Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'decision'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Request for Community Support
  • Connect with Community
  • Learn about RTI
  • Website News & Support
  • Read RTI News & Stories
  • RTI Act Critics's RTI Act Critics Topics
  • Fans of RTI India's Fans of RTI India Topics
  • Insurance Consumer's Insurance Consumer Topics
  • Activists of Transparency and Accountability's Activists of Transparency and Accountability Topics
  • Issues with BWSSB's Issues with BWSSB Topics
  • Law+Order-Bangalore-32's Law+Order-Bangalore-32 Topics
  • Issues With Electricity Board's Issues With Electricity Board Topics
  • RTI Activists's RTI Activists Topics
  • YOGA's YOGA Topics
  • help each other's help each other Topics
  • forest and wild life's forest and wild life Topics
  • Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C.'s Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C. Topics
  • RTI Activist+Politics's RTI Activist+Politics Topics
  • hostels and lodging places's hostels and lodging places Topics
  • RTI Activists in Rajasthan.'s RTI Activists in Rajasthan. Topics
  • RTI info warriors in Haryana's RTI info warriors in Haryana Topics
  • DisABILITY Rights and RTI's DisABILITY Rights and RTI Topics
  • Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI.'s Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI. Topics
  • Eco club's Eco club Topics
  • Self Employment in Sport's Self Employment in Sport Topics
  • RTI related to land issue's RTI related to land issue Topics
  • Open SourceTechnology support to RTI's Open SourceTechnology support to RTI Topics
  • TRAP group's TRAP group Topics
  • Odisha RTI Activists's Odisha RTI Activists Topics
  • right to information activists's right to information activists Topics
  • Mumbai's Mumbai Topics
  • Chartered Accountants's Chartered Accountants Topics
  • ngosamachar's ngosamachar Topics
  • Growing INDIA's Growing INDIA Topics
  • we are all friends.'s we are all friends. Topics
  • RTI for Government employees's RTI for Government employees Topics
  • Dhanus - Pending Salaries's Dhanus - Pending Salaries Topics
  • Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors's Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Topics
  • Mahamumbai's Mahamumbai Topics
  • M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech's M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech Topics
  • Corruption's Corruption Topics
  • minority engineering colleges in maharashtra's minority engineering colleges in maharashtra Topics
  • RiGhTs's RiGhTs Topics
  • ram's ram Topics
  • anti corrupt police's anti corrupt police Topics
  • Save Girl in Punjab's Save Girl in Punjab Topics
  • Rent Apartment in US's Rent Apartment in US Topics
  • RTI Kerala's RTI Kerala Topics
  • maharashtra's maharashtra Topics
  • Right Way Of India(RTI)'s Right Way Of India(RTI) Topics
  • Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India's Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India Topics
  • Navi Mumbai's Navi Mumbai Topics
  • electricity curruption in up's electricity curruption in up Topics
  • SHARE n STOCKS trading's SHARE n STOCKS trading Topics
  • Civil Engineers-CAD's Civil Engineers-CAD Topics
  • Nitin Aggarwal's Nitin Aggarwal Topics
  • ex-serviceman activities's ex-serviceman activities Topics
  • SSCC's SSCC Topics
  • Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates's Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates Topics
  • jharkhand RTI activist group's jharkhand RTI activist group Topics
  • Suhail's Suhail Topics
  • govt.servant's govt.servant Topics
  • RTI Uttar pradesh's RTI Uttar pradesh Topics
  • anti-corruption team's anti-corruption team Topics
  • Manaism's Manaism Topics
  • Insurance's Insurance Topics
  • sonitpur datri sewa samity's sonitpur datri sewa samity Topics
  • indian youth manch's indian youth manch Topics
  • HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies's HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies Topics
  • youth's youth Topics
  • aastha's aastha Topics
  • RTI for Citizens's RTI for Citizens Topics
  • learn always's learn always Topics
  • R.T.I.'s R.T.I. Topics
  • Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana's Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana Topics
  • Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna's Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna Topics
  • MBA, business and new entrepreneur.....'s MBA, business and new entrepreneur..... Topics
  • students seeking help's students seeking help Topics
  • RTI Corporate's RTI Corporate Topics
  • Electrical group's Electrical group Topics
  • V4LRights's V4LRights Topics
  • Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool's Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool Topics
  • Gaming's Gaming Topics
  • WE Born to help's WE Born to help Topics
  • help the elderly citizen's help the elderly citizen Topics
  • Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association's Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association Topics
  • Corruption free Country's Corruption free Country Topics
  • surajyam's surajyam Topics
  • kanpurvictims's kanpurvictims Topics
  • Railway Group A Services's Railway Group A Services Topics
  • Encroachment of public property by private giants's Encroachment of public property by private giants Topics
  • Case Status - Anti Corruption's Case Status - Anti Corruption Topics
  • Aam Aadmi (The Common Man)'s Aam Aadmi (The Common Man) Topics
  • Court Marriage in Punjab's Court Marriage in Punjab Topics
  • ALL's ALL Topics
  • Youth India Social Group (YISG)'s Youth India Social Group (YISG) Topics
  • ye kya fandda h's ye kya fandda h Topics
  • mindset's mindset Topics
  • anti corruption's anti corruption Topics
  • activism's activism Topics
  • common's common Topics
  • state group's state group Topics
  • social help group's social help group Topics
  • landlords of uttar pradesh's landlords of uttar pradesh Topics
  • Concern Citizens Forum for India's Concern Citizens Forum for India Topics
  • edusystem's edusystem Topics
  • Ratna Jyoti's Ratna Jyoti Topics
  • development in indian village's development in indian village Topics
  • technovision's technovision Topics
  • Mighty India's Mighty India Topics
  • Against Corporate Fraud's Against Corporate Fraud Topics
  • Stop crime's Stop crime Topics
  • NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti's NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Topics
  • Authenticated Public Plateform's Authenticated Public Plateform Topics
  • shalin's shalin Topics
  • terminater's terminater Topics
  • RTI Wind Energy's RTI Wind Energy Topics
  • Go..................?'s Go..................? Topics
  • Co-Op Housing Society's Co-Op Housing Society Topics
  • we are equal's we are equal Topics
  • Phoenix Deals's Phoenix Deals Topics
  • Theft Cases in chandigarh's Theft Cases in chandigarh Topics
  • Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits's Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits Topics
  • Solar Systems's Solar Systems Topics
  • Get aware about ur Education and related rights's Get aware about ur Education and related rights Topics
  • Save Mumbai's Save Mumbai Topics
  • Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board's Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board Topics
  • ashayen's ashayen Topics
  • unemployment's unemployment Topics
  • Employee Solution's Employee Solution Topics
  • is kanpur university against sc/st's is kanpur university against sc/st Topics
  • prayatna's prayatna Topics
  • Parking woes's Parking woes Topics
  • Helping RTI INDIA web development's Helping RTI INDIA web development Topics


  • Uncategorized
  • Section 18 (1)
  • Section 11
  • For Common Man
  • Section 16
  • Section 2(h)
  • Section 8 (1)(j)
  • Simplified RTI
  • Government Employee and RTI
  • RTI Act 2005
  • Success Stories
  • Exempt Organisation
  • DG IT
  • Section 8 (1) (e)
  • Section 2 (h) (d) (i)
  • Supreme Court Decisions
  • Section 2 (j) (i)
  • Section 2
  • Section 8
  • Section 20
  • Section 19
  • SIC Punjab
  • High Court Decisions
  • Section 9
  • Section 24
  • DoPT
  • RTI Awareness
  • Section 6 (3)
  • Section 6
  • Section 2 (f)
  • Opinion
  • Department of Posts
  • Ministry of Railways
  • Departments
  • Ministry of Home Affairs
  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs
  • Ministry of Law & Justice
  • Government of NCT of Delhi
  • Delhi Police
  • Ministry of Human Resource Development
  • Staff Selection Commission
  • Court Decisions
  • CIC Decisions
  • Activism
  • Section 25
  • University
  • Section 7
  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Section 3
  • RTI Discussions
  • Section 19 (8) (b)
  • Section (1) (d)
  • Section 8 (1) (d)
  • DIrectorate of Education
  • Govt of NCT of Delhi
  • Cooperative Housing Society
  • RTI for School
  • Member RTI
  • Municipal Corporation
  • Ministry of Defence


  • RTI Directory
  • Important RTI Decisions
  • Other Important Court Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts & Circulars


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...

Found 38 results

  1. 11 downloads

    While entertaining an application for information made under the Act, the locus standi or the intention of the applicant cannot be questioned and is required to furnish all the information sought by him except what has been exempted under Section 8 therein.

    Strange decision

    Appellant had sought copy of the rules for issuing prescription after purchase of medicines in emergency cases on the direction of doctors and other related information. Respondent stated that there are no any such rules/guidelines. Commission directed the respondent to explain the established procedure for issuing prescription after purchase of medicines in emergency cases on the direction of doctors to the appellant. CIC_YA_A_2014_003075_M_159951.pdf
  3. An employee of respondent bank rudely behaved with appellant's wife and manager of bank verbally apologized for that.The appellant had sought the information regarding CCTV footage for a particular slot of time which was denied by the CPIO stating that information sought could not be construed as information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Commission directed the CPIO to provide the name and designation of concerned employee of bank and footage of CCTV. Both the CPIO and FAA advised the appellant to file a complaint in the matter. CIC_SH_A_2014_001317_M_159194.pdf

    Indistinct decision

    Appellant had sought information regarding cast certificates produced by 9 students claiming OBC category and certificate produced by each student that he/she belongs to non creamy layer. Respondent PIO denied providing information on point No.1 u/s 8(1)(j) and point No.2 stated that information is not available. Commission observed that, information, as per available record, has been provide to the appellant and no further action is required. My question is that; is this a correct decision? CIC_YA_A_2014_000770_M_159508.pdf

    Indistinct/vague decision

    Complainant had sought the information about khasra no.7/20 etc. PIO did not respond. FAA ordered to the PIO to provide required information within 10 days to the complainant but PIO did not provide. (During hearing of appeal what submission were made by the complainant and respondent PIO is not mentioned in decision) Commission observed that; respondent authority has furnished the copies of required documents to the complainant. As far as the interpretation of language for clearing the doubt of the complainant, it is for the complainant to read the same and interpret him self. CIC_SA_C_2015_000123_M_159371.pdf
  6. Complainant had file about 130 RTI applications. Respondent stated that complainant was dismissed from bank service in 2006 and he has been provided a good deal of information in response to his various RTI applications. Commission observed that; this is a clearly misuse of RTI facility. Commission quoted the judgment of Supreme Court dated 9.8.11, Central Board of Secondary Education and ors vs. Aditya Bandopadhyaya and ors, also a judgment of Delhi High Court dated 5.2.14, Shail Shahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar and ors. Misuse of RTI - Decision of CIC.txt
  7. appellant had sought information from PMO office about controversy reported in news papers such as 'Sonia sought help for beleaguered officer, DoPT did not oppose(Hindu 2.8.13), centre rescuses whistle blower again(Hindu 5.2.13) etc. He also sought information about IFS officer shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi. The CPIO denied the information claiming exemption u/s 8(1)(j). During hearing the Commission dialled Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi to know his views, Sanjiv Chaturvedi told the Commission that information was not his personal information and he does not have any objection. The CPIO also spoke to him that information is not only personal information but also given in fiduciary relation. Commission observed that contention of the CPIO is baseless and directed him to provide required information. CIC_SA_A_2015_000525_M_158685.pdf

    Odd decision.

    Appellant had sought information about a factory which was sealed by SDM due to pollution. Information was not provided. During hearing of second appeal, appellant stated that he is seeking information about the factory which was sealed even though said factory has been de-sealed and carrying its activity. Appellant further complained that a tea vendor who is his friend and functioning opposite that factory was falsely implicated in theft case by management. Commission directed the appellant to lodge a complaint with the respondent authority (Tehshildar) about wrong implication of his friend and respondent officer is directed to accept the complaint and furnish action taken report on the same to the appellant. My question is; what about the information sought by the appellant? CIC_SA_A_2015_000485_M_158604.pdf

    Strange decision

    Appellant had sought information regarding the road, electricity and water problem faced by his society. Information was not provided by the PIO. During hearing of appeal the appellant submitted that the government had assured that their unauthorized colony will be regularized but so far no action was taken by them. Commission directed the PIO to furnish required information to the appellant within 15 days. CIC_SA_A_2015_000504_M_158287.pdf
  10. Request for review was denied by cic mentioning The Delhi High Court in WP © 5086/2010 dt.18.11-2011 in the case of Suhas Chukma Vs. Union of India. Can some body state essence/reasons and further developments (When there is a mistake on appreciation of facts)
  11. The respondent SDM, Delhi submitted that they did not receive RTI application. On examination of record Commission finds that SDM sent reply to appellant in which it is stated that he received the RTI application and transferred to concerned section. But the SDM, Ms.Nitika Pawar informed by a letter today to Commission during hearing that the said RTI application was not received by the SDM, her office should have inquired from the Commission's office and obtained the copy of the same as soon as the hearing notice was received. Having not done the same, SDM Ms. Nitika Pawar, as irresponsible and hence issued SCN to explain why penalty should not be imposed on her. CIC_SA_A_2015_000110_M_156041.pdf

    Opposite decision

    BOTH DECISION ARE OLD {if lastest decision is available please provide} but BOTH ORGANISATION REGISTERED UNDER SAME ACT SAME ACTIVITY WHY OPPOSITE DECISION IFFCO Indian Farmers Fertiliser Co-operative Limited (IFFCO) was registered on November 3, 1967 as a Multi-unit Co-operative Society. On the enactment of the Multistate Co-operative Societies act 1984 & 2002, the Society is deemed to be registered as a Multistate Co-operative Society. The Society is primarily engaged in production and distribution of fertilisers. The bylaws of the Society provide a broad frame work for the activities of IFFCO as a Co-operative Society. KRIBHCO Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ltd (KRIBHCO) is a Multi-State Cooperative Society deemed to be registered under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies (MSCS) Act, 2002. The Government of India through the Department of Fertilizers was a member of KRIBHCO but its equity holding was reduced to NIL on 4th July 2013 under the provisions of the MSCS Act 2002. KRIBHCO is not owned nor controlled nor financed by the Government of India / Any State Governments. KRIBHCO-Vs-RCBawa-NAFED-Vs-BMVerma-NCCF-Vs-RMPrasad.pdf CIC_SS_A_2011_001245_M_116707 iffco not public.pdf
  13. Attached are images of two pages of a decision of an IC from APSIC. Please go through in detail and answer the following questions: 1. What are the mistakes in this ICs order ? 2. Will the order stand scrutiny of the High Court ? If yes, why ? If No, why ? (Give detailed reasons) 3. If you were the IC, how would you avoid the mistakes made by this IC ? ==== Only one reply per member. Replies to be sent by the participating member to me by PM or email (to ensure that your replies are not copied or taken advantage of by subsequent posters). Last time to receive email/PM is 2200 Hours on Saturday, 30th May 2015. All replies received will be finally posted in this thread on Sunday, 31st May 2015. After that it is open discussion on members replies. Open voting by members for "best" answer. ========== A special gift from me to the winner: 5 DVDs, containing the Video Recording of the entire debate on the RTI Bill 2005, in the Rajya Sabha, sometime in June 2005. - - - Updated - - - Thread closed temporarily till Sunday, 31st May 2015.

    CIC directed CPIO- Decision

    In a decision of appeal, on request of appellant to the CIC to direct the CPIO to refund fee Rs.12/-. the CIC directed the CPIO to refund fee Rs.12/- to the appellant. File attached. CIC_BS_A_2014_001233_7660_M_154963.pdf
  15. In a decision of appeal, CIC directed CPIO to provide information in detail (more than information sought. http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_YA_A_2014_000619_M_154925.pdf
  16. rocketkuttan

    Biased decision of cic

    Hello, A biased decision was ordered by CIC to following queries (RTI application No 1) in favour of CPIO and FAA. 1. Name of post with post number indicated in the advertisement 2. Copy of the Advertisement displaying the above name of post and post number 3. Period of study in College by Mr XXX, who was selected & appointed in the Dept.in format (from: mm/yyyy to: mm/yyyy) 4. Percentage of total marks obtained in the degree examination by Mr XXX who was selected & appointed in the Dept. 5. Year of passing the Degree examination by Mr XXX who was selected & appointed in the Dept 6. Whether the Selection Committee of Department had approved the percentage of cut off marks for issuing interview call letter to the applicants to the aforesaid post in query no.1 above, solely on the basis of percentage of total marks obtained in their degree examination. 7. If the answer to query No: 6 above is “YES” the cut off percentage of total marks in degree examination approved by the Selection Committee of Dept. for issuing call letter for appearing interview to the aforesaid name of post to which Mr XXX was selected in the DEPT 8. If the answer to query No: 6 above is “NO”, the procedure adopted for arriving the cut off index marks percentage for issuing interview call letter to the applicants to the aforesaid name of post in para sl.no.1 above to which Mr XXX was selected in the dept. 9. If the answer to query No: 6 above is “NO”, the information on the itemwise breakup details of cut off index marks percentage as per the procedure in para sl.no. 8 above, obtained by Mr XXX, who was selected in the Dept to the aforesaid post in para sl.no.1 above. 10. The name of all other candidates selected to the aforesaid post in para sl.no.1 above alongwith Mr XXX, in the Dept. 11. If the answer to query No: 6 above is “YES”, the percentage of total marks in degree examination obtained by all other candidates (against their name) who were selected alongwith Mr XXX to the aforesaid post in para sl.no.1 above, in the Dept. 12. If the answer to query No: 6 above is “NO”, the information / details of index marks percentage as per procedure in para sl.no. 8 above, obtained by all other candidates (against their name) who were selected alongwith Mr XXX, to the aforesaid post in para sl.no.1 above, in the Dept 13. Copy of mark list of the final year Degree examination of Mr XXX who was selected & appointed in the Dept 14. Copy of the offer of appointment order issued to Mr XXX who was selected & appointed in the Dept. 15. Name of all candidates selected to the post No.10 in the advertisement No.jjjj (copy enclosed) released by the Department in year 4555 CPIO gave information to query Nos 1, 3, 4, 5 and 14 and CPIO failed to supply information to query Nos 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 15 stating that information not available and CPIO denied information to query No.13 citing section 8(1)(j). But CPIO did not deny information to query No.4 seeking the marks. FAA also upheld this CPIO’s decision. 2nd appeal cum complaint was filed under section 19(1) and 18(3) respectively before CIC. During the hearing by CIC the respondents told that a committee was setup to trace out the missing files/records and this committee submitted a report stating that relevant records are not traceable. CIC straight away decided that all the information sought by me belong to 3rd party and same was denied under section 8(1)(j). CIC did not state any reasons for the same as to how it belongs to 3rd party when it is related to a recruitment process. Thus CIC gave an evasive and biased order http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SH_A_2014_000775_M_152506.pdf Similarly in another (RTI application No.2) CIC also upheld CPIO FAA decision by stating that files were weeded out during CIC hearing. But these CPIO & FAA did not inform me that files were weeded out in all their decisions in the matter of denial of my right to consider for promotions and they had only stated that files were not traceable in their decisions. CIC gave a common decision for the two RTI applications as said above in a fully biased and evasive manner and CIC did not invoke section 18(3) as seen from the above CIC decision. Now experts may please advice.


    D.T.RATHAVA has just uploaded #STRANGE DECISION! High court decision against SIC STRANGE DECISION.
  18. debaprasad92

    Faa decision procedure

    Can a FAA decided a case without inviting applicant? In my case FAA send me his decision letter. I am attaching it below. Kindly read and share your valuable opinion. Thank you.
  19. Sir, RTI Application filed by a person to PIO, and PIO responds to RTI Applicant stating that Information sought does not come under Public Information as per the Supreme Court of India SLP 27734/2012 decision and rejects the information under section 8 (1)(j). First Appeal of the RTI Applicant considered and directs PIO to dispose application under Section 11. This time, PIO gives a notice to 3rd party seeking any objections. 3rd Party submitted objections to provide requested information including motive of the RTI Applicant. Now, PIO sends a decision letter to 3rd party stating that RTI Applicant requested information does fall under Public Information as per the Supreme Court of India SLP 27734/2012 decision hence decided to provide requested information to RTI applicant without considering submitted objections. Without giving much time to appeal, PIO provides information to RTI Applicant. Now the issue is, is it not PIO contradicting his own decision by considering SLP 27734/2012 on both occasion? How is this contradictory decision is considered in CIC/SIC? What Orders / Penalty if any? Thanks, Manjunatha
  20. Hi, There was a hearing of my case in SIC-UP in November-14. I was not attended the hearing, as i got the SIC letter before a night of hearing. Although letter was written by SIC to SPIO and copy to me, SIC asked SPIO to be present in hearing to give the explanation that why information was not provided to me. I have send the email to SIC regarding my absence, and availability on phone if required. But till now, i have not received any information regarding the decision of SIC. Please suggest, to whom should i write the letter, respective State Information Commissioner or SPIO of Commission to get the copy of SIC decision http://upsic.up.nic.in/] Regards, Manoj
  21. Hello, Can somebody provide me with the link to the CIC decision wherein the CIC has said that the income details of spouse can be obtained from Income Tax Department.
  22. geo123abram

    Reasons for Decision

    Hello, Can I ask reasons for a decision by Public Authority through RTI? For example, not to issue a certificate?
  23. my second appeal whose hearing took place on 25-02-2015 through video conference was favourably disposed as the CIC sri.Basanth seth asked to furnish information against two vital points out of five of which two are relating to complaints against the official which he said cannot be permitted as per high court judgement and the fifth querry is optional one and therefore became infructious thus the whole information which was denied was successfully obtained ., the success goes to our RTI forum.


    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 F.No.CIC/LS/A/2013/001537-YA Date of Hearing : 05.02.2015 Date of Decision : 23.02.2015 Appellant : Shri A. K. Singh Imphal Respondent : Shri E. Devendro Meitei, CPIO Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, Director & FAA Regional Institute of Medical Sciences Imphal Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad Relevant facts emerging from appeal: RTI application filed on : 18.03.2013 PIO replied on : No reply First Appeal filed on : 29.04.2013 First Appellate Authority (FAA) order on : Not passed Second Appeal received on : 22.07.2013 Information sought: The appellant sought copies of supply orders of medicines/non-medicine items along with names of companies, brand names and composition supplied to RIMS along with actual fee receipts of bills for period 2008 to 2012. Relevant facts emerging during hearing: Both the parties are present and heard through video conference. The appellant filed an RTI application dt. 18.03.2013, seeking the above information. On not receiving any reply from the CPIO within prescribed time, the appellant filed first appeal. CPIO in his letter dt. 24.05.2013 stated that the information sought is voluminous. The FA did not dispose of the first appeal. The appellant stated that the CPIO has denied information by merely stating that the information is voluminous but has not mentioned the number of pages. He contended that the CPIO has requested him to inspect the documents and identify the information required by him, which is malafide on the part of CPIO. The appellant stated that he does not wish to inspect the documents, but he wants the copies. The CPIO stated that the documents sought by the appellant are voluminous, as the same are related to the bills/invoices issued to suppliers, etc. He stated that the same relates to emergency requirements as well as day-to-day requirements. He stated that since the information was voluminous, the appellant was requested to inspect the record and identify the specific document required by him, so that the same can be provided to the appellant. On query by the Commission as to why delay was caused in providing a reply to the appellant, the respondent stated that he was handlingadditional duties. He expressed regret for the delay and urged that the appellant has been provided similar information in relation to other RTI applications filed by him. Decision: After hearing both parties and on perusal of record, the Commission finds that the information sought by the appellant is, indeed, voluminous. The appellant has sought copies of tender processes from 2005 to 2012, involving a period of 8 years and copies of fee receipt of bills from 2008 to 2012. Therefore, the appellant is directed to specify and narrow down the amplitude of information sought in his RTI application dt. 18.03.2013, within one week of receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. The CPIO is directed to provide the information within three weeks of such receipt of appellant’s narrowed down queries, under intimation to the Commission. The Commission notes with serious concern that both the PIO & FAA failed to act as per provisions of the RTI Act. The public authority is cautioned not to deal with RTI application in a casual manner and to take due cognizance of provisions of the Act. The Commission also finds that the FAA neither provided an opportunity of being heard to both the parties nor did it dispose of the first appeal filed by the appellant. The FAA, being a quasi judicial body, should have given an opportunity of being heard to the appellant and then, gone into aspects like whether information can be provided or not, etc. The FAA should have exercised his quasi judicial power, which he did not exercise. The Commission, therefore, cautions the FAA to strictly follow provisions of the RTI Act while disposing of appeals and pass a speaking order after taking due cognizance of merits of each case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Director, RIMS is directed to take note of the manner in which the CPIO/FAA have dealt with RTI application/first appeal. A copy of this order may be marked to Director, RIMS for information and necessary action as deemed fit. (B.D. Harit) Deputy Secretary & Deputy Registrar
  • Create New...

Important Information

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