Jump to content
  • 0




We fail to realise the strength of Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act the same way we fail to understand Section 19(5) . Secion 4(1)(d) supplement whatever short-comings one feel in Section 2(f) and 2(j). The PIOs, AAs and even the SICs appears to be ignorant of it. At least the SIC, Kerala, more so its Chief, is defenitely ignorant of it.I am bringing it out with the help of certain information obtained in my own cases. I had come across innumerable examples of their ignorance but his Order CP No.740/2007/SIC dated 29-3-2008 (as usual this order also issued after 40 days of its hearing on 29-3-2008)is a crowning example. The funniest part is that I had achieved what I had sought by using RTI in a different way despite his above orders dismissing my complaint as it is likely to embarass certain vested interests.


In a case involving clear case of coruption where the Village Oficer has shown 4.58 acres of prime land worth nearly Rs.12 crores in the name of someone who does not have any title to it in the process of computerisation of land records. Govt.orders make it incumbant on the Village officer to personally verify the title transfer deed and certify correctness.. Since part of the above land in my title and possession also seen included I asked the Village officer under RTI Act, the particulars of title transfer deed under which it is shown in the name of ...... I got a prompt reply that Regd Deed No.1697/46 dated 12-8-1946 has transferred above 4.58 acres by one Aspin Walls & Co.,in the name of.....Since it include my land also and none of my ancestors having never transferred this land at least since last 200 years I have obtained copy of ibid deed No.1697/46 from Sub Registrar Office and found that it does not pertain to above land but a different land of 4.78 acres of different survey Number in a different block. The entire official heirarchy upto Commissioner, Land Revenue refused to entertain my complaint due to..........


At last I had complained to the Chief Minister and Principal Secretry (Revenue). They promptly replied me that my complaint has been sent to the District Collector, Kannur for urgent action. But the Collector is seen taking no cognizance of it for long. Under the circumstances I had filed a fresh RTI application to PIO of Collectorate, Kannur. In my application, after explaining the background and the provisions of Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act I had asked him to


"Provide reasons for the administrative or quasi-judicial reasons for the Collectorate, Kannur for not taking adequate cognizance of my complaint petetion forwarded to the Collectorate by the Chief Minister vide his Order No.213773/2005/CM dated 4-10- 2005 and Principal Secretary (Revenue) by his letter No.24240/2005/CM dated 6-10-2005 at least by directing the Tahsildar to call and verify the above title deeds etc. "


The PIO has malafidely denied me the information by replying that "this subject is to be considered by the judiciary"

Since no reply from the AA received I had filed a complaint to SIC on 28-11-2006 under Section 18(1)(f) of the RTI Act.


Since I had adready established with SIC about redundancy of complainant attending hearing due to Section 19(5), the SIC has endorced me copy of the notice calling the District Collector for hearing on 29-2-2008 solicitting my attendence. As usual I replied that I do not have anything more than what I had explained in my complaint to add and I will not be able to attend the hearing.. The Complaint heard as scheduled and following are gist of the orders of SIC:



Firstly he has gone into the merit of the case to justify that approaching the judiciary is the only solution when my complaint was non-response from the AA to my first appeal.. He has no reason to examine the case other than the aspect of AA not replying me as complained.. He has suo motu decided the case without my filing a Second Appeal. The AA has claimed that he has replied. But in SIC's Order itself the SIC very specifically say that even the SIC has not received any reply claimed to have sent by AA However based on the copy of AA's reply received during the hearing he has decided the case without my Second Appeal or endorcing a copy of AA's reply to me and closing the complaint. However the main reason attributted by SIC for dismissing my complaint is that " RTI Act does not envisage entertaining requests for information made in the form of INFORMATION / INTERPRETATIONS/COMMENTS /INTERROGATIVES...., Accoding tohim COMMENT / OBSERVATIONS/ INTERPRETATIONS etc do not fall in the category of information , as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. He orders that request for information has tobe specific , and the public authority would then be bound to provide the information within the time specified , under the RTI Act but response of any kind of comments/ interpretations/interrogations etc., can never be testified under the provisions of the Act. IF ADMINISTRATIVE LAPSE etc., are observed , they had to be taken up before the appropriate forum by the' concerned cityzens'for appropriate action. "


The SIC keep on harping this aspect in 3 single space sheets.


I too have no doubt that the above does not fall under 2( f) but I had specifically asked and worded Section 4(1)(d). I donot agree with his view that "ADMINISTRATIVE LAPSES does not fall under RTI Act when Section 4(1)(d) very secifically say that it is obligatory on the public authorities to provide reasons for its administrative lapses to the afected person. I had explained that I am the affected person.


By obtaining different replies by resorting to 5 RTI application I had confronted the District Collector. She heard me and ordered as I requested the chief Minister., Corruptiuon expossed and the matter is under investigation by V & AC Bureau on orders of both Special Judge and Princippal Secretary, Vigilence. The above reply of SIC is of no use to me though I can still file a Second appeal as I have not done so so far. However I wish to persue the issue of applicability of Section 4(1)(d). Any materials to help me in this task is most welcome.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0


(Under Right to Information Act, 2005)

HACA Bhavan, Opp: Public Gardens, Hyderabad-4

Phone Nos. 23230245 / 246 (O), 23230592 (F)

Appeal No.2826/SIC-ASR/2007




Name and address of appellant : Group Capt. O.N. Bharghava(Retd.), 52, Sector-A,

AWHO Colony,

Secunderabad 500009


Name and address of Public Authority : Divisional Cooperative Officer,

Secunderabad Division,

Block M4, 1st Floor,

Near Exhibition Grounds,


Hyderabad 500001.





Sri O.N. Bharghava filed an appeal dated 16.5.2007 which was received by this Commission on 22.5.2007 for non furnishing of information by the Public Information Officer and Appellate Authority.

According to the appellant, the General Body of Army Welfare Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., in its meeting in the month of November 1999 passed a resolution to impose levy, termed as ‘tenancy charges’ on tenants (who are not members of the Society). The appellant has stated that the President of the AWCHSL vide his letter number nil dated 25.9.2004 approached the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Secunderabad Division to seek clarification/confirmation regarding the legitimacy of levying of tenancy charges by the General Body on the tenants of the colony. In reply to this letter, the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Secunderabad Division informed the President, AWCHSL vide Lr. Rc. No. 2221/2004-Hsg, dated 25.9.2004 that the General Body of the said Society is competent to introduce/levy charges on the tenants of the colony to maintain the colony and to meet day-to-day requirements of the colony for proper upkeep and maintenance of the colony.

Contending that the DLCO, Secunderabad Division has given his above said opinion or made a statement on ‘tenancy charges’ without giving any reason (i.e., any provision in the law or rules which permit a Society to levy ‘tenancy charges’ on tenants, who are not members of a society), the appellant made an application dated 9.4.2007 before the Assistant Registrar/Public Information Officer, O/o. the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad with a request to inform the reason (specific provision in law or rule) for the unequivocal decision given or statement made by the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Secunderabad Division communicated to the President, Army Welfare Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Secunderabad through Lr. Rc.No. 2221/2004-Hsg, dated 25.9.2004 to the effect that the General Body of the said Society is competent to introduce/levy charges on the tenants of the colony to maintain the colony and to meet day-to-day requirements of the colony for proper upkeep and maintenance of the colony.

With reference to the application dated 9.4.2007, the appellant was informed by the Dy. Registrar of Coop. Societies/Divisional Coop. Officer, Secunderabad Division vide Lr. Rc. No. 1090/2006/Hsg, dated 16.4.2007 to the effect that the CC & RCS, A.P., Hyderabad vide Lr. dated 29.7.2006 has already clarified that under the RTI Act, the information required can be secured, accessed by the applicant by paying requisite fee as prescribed, but the applicant cannot seek legal clarification and

interpretation of the Act and the same was also informed to him vide DLCO’s Lr. dated 18.8.2006.

According to the appellant, the above said letter dated 16.4.2007 was received by him on 12.5.2007 before which i.e., 9.5.2007, he had already filed an appeal before the Divisional Cooperative Officer, Secunderabad Division, Nampally with a request to provide the information sought for by him.

Aggrieved by the said information furnished by the DLCO, Secunderabad Division, the appellant filed the present appeal requesting the Commission that under the provisions of Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005, the DLCO, Secunderabad Division may be advised to provide to him, the provisions of law or rule for his opinion, statement on the administrative/quasi-judicial decision given in DLCO’s Lr. Rc. No. 2221/2004-Hsg, dated 25.9.2004.

The appeal has been examined.

As per Section 5(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, every public authority shall designate State Public Information Officer and as per Section 5(2), the State Assistant Public Information Officer.

The appellant herein is referring Section 4(1)(d) of the Act which is not connected with the functions of the Public Information Officer.

Section 6 R/w. Section 7 says that the Public Information Officer has to furnish the information requested for. In that view of the matter, the request of the appellant seeking for certain information under Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act is not within the domain of the Public Information Officer.

In the circumstances, the request made by the appellant in regard to Section 4(1)(d) of the Act, cannot be considered and hence the appeal is rejected as not maintainable at the admission stage.




State Information Commissioner

Authenticated by


Asst. Registrar.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

This is NOT an answer to your problem, but only an attempt to clarify the question. S4(1)d states that "Every public authority shall provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons." On the face of it, to me this only requires the PA to not be arbitrary in its RTI ruling, but provide some supporting logic for whatever decision it arrives at on an RTI request.


Whether this in some way also helps trump the limited interpretation of s2(f) so strongly favoured by the CIC (that "information" excludes "advice, explanation, opinions and roving inquiries"), and whether asking for "reasons" helps you seek information, in your initial RTI request, that is in the nature of an "explanation" for something DONE IN THE PAST (as opposed to referring merely to an explanation FOR THE ACTUAL RTI RULING MADE by the PIO/FAA on your request) is not clear to me. Do previous rulings offer any guidance in resolving this? Your question does seem very important, and I hope someone will shed more light on this matter.


Maybe some of the immediate difficulty could be resolved by re-wording the RTI request (at least I am confused about what it is you really want) or finding a little editorial help. Best,



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

My this post is still in continuation of post 2 above. This (SIC A.P decision) is another quixotic interpretation of sec4(1) (d).This only deals upto PIO at a very narrow level.

However in your case,If appeal is prefered to FAA-collector of Kannur-the FAA is bound by Sec4(1)(d) to inform you of reasons for its its administrative or quasi judicial decisions for not taking cognizance of your complaint ,forwarded by CM/revenue secretary.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I agree. The statement in the SIC-AP ruling "The appellant herein is referring [to] Section 4(1)(d) of the Act which is not connected with the functions of the Public Information Officer." ignores the requirement that a decision cannot be arbitrary.


My non-lawyerly opinion: While any "information" sought in an RTI request must satisfy the definition under s2(f), any RTI ruling must meet the requirements of s4(1)d.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Just search for "Section 4(1)(d)" OR for "4(1)(d)" on the CIC website.

There are several pages of decisions.

Nearly all are in favour of the PIO giving information under Sec 4(1)(d).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Heres an alternate.. when a order is passed on adminstrative lapses.... the same can be used as a documents and filed as a WRIT PETITION in the High Court seeking clarifications and circumstances under which the lapses took place and if found guilty of misuse of power or corruption you could seek for criminal or civil damages... But let me forwarn this is for people turned for a LONG BATTLE.... But so far there is not a single citation to show that bureaucrats have been punished...

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

As guided by Mr.Karira, if one search the CIC web one get more than enough materials supporting request for reasons under Section 4(1)(d). The CIC seems very clear on this issue.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I have asked similar query about reasons for no action against a public servant caught red handed by the CBI.My respondent employer have furnished reply that they have not suspended him,they even not sought any explanation from either him or the public servants on whose behalf he was taking bribe (despite the fact that he was caught red handed dt.10.02.09 news was widely published in news papers with photo).

On the other hand my suspension on frivolous charges continues since 10 april 08.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Popular Contributors

  • Files

  • Blog Entries

  • Similar Content

    • By ganpat1956
      A Supreme Court lawyer has moved the Central Information Commission seeking information on the procedure of the recruitment of class III and IV employees in the Delhi High Court after it was denied by its administration.
      Advocate Kamini Jaiswal approached the CIC contending that orders of the High Court Public Information Officer and Chief Public Information Officer (First Appellate Authority) refusing to part away with the information was a violation of the Right to Information Act and also her Fundamental Rights.
      She alleged that information had been denied for erroneous reasons and none of the exemption available under Section 8 of the Act allows the authority not to part away with the information sought.
      The lawyer had filed the application before the Public Information Officier on September 22, 2006 seeking information regarding number of class III and class IV employees recruited by the Court from the year 1990 to 2006 and the procedure followed for their recruitment.
      The High Court PIO while denying the information held that information pertaining to those decisions which were taken administratively or quasi-judicially would be available only to the affected parties.
      The lawyer then approached Appellate Authority challenging the PIO order contending that the High Court (Right to information) Rules were inconsistent with the provision of the Right to Information Act and it should be held void.
      But the Appellate Authority refused to accept the contention of the lawyer and dismissed her appeal. Now the lawyer has moved Central Information Commission against this order.
      CIC moved on recruitment procedure of High Court .:. NewKerala.Com, India News Channel
    • By ganpat1956
      By David Rose
      Tuesday, 20 February 2007
      An MP has pledged to lead a Commons revolt over a controversial attempt to exempt Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act.
      A private members bill, introduced by former Tory chief whip David Maclean, would, if it becomes law, prevent journalists and others from using FoI requests to obtain information contained in MPs' correspondence with government departments and other public bodies.
      But Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, has vowed to oppose the bill when it comes before the Commons for its crucial Report Stage and Third Reading on 20 April.
      Maclean's Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill has already been given an unopposed Second Reading and has been approved by 19-member committee drawn from MPs in all parties.
      Opponents can attempt to block Private Members Bills at the Report Stage using filibustering tactics. To prevent Baker and other critics from talking out the two-clause bill, Maclean may be forced to muster 100 MPs in order to force a closure vote and secure the Commons' approval to be sent to the House of Lords.
      Maclean has been impressed by the amount of support he has secured. Among the MPs who spoke up for the Bill in committee were Labour MPs George Howarth (Knowsley North and Sefton) Kevan Jones, (North Durham) and Fraser Kemp (Houghton and Washington East).
      Liberal Democrat MP Nick Harvey (North Devon) also raised no objection.
      Harvey, chairman of the House of Commons Commission, told MPs: "Requests under the FoI Act are becoming increasingly intrusive, particularly on issues such as t he additional costs allowance. In that respect, they are getting into very personal realms - they are going behind the front door into Members' homes."
      While the Government insists the Bill must be decided on a free vote, Tony Wright, Labour chairman of the Commons Public Administration Committee, has accused the whips of collaborating to ensure the Bill gets approved.
      Constitutional Affairs minister Bridget Prentice has also indicated where her own sympathies lie.
      "We should not allow the 2000 Act to disrupt the vital relationship between and MP and his or her constituents, and the time has come to address the issue," she told MPs.
      Baker told Press Gazette: "The Government is backtracking on the FoI Act.
      "This is a throw back to the 1950s when Parliament was a private members' club.
      "If this is passed we will have the absurd position of exempting from the legislation those people who passed the law."
      Baker recently won a case before the Information Tribunal which forced the disclosure of more details of MPs' travel expenses.
      Press Gazette - UK Journalism News and Journalism Jobs
    • By ganpat1956
      Bangalore, February 23, 2007
      The wait is certainly agonizing for Vaishanavi Kasturi, a visually impaired student, as she knocks on the doors of the Indian Institute of Management-Bangalore to know why she could not make it despite her excellent performance in CAT 2006.
      On Friday, Vaishanavi’s father RK Kasturi spent several hours closeted with a team of officials from IIM-B, asking them why his daughter was not called for a group discussion and personal interview. Vaishanavi cleared the CAT with a percentile of 89.29, outdoing thousands of other candidates. She was certainly eligible to sit for the next round of tests — the group discussion and interview — what with the IIM-B setting a cut-off of 86.42 percentile for the disabled. But the call never came.
      Disappointed, Vaishanavi’s family filed a notice under the Right to Information Act, which got Kasturi the meeting with the school authorities.
      At the end of the discussion, Kasturi still did not have an answer for his daughter. He told the Hindustan Times: “They told us that she did not make it because others (in the category of applicants with physical disabilities) were graduates or had work experience, etc. We had a long meeting and discussed many things because we want to understand where we stand. Let us wait till Monday (February 26). We have to attend a hearing at the RTI Commissioner’s office that day. The group discussions and interviews are scheduled for April. Let us see what happens on Monday.”
      For Vaishnavi — a sixth semester BCom student of a local college — the doors to IIM-B may not have opened for her but another prestigious institute, the MS Ramaiah Institute of Management, has offered her a free seat for a post-graduate diploma in management.
      Vaishanavi, however, still hopes she will qualify for the Indian Institute of Management-Bangalore at the end of the hearing at the RTI Commissioner’s office in the state capital on Monday.
      IIM says no to top scorer : HindustanTimes.com
    • By ganpat1956
      New Delhi: A senior diplomat on Wednesday alleged gender bias in the External Affairs Ministry, claiming that had it not been so, there was no reason why she should have been ignored for the post of Foreign Secretary.
      Senior diplomat Veena Sikri, a 1971 batch IFS officer, said she has moved the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), seeking access to files pertaining to appointment of Shivshankar Menon as Foreign Secretary under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
      She alleged that as many as 16 officers were superseded in choosing Menon as the Foreign Secretary.
      "I have made a final application to CIC Wajahat Habibullah, wanting to know on what grounds Menon, a 1972 batch officer, was appointed as Foreign Secretary, ignoring officers who were senior to him, including me."
      "There are some objective, well-established criteria for the selection of Foreign Secretary. I deserve to know why I don't fit the bill," PTI quoted Sikri as saying.
      Sikri, who had been posted as India's High Commissioner in Dhaka, returned to Delhi in November last year in protest against Menon's appointment.
      Asked about her future plans, Sikri said she was awaiting a reply from the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).
      She said she has sought information such as the rules and principles followed by the government in the selection of Foreign Secretary, what was the process for the final selection of Menon for the post, the panels of officers drawn up for the position and the reasons why certain officers were superseded in the appointment.
      "I have sought access to files that have to do with the appointment," she said.
      "I feel there is a gender bias against me. Otherwise, there is no reason why I should have been ignored for the post. I have the necessary experience and a good record. And I have two years of service left," Sikri said.
      Battle of babus hots up at MEA : India, External Affairs Ministry, Foreign Secretary, Veena Sikri, Right to Information (RTI) Act, CIC : IBNLive.com : CNN-IBN
    • By ganpat1956
      Kolkata, April 2 (PTI): The full bench of the Central Information Commission will decide whether documents consulted by enquiry panels probing the mysterious disappearance of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose should be disclosed, Information Commissioner A N Tiwari has said.
      Tiwari conveyed this recently to Mission Netaji, a Delhi-based organisation campaigning to access information on the disappearance of the icon of the freedom movement, while hearing its appeal in this regard.
      Giving a "final chance" to the Union home ministry to come clear on the issue, Tiwari asked it to provide an adequate explanation from the ministerial level on why documents sought by Mission Netaji could not be made public.
      All documents on the basis of which the two inquiry panels led by Shah Nawaz Khan (1956) and G D Khosla (1970-74) made their decisions have been kept secret by the government.
      Tiwari's directive came close on the heels of Information Commissioner O P Kejriwal directing the external affairs ministry to provide Mission Netaji's Anuj Dhar copies of its correspondence with the Sovet Union and later Russia on Netaji's disappearance.
      "If adequate explanations are not provided, the Commission will be compelled to direct the disclosure of all documents in question," Kejriwal said.
      Last year, Home Minister Shivraj Patil announced in Parliament that investigations conducted by Khan and Khosla were more credible than that of Justice M K Mukherjee who headed another panel that probed Netaji's disappearance.
      Following Patil's announcement, Mission Netaji's Sayantan Dasgupta filed a petition with the home ministry to seek copies of all documents examined by the Khan and Khosla panels.
      "Our case has been that these enquiries made selective use of evidence to arrive at the conclusion to suit the government's view that Netaji died in Taipei," Dasgupta claimed.
      In response, the home ministry refused to provide documents, taking recourse to secion 8 1(a) of the RTI Act, which exempts the release of information information which can "prejudicially affect sovereignty and integrity of India", "relations with a foreign state" or "lead to incitement of offence".
      Dasgupta then filed a complaint with the CIC. In its first hearing in October last year, home ministry officials said they were not aware of the documents examined by the earlier panels as they, unlike the Mukherjee Commission, had not appended any list of exhibits.
      Tiwari then directed Dasgupta to revise the original application to demand specific documents. Accordingly, Mission Netaji filed a revised petition with a list of 202 documents used as exhibits by the Khosla Commission in its arguments section.
      At the latest hearing last week, home ministry officials were to appear with the papers but instead came with a secret note from Home Secretary V K Duggal, who has since retired.
      Irked at the letter that reiterated the same arguments using Section 8 1(a), Tiwari said: "The issue is far too important to be decided in an ad hoc manner at the level of the home secretary. I am not prepared to allow an omnibus recourse to Section 8 1(a)."
      The CIC assured the appellant that Indians had every right to have full information on their hero.
      The Hindu News Update Service
    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
    • Total Members
    • Most Online
      02/21/2018 03:26 AM

    Newest Member
    শাহ্‌ মোঃ বোরহান
    Joined 04/21/2018 09:41 PM

Our Moderators

karira karira Super Moderator
ganpat1956 ganpat1956 Super Moderator
ambrish.p ambrish.p Moderators
Sunil Ahya Sunil Ahya Moderators
jps50 jps50 Moderators

About Us

RTI INDIA established in the year 2006, attracts a broad audience of citizens, experts, professionals and Government Officers interested in the latest development in the field of Right to Information. We also boast an active community focused on helping citizens to File RTI, First Appeal and Second Appeals. Our download section contains many sample RTI forms for everybody to use.

Social Links


Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy