Jump to content

New Download- Penalty on PIO quashed because no. of queries were too long

Recommended Posts


Respected Shri Karira ji,


My opinion in this issue is, had been the Respondent present his case personally or through an Attorney before the Delhi High Court, the end result might been different from what it delivered.


Hon'ble Madras High Court, in an earlier judgment in WP No. 20372 of 2009 and MP No. 1 of 2009, dated 07.01.2010, held as follows:


The other objections that they are maintaining a large number of documents in respect of 45

departments and they are short of human resources cannot be raised to whittle down the citizens’

right to seek information. It is for them to write to the Government to provide for additional staff

depending upon the volume of requests that may be forthcoming pursuant to the RTI Act. It is purely an internal matter between the petitioner archives and the State Government. The right to information having bee!? guaranteed by the law of Parliament, the administrative difficulties in

providing information cannot be raised. Such pleas will defeat the very right of citizens to have

access to information. Hence the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by

this court. The writ petition lacks in merit.”


Relying on this judgment, PIO cannot reject that stating that information sought is voluminous, shortage of manpower, etc.,


This is just my opinion sir, may be my contention is wrong or right.


With regards,


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Super Moderator



Yes, that is correct. Many appellants fail to appear in court in person or through a lawyer to defend the cases, which are filed by the public authority or the PIO. The result is obvious, as in the above case.


As a consequence, many other RTI applicants suffer due to no fault of theirs, since CIC/SIC will start using this judgment to dismiss second appeals. It has happened many times in the past including in the famous case of interpretation of Sec 18 by the Apex Court (State of Manipur Case).

Link to post
Share on other sites



Not only the CIC / SIC, but also many First Appellate Authorities are dismissing the appeals by relying on the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement held in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497.


I myself was the victim at the level of FAA.


With regards,


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prasad GLN

We are talking of FAA & ICs, even PSUs are denying information of four sentences stating the same reason that the information solicited was voluminous.

FAA naturally agrees with them and only at the time of second appeal hearing, it is IC that has to decide as to whether information is voluminous or not. But rarely IC imposes fine to such PIO for this type of denial for misleading appellant and IC (The information required is a pinpointed document of 3 A 4 size page, the information solicited runs to four sentences in all but a PA has denied the information and IC agreed with PIO)

I do not know as to further appeals at CIC takes their own earlier CIC decisions into account that state that this is not a reason for denial mentioned in Act or quotes Delhi HC to spare PIO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

  • Tell a friend

    Love RTI INDIA- Online RTI? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
    • Total Posts
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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