Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
  • Sign in to follow this  

    Reference to website by PIO alone to obtain information sought is not complete


    Reference to website by PIOIn a much relief for an RTI applicant, CIC has given a judgement that claim by Public Information Officer that similar RTI application was earlier answered is no defence for denial unless that claim is proved. Secondly CIC ruled that giving reference to website alone to obtain information sought is not complete provision of information under RTI Act. It should be accompanied by offer of supply of hard copies on payment of cost of copying. (If you want to file RTI online visit this article to know about it)


    If the RTI application is a repetition and information was furnished, the PIO has to discharge the burden of proving the same. He should have to at least sent a copy of the same information to the appellant with reference to the present RTI application also, as non ­furnishing of information to the RTI application will be viewed seriously by the Commission and the respective PIO will be liable for penalty u/s 20 of the RTI Act.

    Reference to website by PIO alone to obtain information sought is not complete

    The respondent/PIO should also note that every appellant may not have the facility of checking their website for downloading the desired information. They should see that the appellant is furnished the required information by collecting the costs, even though the same is available on the website.


    CIC Decision: Aseem Takyar Vs. Delhi Jal Board, GNCTD file number: CIC/AD/A/2013/001911­SA dated 18­-07­-2014

    You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
    Sign in to follow this  

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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