the PIO to disclose the information only if the appellant furnishes any document/ authorisation from the competent authority showing him as a director of the said company." +1211,Can an employee be promoted during any pending enquiry against him?,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +There is a thin line demarcating ‘information’ as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act from seeking interpretation.","Can an employee be promoted during any pending enquiry against him? + +Background: +The appellant wanted to know that whether an officer of the bank can be promoted to Scale 1 to Scale VI if any case lies pending against him in any court of law under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code or if there was any departmental/vigilance enquiry pending against him. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information observing that what was sought was not information within the meaning of section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act. Aggrieved with this order, the appellant filed a complaint to the Central Information Commission (CIC) against the PIO which directed the First Appellate Authority (FAA) to look into the matter and ensure the disclosure of the information. However, the FAA also did not provide any information and merely endorsed the response of the PIO, forcing the appellant to file the second appeal.","The Commission directed the PIO to disclose the sought information stating that the PIO should have forwarded the relevant paragraphs/ pages from the departmental promotion rules relating to any such bar. In case there was no such bar, the PIO should have intimated the same. Instead of doing any such thing, the PIO chose the easy alternative of simply refusing the information by claiming that it did not amount to information in the first place. The Commission pointed that this tendency is not in conformity with the spirit of the RTI Act and must be shunned. + +Comments + +There is a thin line demarcating ‘information’ as defined under section2(f)“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;“information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;of the RTI Act from seeking interpretation. As far as possible, a PIO should avoid too legalistic interpretation of an application received under RTI and act in the spirit of the RTI Act." +1212,Disclosure of pension details of corporators by MCD under RTI,,,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Using its power under Section 19(8) (a) (iii) and 19(8) (b) of the RTI Act, the Commission directed the PIO to display the information on the website of the MCD and send a consolidated report of compliance of the above directions to the Commission.","Disclosure of pension details of corporators by MCD under RTI + +Background: +The appellant sought various information related with the norms for a building along with the details regarding the amount of the pension allotted to each corporators like the number of the pensions, names of the beneficiaries, addresses etc. The Public information Officer (PIO) supplied the partial information and suggested the appellant to co-ordinate with the concerned officers for other details. Information related to the pension details was denied claiming that it could not be obtained from the concerned office.","The Central Information Commission observed that the information regarding pension details should have been provided suo-moto by MCD as per the provisions of section 4(1) (b) (xvii) and Section 4(1) (b) (xiii) of the RTI Act. There can be no justification for not providing this information. Using its power under Section 19(8) (a) (iii) and 19(8) (b) of the RTI Act, the Commission directed the PIO to display the information on the website of the MCD and send a consolidated report of compliance of the above directions to the Commission." +1213,Can the information related to post mortem report be disclosed under RTI?,,,['8(1)(e)'],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,"The Central Information Commission rejected the appeal observing that the traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship.","Can the information related to post mortem report be disclosed under RTI? + +Background: +The appellant sought for the Medico legal report (M.L.R), post mortem and death summary report of a patient. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied for the documents as patient’s related information is personal andconfidential in nature and stated that information related to the patients comes under fiduciary capacity with the hospital and is exempt under section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act.","The Central Information Commission rejected the appeal observing that the traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, it generally means someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. doctor, lawyer, financial analyst or trustee. Another important characteristic of such a relationship is that the information must be given by the holder of information who must have a choice. In the instant case very clearly a fiduciary relationship exists, since a patient of a doctor or hospital come to it because of the implicit trust they have; and they provide information to the doctor/hospital for their own benefit. Patients also have a choice of which doctor/hospital they wish to approach. Hence unless a large public interest is shown the information is exempted from disclosure." +1214,RTI application seeking service details of ex- employee,,,['8(1)(j)'],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,"Comments + +The conflicting decisions of the various benches of the Commission in respect of cases relating to personal information is a pointer to the need of a personal privacy law.","RTI application seeking service details of ex- employee + +Background: +The appellant sought for the service details of one of the retired bank employee like terminal benefits, tax deduction, disciplinary action, causes for medical leave etc. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the same under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.of the RTI Act claiming it to be the personal information of the employee.","The Central Information Commission directed the PIO to disclose all the information except the causes for medical leave observing that section 8 (1) (j) cannot be applied when the information concerns institutions, organizations or corporates.The Commission observed that various Public Authorities routinely ask for 'personal' information from citizens in performing their functions and when a citizen provides any information in discharge of a statutory obligation, it is clearly a public activity and disclosure of the same cannot be an intrusion on privacy. The Commission further stated that PIOs should test refusal under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.with the proviso which states that, “provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or the State legislature shall not be denied to any person”. PIO should realise that most of the information in this case would have to be given to the appellant and cannot be denied under section8(1)(j)Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: +Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.. + +Comments + +The conflicting decisions of the various benches of the Commission in respect of cases relating to personal information is a pointer to the need of a personal privacy law." +1215,Specific information should be sought in the RTI Application,,the policy and procedure adopted for selection of media persons,[],APPEAL_DISMISSED,,,The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that no such collation is available anywhere and the citizens should act responsibly when filing RTI requests.,"Specific information should be sought in the RTI Application + +Background: +The appellant sought the details of journalist (Editors /Correspondents /Photographers / Cameramen) accompanying various dignitaries like the Prime Minister, Vice president, External Affairs Ministers and External Affairs Secretaries on their foreign visits, from 1947 onwards. He also sought information about the policy and procedure adopted for selection of media persons. The Public Information Officer (PIO) supplied partial information and refused the rest stating that it requires compilation which will disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority under section7(9)An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.of the RTI Act, 2005, and that the compilation of information is beyond the purview of RTI Act.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) rejected the appeal stating that no such collation is available anywhere and the citizens should act responsibly when filing RTI requests. +1216,Should the application fee be deposited for each item of the query separately?,,the Prime Minister of India such as his personal details and the donations made to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund,[],PARTIAL_RELIEF,,,"Holding that there may be some information available in the PMO out of the queries made by the appellant, the Commission directed the PIO to identify those queries against which some or all information would be available and provide the same to the appellant.","Should the application fee be deposited for each item of the query separately? + +Background: +The appellant sought information regarding the Prime Minister of India such as his personal details and the donations made to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The Public Information Officer (PIO) gave the partial information and refused for other information as the appellant had not deposited application fee separately for each item of his queries. Further the PIO claimed that many of the queries were related to the Prime Minister's personal qualification which were not held in the PMO and thus cannot be provided.","The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the information sought should not be denied merely because the RTI application contains more than one item of request.  Holding that there may be some information available in the PMO out of the queries made by the appellant, the Commission directed the PIO to identify those queries against which some or all information would be available and provide the same to the appellant." +1217,Disclosure of the bank accounts details of the deceased parents under RTI,,the bank account of his deceased parents,[],INFORMATION_DIRECTED,,,The Commission directed the PIO to invite the appellant and show him every single detail available about all the documents relating to the accounts of his deceased parents including the statement of accounts and records.,"Disclosure of the bank accounts details of the deceased parents under RTI + +Background: +The appellant was one of the legal heirs of his deceased parents and alleged that the bank had been favoring other heirs by transferring the outstanding amounts to their accounts. In this regard he sought information regarding the bank account of his deceased parents. The Public Information Officer (PIO) and First Appellate Authority (FAA) supplied some of the information. The respondent submitted that all the available information had been provided. The rest of the information was denied because it was related to the accounts of the applicant’s brother and sister-in-law.",The Central Information Commission (CIC) observed that the matter was that of some dispute among the legal heirs over the ownership of the property and bank accounts of the deceased parents. The appellant being a legal heir has every right to know about the complete details of the accounts held in the name of his deceased parents. The Commission directed the PIO to invite the appellant and show him every single detail available about all the documents relating to the accounts of his deceased parents including the statement of accounts and records.