Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'denial of information'.

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 28 results

  1. Dear members, My sister had filed an rti at labour department for sharing the service records, graduity, pf & salary certificates of a private school she worked. School had earlier denied giving her the records. The PIO denied supplying the information stating that they can supply only the information present in their records. Can't generate a new piece of information. The FAA also repeated the PIO response. We now intend to appeal in CIC for the needed information. So I request fellow members to share some CIC verdicts which could have asked a department, preferably Labour to arrange for records from a private organisation of its employee. Information is related to self so first party and a private firm coming under jurisdiction & abide the rules of Labour deptt. Best Regards, Kapil
  2. 9 downloads

    India being a socialist, democratic and secular democratic republic, the quest to obtain the information about the religion professed or not professed by a citizen cannot be in any event, be considered to be in public interest, which information is strictly confidential as per Section 15 of the Census Act, 1948. Mere terming of the members of the 'family' in respect of which the information is sought as public figures and the leaders of nation, cannot change the statutory impact of the above provisions. It is thus evident that the petitioner is making efforts to make unjustified inroads into the privacy of said individuals even if they are public figures. Consequently, the information supplied to the Census Officer cannot be made public in view of the statutory bar imposed by Section 15 of the Census Act which is not inconsistent with Section 22 read with section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal which stands dismissed.- Punjab & Haryana High Court
  3. Delhi Government 38 Departments are allowing Ping Pong with RTI Applications, claims the RTI Applicant. A senior Citizen RTI Application asking for handicapped pension for his wife was transferred to 29 Public Information Officers (PIOs). Among those authorities, some of them transferred the application to each other. The issue is in fact, multiple transfers of the RTI application from CM office to a number of PIOs, spending huge amount of money on the correspondence and yielding nothing. Can Govt spend public money on such purposeless transfers? There appears to be a serious governance crisis as the appellant and the citizens similarly placed, are not getting any information under the RTI Act from Delhi Government, noted CIC. Applicant stated that "When the question was nonpayment of pension, it is supposed to be decided by the office of the CM, and it cannot simply shirk its responsibility by transferring the RTI application to the MCD". Ping Pong with RTI Application The Commission finds larger public interest in the RTI request filed by the appellant. It is a major human rights problem for lakhs of pensioners who are found eligible to receive pension according to the Govt schemes and are not getting the pension. The appellant in this case questioned how the government could permit its 38 departments to spend money in transferring his RTI application and build up a huge file of papers. Is there no financial crunch for such activity? He also questioned that the Govt representatives attending the hearings in 1st/2nd appeals, are using the govt vehicles or private taxies paid by office, for which funds are available. When the government does not release the funds for payment of pension, how can the civic bodies and the departments can give any information on nonpayment of pension? The CMO should have replied the appellant that they are not in a position to release the funds and that they cannot pay pension. Instead they have transferred to various departments without leading to disclosure of any information. The Commission, therefore, directed the CMO to furnish a white paper on the status of all kinds of pensions in Delhi Government, reasons for nonpayment, time of resumption of payment of pension, time of payment of arrears, etc within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order. The decision can be read here!
  4. Hi Experts I have filed an RTI application online on RTI Online :: Home | Submit RTI Request | Submit RTI First Appeal | View RTI Status | RTI FAQ on 01/11/2017 and the same got disposed on 08/11/2017 with this reply. Reply :- Reserve Bank of India has no information to furnish in this regard. RTI application content: Particulars of information required a.Please provide list of banks under RBI with name of bank, branch IFSC code, savings account number and status of account where a savings account is maintained by pan card holder Ms. whose PAN no is . b.Please do include the accounts that are either in closed, dormant or active status. c.Ms. is the wife of applicant who has filed a false case of Domestic Violence under PWDV Act against this applicant and this information about Ms. , requested above is essential for him to defend himself in the court of law with respect to maintenance claims. Marriage Certificate copy is attached for your kind reference. d.This is inline and in accordance with the decision made in CIC/AD/A/2012/003341-SA. Request response through Registered Post and share a pdf soft copy on my email ID I declare that I am a citizen of India, residing at above address and the information sought does not fall within the restricting contained in Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Now I am in need of your valuable suggestion on a) the merits, if any, in filing a First appeal? or b) better go petitioning all banks for this very same information. All feedback will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
  5. rtiindia

    RTI is my hobby

    Can one make RTI as a hobby? Especially when there is no public interest? In the hearing at Central Information Commission, an RTI applicant stated that 'Filing RTI is my hobby, and there is no public interest in those RTI". CIC came heavily on to the applicant and stated that such hobby of filing RTI without any public interest causes loss of both time and energy of the Government and it causes disproportionate diversion of the resources of the public authority. (Clause 7 (9) of the RTI Act 2005) CIC warned the applicant not to waste time and resources of the public authority, or else Central Information Commission shall not take cognisance of such appeal or complaint. RTI is my hobby Earlier, the RTI applicant has filed 11 applications with 15 to 23 points each related to log books of the Government and Private vehicles of Prasar Bharti, Hissar. When CIC asked why this information is required and what is the public interest involved in such RTI, the applicant stated that he is posted in Agriculture university Haryana and asking such information from All India Radio is his hobby and there is no public interest but only his personal interest. The decision is available in Hindi at the CIC website here: Sh. Chandrabhan Didhoria Vs Prasar Bharti, Hissar 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!
  6. Can a citizen who is an ineligible candidate and had agitated his grievance before Hon’ble Minister and the CAT but failed to get any relief is disqualified from getting information under RTI? The answer is NO. Can CPIO introduce new reasons for Denial of Information under RTI? Guess what! The CPIO thinks so, but thankfully not the CIC. Once an applicant seeks information as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the same cannot be denied to the information seeker except on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act, the Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority cannot add or introduce new reasons for Denial or grounds for rejecting furnishing of information. An RTI Applicant who is officiating SDI(P) East Gurgaon and a qualified Postmaster Grade-1 have taken the promotional Departmental exam of IPO-2011 on 15 and 16 October 2011 and reexamination for Paper-III on 29/01/2012 from Haryana Circle, Ambala. He wanted following information related to this: 1- No. of marks obtained by me in each paper. 2- OMR Copy of answer sheets of each papers with key. In nutshell he had appeared in a departmental examination and needed copies of his answer sheets and the marks obtained by him in each of the papers. The CPIO denied the information stating that the he is an ineligible candidate and had agitated his grievance before Hon’ble Minister and the CAT but failed to get any relief. Introduce new reasons for Denial When the matter came before CIC for hearing, a simple query from the Commission under which clause of the RTI Act exemption is being claimed for denying the information the CPIO could not give any satisfactory response. The Commission stated that: The appellant is seeking his own answer sheets and the marks obtained by him in a departmental examination in which he had participated. The CPIO is unable to show any exemption under the stated provisions of Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act under which the information can be withheld. It being so, there is no ground for denying the information and the CPIO should furnish the same to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order. Here are the discussion threads at Forum containing the information about Denial of Information and you can read into many such discussion how CPIO sometimes introduce new reasons for Denial.
  7. After filing 30 applications on the same subject with different names but with the same handwriting, Central Information Commission came heavily by warning to desist from misusing the provisions of the RTI Act for settling his personal scores with the respondent. CIC further stated that "In case the appellant continues to prefer RTI applications which are vexatious and frivolous in nature with a view to disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority, then the PIO will be free to deny information under the provisions of section 7 (9) of the Act." It is certain that this variety of the vexatious and frivolous petitions is not going to serve the interest of the Right to Information ⎯ the self-serving, pious protestations of serial petitioners such as this one notwithstanding. NDMC, the Respondent informed that appellant who has filed at least 30 RTI applications in different names with similar queries, having the same handwriting regarding pending payment of M/s Gyan Const Co. against work done by the agency. Vexatious and frivolous RTI are ground of denial The Commission emphasised that though the Respondents are duty-bound to supply information asked for by the Appellants, the Appellants are also required to keep in mind the objectives of the RTI Act as outlined in the Preamble to the Act: and that is, to introduce the elements of transparency and accountability in the functioning of the public authorities and to contain corruption. The citation is available here: Sh. R.K. Chauhan & Sh. N. Singh Vs NDMC Some of the similar decisions posted at our Case segments are as below: Probe into the motive behind repeated RTI No Right to Repeat: Citizen has right to information only once- Rules CIC What are your views? Does this practice of refusing RTI on grounds of repetition justified? 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!
  8. The Central Information commission consider such a case as denial of information. Asking the appellant for inspecting the records, does not serve any purpose because the Public Authority/PIO himself does not know where the information sought by the appellant, is available and it is not proper to expect an appellant, who is the wife of a deceased employee to find out information from the heap of files by inspecting the same. If you have any RTI Query, kindly post it at our forum here! The appellant was seeking the entire data about the employees died in service and the compassionate appointments made in favor of the members of the deceased employees. The respondent officers say that a huge record is to be analyzed which is not in the compiled form. Can PIO direct inspection of records under RTI without knowing where the information is? Considering such response of asking appellate to do the inspection, where the PIO himself does not know where the information is, the Commission, considered such response as 'Denial of Information" and directed the Public Authority to provide information about the number of employees died in service and the number of compassionate appointments made/rejected, the reasons or the policy for the appointment of family members of the deceased employees on compassionate grounds, for the period pertaining 2010­-2013. The citation is available here: Smt. kamala Vs Dept of Services, GNCTD 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!
  9. Mere pendency of investigation / enquiry is not sufficient justification by itself for withholding the information. It must be shown by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) that the disclosure of the information would 'impede' or even on a lesser threshold 'hamper' or 'interfere' with the enquiry. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 03/12/2007 [WP© 3114/2007, Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs] has held as under:- “13. Access to information, under Section 3 of the Act, is the rule and exemptions under Section 8, the exception. Section 8 being a restriction on this fundamental right, must therefore is to be strictly construed. It should not be interpreted in manner as to shadow the very right itself. Under Section 8, exemption from releasing information is granted if it would impede the process of investigation or the prosecution of the offenders. It is apparent that the mere existence of an investigation process cannot be a ground for refusal of the information; the authority withholding information must show satisfactory reasons as to why the release of such information would hamper the investigation process. Such reasons should be germane, and the opinion of the process being hampered should be reasonable and based on some material. Sans this consideration, Section 8(1)(h) and other such provisions would become a haven for dodging demands for information.” Information cannot be denied on mere pendency of investigation The case citation can be read here: Mr. Y. N. Chaubey Vs M/o Labour & Employment
  10. While Public Information Officer denied the information on a question asked regarding steps taken for implementation of the DOPT guidelines regarding proactive disclosure of tours of officials of the rank of Joint Secretaries and above to implement and copies of all tour orders issued and details of TA/DA paid for each of Joint Secretaries of Central Vigilance Commission by quoting Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, however, on the other hand First Appellate Authority (FAA) has brought in a totally new provision by denying information u/s 8(1)(g) by quoting a CIC decision. FAA denied the information without giving a hearing to the RTI Applicant. What are your views? Use the comments in the article to post. You can discuss it at our forum too. The Appellant had argued in front of the CIC that the FAA by doing this, has brought in a totally new provision for denial of information which is not tenable as he was not allowed an opportunity to question this and he was not given a hearing. He further submitted that the CPIO vide letter dt 2.8.13 has already provided information relating to foreign and domestic travel of officers of the rank of JS and above. When such information has already been provided, he would be satisfied if similar information is provided in respect of the remaining staff also. Can First Appellate Authority bring in fresh provisions of RTI Act to deny information? The Commission remanded the case to the FAA with directions that he should provide a hearing to the appellant in terms of the Commission’s earlier orders and to provide information in respect of queries. CIC further recorded that "We also take an adverse view of the fact that the designated CPIO/FAA of the CVC failed to attend the hearing. A copy of this order be marked to Shri Pradeep Kumar, CVC, who may like to issue appropriate orders to his officials dealing with RTI matters to ensure that officials of the CVC, of an appropriate level, attend the hearings of the Commission." While going through the CIC decision quoted by FAA case no. CIC/AT/A/2009/000100 in the case of Shri Nihar Ranjan Banerjee, CVO and Shri Bidya Nand Mishra, DGM(Vig), Coal India Ltd Vs Shri MN Ghosh, it is found that CIC while reviewing it's own order has denied the information about the tour details, vehicle logbooks, purpose of visits, overtime payments of vigilance officer on following grounds: No public interest is served by their disclosure. On the contrary, there is a distinct possibility that disclosure of this information will compromise the functioning of the Vigilance Officers ⎯ the review-petitioners ⎯ and not only expose them to physical risks and intimidations, but impair their ability to carry-out their sensitive assignments. Information should be declined within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act During the hearing, it was submitted by the review-petitioners that the type of information which appellant had requested has always been held ⎯ insofar as it related to the officers of the Vigilance Department ⎯ as confidential within the meaning of Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act was designed for such contingencies and is entirely consistent with the provisions of RTI Act (Section 11(1)). Now, while the RTI Act, no-doubt, takes precedence over the Indian Evidence Act in a matter of inconsistency between their provisions, when the provisions of two Acts are consistent, the RTI Act and the Indian Evidence Act provisions should be harmoniously construed. I find that there is ample consistency between Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 11(1) of the RTI Act read with Section 2(n) of the same Act. In the circumstances and the atmosphere in which they work and the specificity of their sensitive assignment, the requested information had the potentiality of endangering the officers’ life and their physical safety, apart from leading to identification of the source of information or assistance given in confidence for discharge of their law-enforcement functions as Vigilance Officers. (in terms of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act) The citation is available here: Shri R.K. Jain Vs Central Vigilance Commission, File No: CIC/SM/A/2013/001325/RM dated 30.07.2014 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!
  11. Sirs, I had registered a FIR in 7th January 2014 against the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer (BL & LRO), who had tampered with land records of my ancestral land and recorded it in the names of other persons in the Record of Rights(ROR). On 18-02-2014, I sent an RTI application to the concerned SPIO of Police asking for information regarding the action taken and the progress in investigation regarding my FIR. In reply the SPIO denied to supply any information citing section 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005. The exact reply of the SPIO is reproduced below: Quote During investigating stage no further information can be supplied as per provision of sec 8(h) which is reproduced below- 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: Unquote. On 04-04-2014, I preferred a First Appeal before the Addl. SP of Police and First Appellate Authority. On 07-05-2014, a hearing was held at the Office of the First Appellate Authority(FAA), and information was denied to me. The FAA upheld the decision of the SPIO quoting sec 8(h). A written order dated 07-05-2014 was sent to me by the FAA denying information to me. I would request the honourable members of this Forum to give their views on how far the West Bengal Police Dept. is right in denying information to me and whether I should lodge a Second Appeal with the West Bengal Information Commission, Kolkata. I will appreciate your valuable suggestion. Regards. R Sinha
  12. Public Information Officer of the food & Supply Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi sent a clerk to the Central Information Commission hearing of RTI appeal. Attending on behalf of PIO, he claimed that he does not know anything about the case and he is attending as the PIO has asked him to attend. In the RTI application, the current address of food & Supply Department circle No.5 office and that of Fair Price Shop No.3326, Circle­ 55 of M/s Raja Ram, and whether the FPS can shift its shop, without the food & Supply Department authority’s permission, etc were asked. The representative of the PIO claimed that there is no record available with them regarding the Fair Price Shop referred in the RTI application. CIC issued the show cause notice as to why maximum penalty cannot be imposed for their irresponsible conduct, being non­responsive to RTI application. If you have questions regarding RTI please go ahead at our forum here and post them, our experts shall guide in drafting a good RTI for you. Unaware clerk attends hearing on behalf of PIO CIC observed that this is a serious lapse on the part of the food & Supply Department. CIC also observed that "The authority is directed to give point­wise revised ­ reply to the RTI applicant on all the four questions within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and the Commission directs the concerned PIO Mr. Shankar Manjhi and the representative sent by him for the hearing, Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma, UDC to explain why maximum penalty cannot be imposed for their irresponsible conduct, being non­responsive to RTI application." The link to the decision is available here! (Sh. Suresh Kumar Vs. Food & Supply Dept). Do you have anything to add to the story, kindly post it in the comments below. The Decision has been taken from the CIC website available on the web. For authentic true copy of the decision, kindly contact CIC.
  13. Registrar of Cooperative Societies Delhi treated RTI application as a grievance and did not provide information stating that it will not fall under the expression ‘information’. Central Information Commission did not accept this argument while hearing the second appeal filed by sh. Vinod Kumar Bansal regarding information on action taken on his letter regarding the grant of society membership in violation of the provisions of section 75 of the DCS Act, 2003. The Commission observes that the information asked by the appellant is to be provided under RTI Act and that it does not fall under any exemptions. CIC also directed to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed for refusal of information by CPIO, Registrar of Co-operative Societies Delhi. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, appointed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi under Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003, heads the Cooperative Department and plays a pivotal role in monitoring the functioning of Cooperative Societies registered under the Act. The Office of the Registrar is working on nine-district pattern and has nine Zones headed by Assistant Registrar level Officers. Each zone handles the matters of various cooperative societies on the basis of their registered office located in that particular zone. All issues concerning in particular society are examined at the zonal level only. Registrar of Cooperative Societies Delhi The appellant submitted that through his RTI application dt. 29­8­2012, he is seeking information on action taken on his letter dt. 9­5­2012 regarding the grant of society membership in violation of the provisions of section 75 of the DCS Act, 2003. The PIO replied on 28­9­2012 saying that the complaint has already been forwarded to the concerned society and reply is awaited from them. Not satisfied with the reply, the appellant made first appeal before the FAA. FAA by his order dt. 7­12­2012, directed the PIO to forward the copy of his comments dt. 26­11­2012 to the appellant within 15 days. Upon this FAA order, the appellant filed 2nd appeal before the Commission. The Decision can be read here: File No.CIC/AD/A/2013/000974­SA Mr. Vinod Kumar Bansal Vs. Registrar, Coop. Societies If you want to read more discussions relating to RTI for Cooperative Housing Society, please refer to the tag here Society and RTI, and if you have any queries please post it at our forum here! Do you have anything to add to this story, kindly post in the comments below.
  14. The content of the RTI application made to Public Information Officer in Maharashtra are as follows: Subject matter of information : Information relating to my Case No – XYZ (20/06/2013) at Sub - Divisional Magistrate's Court (Revenue) Description of Information Required: 1) Date of receipt of above Appeal Application by your office, inward number & Present status of the Appeal Application. 2) Daily progress from date of receipt of above appeal application till 08/02/2014. 3) Please inform me provisions relating to quick disposal of Appeal Applications filed by very Senior Citizens. (More than 80 years of age) 4) Please inform me the procedure to avail remedy for Speedy Disposal of my Case No – XYZ. The PIO replied in Marathi, English translation of which is as follows: You have asked about the status of your appeal & not asked about information relating to available documents. All the related persons to your appeal filed with the Sub Divisional Magistrates Court will be issued notices & hearing will be held shortly. As you asked interrogative/questions type information (प्रश्नार्थक माहीती) your application has been disposed off. You can file an appeal in 30 Days if you are not satisfied with this reply to this office. Now please help me in filing First Appeal 1) I don't think any where question has been asked 2) Does the definition of information only mean documents & nothing else available on record. 3) As the RTI applicant is 87 years of age its impossible for him to appear for the hearing of the RTI First Appeal personally so should that be mentioned clearly in the First Appeal. 4) Can a simultaneous complaint be made to the Maharashtra State Information Commission for denial of information? So please help in filing RTI First Appeal.
  15. 1) A 87 year old relatives wife's name was deleted from Land records in Maharashtra suggesting that she had voluntarily given up her rights citing a Tehsildar's Order. 2) Oral requests for documents relating to the Tehsildar's order & affidavits, declarations made by the relative's wife based on which the Tehsildar issued the order were asked for in the Tehsil office, but they denied having any such documents & asked to go to Circle or Talathi's office.They too refused to cooperate. 3) 2 RTI applications asking for documents related to Tehsildars Order were filed to the PIO Tehsildars office which were delivered to him on 28th January 2014,acknowledgements for which have been received from the post office. 4) 2 RTI applications asking for specific documents related to Tehsildars Order were filed to the PIO Tehsildars office which were delivered to him on 15th February 2014,acknowledgements for which have not been received from the post office but the indiapost.gov.in website shows that the letters have been delivered. 5) No reply has been received for any of the 4 RTI application from the PIO of Tehsildar's Office. 6) What procedure should be followed for filing complaints to the Maharshtra SIC Pune Bench regarding denial of information? 7) What is the format of the complaint & what points should be raised in the complaint? So please help me in this matter.
  16. In yet another case of blatant disregard to RTI Act, Allahabad University Registrar has yet again made deliberate attempt to deny information to RTI Applicant. The Commission also observed during various hearings that the Registrar of the University who is designated as an Appellate Authority, does not respond to any of the appeals put up before him. In the light of his continued intransigence, the VC may like to initiate appropriate action against the Registrar. The CIC has recoded in the decision that "A copy of this order be marked to the Vice Chancellor, Allahabad University, Prof A.K.Singh with directions to ensure that the officials tasked with the responsibility of providing information under the RTI Act discharge their duties in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It seems that a deliberate attempt has been made in the instant case to deny information to the appellant, Shri Avinash Dube. The Commission also observed during various hearings that the Registrar of the University who is designated as an AA, does not respond to any of the appeals put up before him. In the light of his continued intransigence, the VC may like to initiate appropriate action against the Registrar. The Commission would like to have a report from the Vice Chancellor on the measures taken in regard to setting right the deficiencies observed in implementation of various provisions of the RTI Act, within thirty days from date of receipt of this order." Registrar Allahabad University Earlier Vide RTI dt 21.7.12, RTI Applicant had sought information on 3 points relating to purchase of utensils and chairs for 2010-11 for the hostels of Allahabad University. An appeal was filed on 14.2.13 as no information was provided. Appellant submitted that despite a lapse of over one and a half years, information sought has been deliberately denied to him. Moreover, the FAA Prof VP Singh has failed to hear his first appeal. CIC disposed of the appeal recording that "The Commission finds that various officials of the University are deliberately acting in a manner which is against the spirit of the RTI Act. " You should read the RTI Act Section 20 (2) in this reference which states "...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." Learn how to become RTI Activist here and do something about it. File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/001244 Shri Avinash Dube, Allahabad Vs Allahabad University, Allahabad 20.01.2014
  17. My daughter has submitted one RTI application to the APIO Miyapur Police station seeking certain information in connection my pending case in which they are trying to protect accused.( two pages application attached as MiyapurSHO_RTI_appln & MiyapurSHO_RTI_appln1 2 pages) they replied tactfully and not furnished any information by quotation on Gova High court judgement and they hav e nota informed any details of authorities to appeal further.(attached the scan copy of APIO reply as MiyapurSHO_RTI_reply 1 & 2) kindly advise me to proceed further with regards krkpsnl
  18. How important is 2 Rupees in RTI? If you go by the latest decision of CIC, the CPIO thinks it is. The information was denied for depositing extra two rupees for obtaining the information from Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata. The complaint was lodged at CIC against the CPIO. CIC however, referred the matter to First Appellate Authority (FAA) who disposed of the appeal upholding that RTI applicant should deposit exact 8 rupees instead of Rupees 10. 2 Rupees in RTI Earlier applicant submitted that he has not been provided information sought vide his RTI dt 21.3.09 even though he had submitted the photocopying charges.CPIO/DCIT HQ(Admn) Kolkata, vide letter dt 9.4.09 asked appellant to deposit Rs 8 as photocopying charges. The appellant remitted Rs 10 which was not accepted by CPIO and advised the appellant to remit Rs 8 only vide letter dt 23.4.09. A complaint was lodged with the CIC on 20.4.11. CIC vide order dt 12.4.13 remanded the matter to the FAA. AA vide order dt 13.8.13, disposed of the appeal upholding the decision of the CPIO. The whole RTI initiated by Shri Sukumar Mondal in the year 2009 was decided in the year 2013, where the CIC finally observed that the stand of the CPIO and the FAA in turning down the request for supply of information on the grounds that the appellant instead of submitting Rs 8 had submitted Rs 10, is not tenable. The submission of two extra rupees cannot be a ground for denying information to the appellant. And then, CIC directed CPIO to provide information in the next 10 days on 16.12.2013. Rajiv Mathur) Central Information Commissioner File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000842 Appellant: Shri Sukumar Mondal, Midnapore Public Authority: DCIT (Hqrs)(Admn.) and Addl. CIT (Hqrs.) (Admn.), Kolkata Date of Hearing: 16.12.2013 Date of decision: 16.12.2013 Link to Decision: http://rti.cc/40 What are your views? Does this deserve a silent acceptance from us?
  19. Dear members, I have been using RTI since its inception but i am not much conversant in RTI technicalities therfore need your valuable suggestions in the below mentioned RTI application that i had filed. 1. Filed RTI application against Bar council of Delhi on 6.8.2012. Application atttached name - Bar council of Delhi (actual sent to BCD).doc 2. No reply was recieved within stipulated time hence filed First Appellate Authority 8.9.2012.Application atttached name - First applette authority BCD 4.9.12.doc (26.5 KB) 3. No reply was recieved within stipulated time hence moved to CIC on 13.10.2012.Application atttached name - 2nd Appeal in CIC against BCD sent.doc (29.0 KB) 4. Then on 3.12.2013 Hon'ble IC passed an order that "In order to avoid multiple proceedings under sections 18 and 19 of the RTI Act, viz., complaints & appeals, this case is remitted to CPIO, Bar Council of Delhi (along with copy of complaint and RTI-request), ". Most Importantly no hearing had taken place. Order attached name - CIC_SS_A_2012_003509_M_96085.pdf (161.7 KB) 5. Then as per order no reply was provided by CPIO within two weeks.So reappealed to First Appellate Authority BCD 07.1.2013 Application atttached name - reapeal to First applette authority BCD.doc (27.0 KB) 6. Still no reply was recieved so again moved to CIC 13.02.2013 and hearing date was Scheduled for 4 October, 2013. But no one was pressent at the hearing from BCD. So order and showcause notice was issued by Hon'ble IC. Order attached name - CIC_SS_A_2013_000644_M_119723 7. Then after a year first ever communication was made by Bar Council Of Delhi and the information provided was incomplete and incorrect. So i again wrote it to CIC telling about the information reciceved from BCD dt 13.11.2013 .Letter attached name - letter to CIC after 1st reply from BCD 8. Then after that another hearing took place at CIC recently dt. 13.12.2013 but again no one from BCD. A reply to the order CIC_SS_A_2013_000644_M_119723 was conveyed to CIC and reason was that "the records are kept in basement and it got flooded with water due to bursting of water pipe" i do not have copy of reply provided by BCD in repect of showcause notice only reason was told. I have asked the CIC for reply as soon as i get it will upload it. All the deatils are present in the attachement. This is total harrasment by BCD and also not complying the CIC orders two times and the reason provided is absurd. The Hon'ble commissioner still hasn't initiated any disciplinary action against CPIO and FAA of BCD.I have prayed for compensation but not mentioned the amount only provided the ref. of 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. Can i go to consumer forum under Consumer Protection Act (CPA), 1986 for compensation for as i have given RTI application fee and asked for service and it is not provided to me i.e, denial of service? BR, Bhagwaan Singh New folder.zip
  20. I asked All India Chess federation under RTI for some information on rules and regulations of Chess tournaments and other relevant matters. The CPIO gave a repetitive, vague and same reply to 10 questions. Now i have drafted my first appeal. I have enclosed the reply of CPIO in zip file and my draft copy of first appeal in pdf. The reply from CPIO also contains my original request/questions. Kindly advise and guide. PIO reply1.zip Firstappeal1r.pdf
  21. I had applied for information under RTI Act in North Eastern Regional Institute of Science & Technology (NERIST) on 20th July, 2012. On 3rd August, they sent me a letter telling my application was on multiple issues and ask me to file for only one issue in a single application. I replied correlating my issues as single. But again they came with reply drawing my attention to Para 7.10 of PIO's guide to RTI "An application for information under the RTI Act should conform to the requirement of Section 6 (1), which was that the application should contain either one request or a single category of request. It is not open to any applicant to ask for every single information under the sun through a single RTI application and to expect that the information would be collected, collated and furnished to him within the time limit of 30 days" I have been looking for this Guide online but couldn't find. Please help how to deal this issue.
  22. kirank

    section 7(1)

    section 7(1) says if any information asked under this question should be answered in 48 hours. i have asked an institution to reveal some info relating to me under above mentioned section. But,the institution denied taht information to me by giving a reason that it is a secret matter. according to me im sure that its not come under secret information definition under RTI section 8(1). I have appealed the above qmtter to the satate information commision and that info commision saying that hearing of that case will come only after 5 to 6 months according to cause lists in the commision. but, if this is the case intention of applying the RTI become waste for me. and i have appealed the info commision for early hearing of my case, but the official present over there did not agree to the same. NOW WHAT CAN I DO REGARDING THIS ISSUE? WILL I ABLE TO GET MY JUSTICE FOR RTI? SOME PEOPLE SAY THE ONLY WAY TO TACKLE THIS IS APEEALING TO HIGH COURT WITH A WRIT PETITION. BUT, I DONT KNOW THE PROCEDURE OF FILING WRIT IN HIGH COURT AND I AM NOT IN POSITION TO HIRE A LAWYER FOR THE SAME SO. PEOPLE WHO ARE WELL VERSED IN THIS MATTER CAN U HELP ME IN REGARDING THIS.............................................................
  23. Please refer attachment which can be used while filing first or second appeal for denial of information quoting section 7.9 of RTI Act [Disproportionate diversion of resources] Disproportionate Diversion of Resources under RTI Act 2005 Section 7 (9) of RTI Act 2005 reads as under: In following cases it has been decided by CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, NEW DELHI that Section 7(9) of the Act does not provide ground for denial of information. 1. Decision No. CIC/OP/A/ 2009/ 000204-AD dated 12-01- 2010 2. Decision dated 12-03-2009 in appeal No.CIC/ WB/ A/ 2007/01042: 3. Decision dated 25.2.06 in appeal No.10/1/ 2005-CIC 4. Decision dated 26.3.2008 in appeal No.CIC/ WB/A/ 2007/00349 5. Decision dated 9.1.2009 in appeal No.CIC/ OK/ A/ 2008/01256 6. Decision dated 22.10.08 in Appeal No. CIC/ WB /A/2007/00528-SM 7. Decision No. CIC/OK/A/ 2008/ 01256/ SG/ 0937 dated 09-01-2009 Denial of information can only be under Section 8 (1) or Section 9. 8. Extract from Judgement dated 07-01-2010 of HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS in W.P.NO.20372 of 2009 and M.P.NO.1 OF 2009 Available at http://judis.nic.in/chennai/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=22544 9. Judgment dated 30-08-2010 of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in WP(C).No. 6532 of 2006(C) NOTE: Despite Office Memorandum N0.12/9/2009-IR dated 24-05-2010 of Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India, PIO cannot refuse information. He has to provide it in the form in which it is available. DoPT cannot amend RTI Act 2005. Gist: Thus section 7.9 relates to only form in which information has to be supplied. If supplying information in the form requested by the applicant does not disproportionately divert resources of public authority, then information has to be supplied in the requested form only. However, if there is a disproportionate diversion of resources to supply in requested form, then information has to be supplied in the form it is available without changing the form. PIO will have to justify how there is the disproportionate diversion of resources in changing form from existing form to requested form. For example, if the applicant has desired information in CD form and public authority is holding information in hard copies only, then CPIO has to supply in CD form if there is no disproportionate diversion of resources. However, if a large number of papers are to be scanned which may require huge resources [say by way of manpower etc] then PIO can supply in hard copies only and not in CD. Disproportionate diversion of resources can always be disputed by applicant by factoring probable expenditure in changing form and total annual administrative expenditure of public authority. Please also peruse:
  24. I am working as Assistant General Manager in State Bank of India.In the year 2007, departmental proceedings were initiated against me. Enquiry was held and concluded.Charges not proved.Decision of Disciplinary Authority still awaited. I sought from PIO details of my case i.e 1. when the enquiry report was put up by concerned officers to DA 2. what was the noting made by the DA 3. When the case was referred to Chief Vigilance officer of the bank etc. PIO has denied the information under section 8(h) taking a plea that since departmental proceedings are still pending against me and therefore the information sought by me can not be provided. What do I do now
  25. Hi, I do not have practical experience of using RTI. When officials send a response to an RTI query, are they supposed to follow a numbering system, or does any such system exist in actual practice, that could indicate whether the response is a denial or whether it is a memo about forwarding the query to another office or whether it is providing the information requested by the applicant? If such a system is followed, the numbering could further indicate the RTI sections under which the denial or forwarding has been done. If no such system exists, could such a system be proposed? It could help not just the applicants but the apex RTI bodies and the watchdogs too. Regards Mumbai Civic
  • Create New...

Important Information

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