RTI Appeals decisions
This category is meant for you to enrich your knowledge about the various Decisions of Information Commission.
You can
- Read the decision and download the PDF file for reference
- You can discuss any decision made by the CIC/IC
- You can keep track of the decisions on specific topic.
1,501 topics in this forum
-
File noting is not exempted u/s 8(1)(g),8(1)(j): CIC
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 1 follower
- 1 reply
- 1.3k views
Appellant had sought information regarding file noting from SEBI. CPIO denided it u/s 8(1)(g),8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Commission observed: We are not convinced that the requested information would be covered by any of the exempted categories provided under Act as denied by the CPIO. In view of this, we are inclined to allow the disclosure of the information. CIC_SM_A_2012_001127_M_143260.pdf
-
- 1 follower
- 6 replies
- 1.8k views
Appellant had sought information from PIO, Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya Hospital raising 17 points. Commission hold the 17 points questionnaire about the 14 colleagues of the appellant is motivated by his personal vengeance. Facing charging and inquiry, the appellant is posing a serious threat to the process of the inquiry aginst him. This is a most dangerous misuse of RTI Act which should never be encouraged.Commission directs the PIO to put up the RTI request, FA and second appeal of appellant before the inquiry officer for his consideration. "Very interesting decision". CIC_SA_A_2015_000638_M_159172.pdf
-
- 1 follower
- 2 replies
- 1.2k views
Some public authorities specially courts have their own mechanism to provide information and they mandate RTI applicant to use that route only there by subverting right of applicant under RTI Act. I attach CIC decision dated 05-05-2015 which decides that route to be followed has to be decided by information seeker and he cannot be compelled to use only specified route for getting information. It is heartening to note that CPIO is worried about Rs.3/- loss per page. Presuming that in a year his Court supplies say 500 pages under RTI then loss would be Rs.1500/- only. He does not want to let go this petty amount to enable citizens/tax payers to exercise his fundamental …
-
Compensation of Rs.5000 for the inconvenience and detriment caused to the appellant
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 0 replies
- 971 views
Commission observed as following: The appellant has not received the required information. For the detriment cause he deserves to be compensated, therefore in exercise of the powers vested in CIC UNDER SECTION 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, we direct the department to compensate him by an amount of Rs.5000 by DD/Pay order within 30 days. CIC_BS_A_2014_001754_8115_M_159287.pdf
-
Respondent officer is a Head Clerk below the rank of PIO : CIC
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 0 replies
- 1.2k views
During hearing of appeal respondent PIO did not remain present and sent his representative. Commission observed that respondent officer is a Head Clerk below the rank of the PIO and is not able to explain the case properly. CIC issued a SCN for imposing penalty on PIO. CIC_SA_A_2015_000721_M_159340.pdf
-
Air Force Sports Complex (AFSC) is PA : Full bench of CIC
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 1 follower
- 1 reply
- 831 views
Respondent CPIO, Ministry of Defence submitted that Air Force Sports Complex (AFSC) is not a public authority. Commission observed that we do not find any merit in this claim for simple reason that; not only located on govt. land, AFSC is also managed and controlled by superior officers of Air Force. This squarely brings it within the ambit of PA u/s 2(h)(d)(i) of RTI Act. Aggrieved by the above observation respondent filed W.P. in Delhi HC and matter was remanded to the CIC by the HC because AFSC was not impleaded as party before CIC. Commission discussed on all points and judgment of SC in detail and declared that; " AFSC is a Public Authority". CIC_LS_A_2011_0…
-
Electoral roll (of year 1993)is very important public document, PA should preserve it: CIC
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 1 follower
- 1 reply
- 1.2k views
Appellant had sought voters list for the year 1993. PIO replied that record is not available. During hearing respondent PIO submitted that appellant was seeking details of very old electoral list pertaining to the year 1993 which is not available. The Commission observed that; Public Authority is having a duty to preserve the old records like electoral rolls, which is a very important public document. Commission issued a SCN for penalty and directed the respondent PIO to trace the record anyhow and provide the information to the appellant in time limit. CIC_SA_A_2015_000616_M_159228.pdf
-
Decision of CIC full bench related to public interest
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 1 follower
- 1 reply
- 961 views
Appellant had sought information on two points: (a) The assets and liabilities declared by Mr. U.K.Sinha, Chairman, SEBI. (b) The total present emoluments of Mr.Sinha. The CPIO denied for point (a) stating it a personal information and provided in fiduciary capacity hence exempted. For point (b) CPIO informed that this information is available in public domain. The appellant submitted that Mr.Sinha gave up a job of over Rs.3 crores per annum to become chairman of SEBI as emoluments of Rs. 36 lakhs per annum. It was done to dilute the cases of some of major offenders on the capital market. Hence information should be disclosed in public interest. Commissi…
-
Complainant had filed RTI application in capacity as Manager of Bank, hence did not qualify as RTI application : CIC
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 2 followers
- 3 replies
- 1.1k views
Complainant had sought information on four points regarding an employee of respondent. Commission observed that; complainant had filed RTI application and first appeal in the capacity as 'Manager', The Delhi State Co Operative Bank Ltd, Delhi.His name was not mentioned in RTI application and appeal to FAA. His complaint to the Commission was also filed in the above capacity as 'Manager' of bank. So his application did not qualify as an RTI application under RTI Act 2005. Complaint is dismissed. CIC_SH_C_2014_900322_M_158826.pdf
-
Medical treatment and expenses incurred for medical facilities is personal information
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 1 follower
- 1 reply
- 776 views
Appellant had sought information about medical treatment and expenses incurred for medical facilities of patients. Decision notice: The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 17/04/2015 (LPA 34/2015 and C.M. No 1287 of 2015 – S C Agarawal v/s The Registrar Supreme Court of India & ors) has held that information relating to medical treatment and expenses incurred for medical facilities is personal information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, unless larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information. CIC_BS_A_2014_001638_8041_M_158621.pdf
-
- 0 replies
- 832 views
Maharashtra SCIC, Mumbai has advised Chief Secretary to circulate to all PIOs circular issued by Municipal Commissioner fixing duties of PIOs to facilitate inspection without causing inconvenience to applicant. Please refer attachment. In fact this should be replicated by CIC New Delhi also. INSPECTION MAHASIC.pdf INSPECTION 300615.pdf
-
Appellant reprimanded by CIC for misuse of RTI.
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 1 follower
- 3 replies
- 1k views
Appellant had sought information by filing two separate RTI application. During hearing respondent complained against the appellant alleging misuse of RTI and defamation. Commission directed the respondent CPIO to provide information and reprimanded the appellant for misuse of RTI for his personal purpose motivated by vengeance against other individual. My question is if appellant has misused of RTI why did CIC directed to provide required information? CIC_SA_C_2015_000090_M_158605.pdf
-
- 1 follower
- 3 replies
- 1.6k views
Appellant's had requested to provide information which was rejected by the PIO stating, 'appellant paid fee of Rs. 10 in form of court fee stamp which is not proper mode'. Commission observed that; it is clear that fee is not material factor to throw out the RTI request. Non payment of fee is not prescribed ground for rejection of request. Commission directed the PIO to provide required information and also issued a SCN for compensation. CIC_SA_A_2014_001610_M_158593.pdf
-
Commission directed to provide copy of agreement and moreover inspection of record.
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 1 follower
- 1 reply
- 692 views
Commission directed the respondent CPIO to provide copy of the agreement between the contractor and Delhi Jal Board about the execution of work along with the drawing. It appears from the decision that inspection of record was not demanded by the appellant, yet, Commission directed the CPIO to facilitate inspection of record to the appellant. CIC_SA_A_2015_000518_M_158424.pdf
-
RTI is not a rendezvous for suspended employee to serve their personal interest :CIC
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 2 followers
- 6 replies
- 884 views
Commission observed that; RTI is not a rendezvous for suspended employees or those erring personnel facing inquiries to serve their personal interest in protecting their misconduct or preventing the authorities from proceeding with penal proceeding inquiry in to misconduct. CIC_SA_A_2014_001216_T_158378.pdf
-
No action under IPC, only SCN
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 2 followers
- 5 replies
- 891 views
Appellant had sought information which was not provided. Respondent stated by written submission that they never received RTI application and First Appeal. However, appellant was replied by a letter dated 25.6.15 which was also enclosed with written submission by respondent. Commission issued SCN for penalty and compensation. My question is that, when it was proved on paper that respondent has made false statement and it is a crime u/s 199 of IPC why in this matter Commission remained silent on such serious matter? CIC_SA_A_2015_000295_M_158254.pdf
-
Name and amount of Kisan Credit Card loan holder
by D.T.RATHAVA- 1 follower
- 3 replies
- 1.1k views
applicant can obtain KCC loan holder's name and his loan amount cic stated that CIC_SH_A_2014_001234_M_157563 kcc loan.pdf
-
Bank''s audit report not disclosable
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 1 follower
- 2 replies
- 841 views
The appellant had sought copy of audit report of Bank. PIO denied stating that audit report contains information of third party client. The Commission uphold decision of PIO. CIC_SH_A_2014_001226_M_157973.pdf
-
HDFC Bank not under RTI Act 2005
by D.T.RATHAVA- 0 replies
- 1.4k views
HDFC Bank is not covered under definition of " PUBLIC AUTHORITY " as maintained under section 2(h) of the RTI 2005 CIC_MP_C_2014_000267_SH_M_157581 HDFC.pdf
-
CIC orders PIO search file again
by akhilesh yadav- 0 replies
- 724 views
CIC directed the CPIO of MHA to make another search to see whether any information regarding point No.1, mentioned above, is available in that Ministry or with the Tughlak Road Police Station. If so, the CPIO should provide such information, as becomes available, to the Appellant free of cost. ORDER ATTACHED HERE: http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SH_A_2014_001112_M_157558.pdf
-
File missing, CIC directed PIO to file FIR
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 1 follower
- 2 replies
- 934 views
During hearing of appeal PIO informed the Commission that concerned file was not traceable and hence appellant had been provided with the information available with them. Commission directed the PIO to file FIR on missing file and provide a copy of the same to appellant. CIC_SA_A_2015_000326_M_157373.pdf
-
Security firm in residential quarter, public interest.
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 1 follower
- 4 replies
- 878 views
Appellant had sought copy of rent agreement, NOC etc. submitted by Major Tara Chand showing that he is retired. PIO denied under section 8(1)(e) as fiduciary relationship. Commission said: There is possibility of security firm running from residential quarter, it is in public interest. Directed the PIO to provide copy of rent agreement of the office of security agency. CIC_SA_A_2015_000331_M_157385.pdf
-
- 1 follower
- 2 replies
- 1.2k views
Appellant had sought information about New Ration cards issued etc. PIO did not provide information as application was not signed by appellant. In spite of request appellant did not. Commission directed PIO to provide the required information and get appellant signature to fulfil tje formality. CIC_SA_A_2014_001867_M_157290.pdf
-
CIC impose penalty of Rs. 25,000 on S.K Gupta, PIO, SDM (HQ).
by sabharwal786- 2 followers
- 3 replies
- 939 views
The Orders of the CIC are as follows : Thus the Commission finds it a fit case to impose penalty of Rs. 25,000 on S.K Gupta, PIO, SDM (HQ). Accordingly, S.K Gupta, PIO, SDM (HQ) is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25, 000 in 5 equal monthly installments. 7. The Appellate Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs.25,000 from the salary payable to S.K Gupta, PIO, SDM (HQ) by way of Demand Draft drawn in favor of ‘PAO CAT’ in 5 equal monthly installments. The first installment should be deducted from the July, 2015 salary of the PIO and the last installment from the salary of November, 2015. The Demand Draft should be sent to Shri S. P. Beck, Joint Secretary & Ad…
-
PIO, Sub Divisional Magistrate (H.Q) penalized Rs. 25000/-
by MANOJ B. PATEL- 1 follower
- 4 replies
- 894 views
Appellant had sought information which was not provided by PIO, SDM Mr. S.K.Gupta and so he was issued SCN for maximum penalty. Commission did not satisfy with the reply of SCN by the PIO, SDM and directed to the PIO, SDM, to pay penalty of Rs. 25000/-. CIC_AD_A_2012_003190_T_156889.pdf
-
Members
- Dr V S Prasanna Rajan
-
Tell a friend
-
Topics
-
-
Blog Entries
-
-
Most Solved
Nothing has been solved this week.
-
Recently Browsing
No registered users viewing this page.
-
Who's Online (See full list)
There are no registered users currently online
