When information is dispersed in several documents, RTI does not require PIO to compile it

Respecting the appeal to the CIC., the PIO informed it that they had replied to the appellant that the information sought was available in various documents and had requested the appellant to inspect them in their office. CIC., after considering the submissions of the respondent and perusal of the records, observed that the information did not exist at one place and had to be compiled from various documents to answer the RTI application, that as per the RTI Act, such exercise of compilation was not expected from the CPIO and that the appellant had been given opportunity to inspect the documents related to his RTI application in their office and hence its intervention was not required.
Kundan Kishore vs CPIO, M/o Railways,
S.A. No. CIC/ECRHJ/A/2018/116037 DD 29-11-2019

If information sought is not held by the public authority, its disclosure does not arise

In respect of the request for information, CPIO replied that there was no information to be provided on the part of the RBI. CIC after perusal of records, felt that the details of the employees and related information sought by the appellant was not reported to the RBI and hence the information which was not in the custody of the public authority may not be made available to the appellant
Ruchi Goyal vs. CPIO: Reserve Bank of India,
S.A. No. CIC/RBIND/A/2018/609336 DD 25-11-2019

Citizens have the right to seek details of information relating to corruption cases

In Subhash v. State Information Commission, Haryana, (P&H) – Civil Writ Petition No. 17718 of 2014 (O&M). D/d. 26.7.2016 it has been held: “A citizen has right to seek detail of information of corruption cases pending against the serving and retired public servants. A citizen has right to seek detail of information of corruption cases pending against the serving and retired public servants -AIR 2011 PLH 168
Kamal Kishore Arora vs CPIO and others
File no.: CIC/MOCMI/A/2018/160203/03169 DD 18/03/2020

Citizens have a right to know if there are complaints against an official

In Kamal Kishore Arora v. Public Information Officer (SICP)- A.C. No. 673 of 2012. D/d. 4.7.2012, it was held by the Hon’ble Bench that: “…… every citizen has a right to know if there are any complaints against the concerned official. There is nothing in the Right to Information Act, 2005, which exempts from disclosure such information. The mere fact that the information is voluminous by itself would not authorise a PIO to deny the information. Further information pertaining to conduct of official duties of a public servant is not private information of individual official which may fall within Section 8(i)(j). Disclosure of public complaints against an official could never be considered an invasion of privacy of the officer concerned”
Kamal Kishore Arora vs CPIO and others
File no.: CIC/MOCMI/A/2018/160203/03169 DD 18/03/2020

When information is held under fiduciary relationship

Information which is required to be disclosed under any enactment and/or any provision of law, cannot be held to be given under fiduciary relationship.
In Reserve Bank of India v. Jayantilal N. Mistry (SC), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that:
“62. However, where information is required by mandate of law to be provided to an authority, it cannot be said that such information is being provided in a fiduciary relationship.”
Kamal Kishore Arora vs CPIO and others
File no.: CIC/MOCMI/A/2018/160203/03169 DD 18/03/2020

Information provided should be certified

CPIO had not certified the documents provided. .. appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply as the documents provided to him were not certified.
In the circumstances, CIC directed the PIO to resend the documents in the form of certified copies and also issued a strict warning to the PIO for not providing certified copies of the documents on time resulting in delay.
Shahnawaz Anwar vs CPIO., Maulana Azad Education Foundation
Case No. CIC/MAZEF/A/2018/634380/03192 DD 19/03/2020

CIC orders legal action for refusing to receive RTI application

The appellant submitted that his RTI application was returned as the OIC of RPF refused to receive his RTI application on the ground that no PIO is working at the unit. CIC directed to take appropriate legal action against the official who refused to accept the RTI application in question on the ground of non-appointment of CPIO.
Lalit Kumar Mishra vs CPIO, M/o Railways, East Coast Railway,
Complaint No. CIC/SERLK/C/2018/143305 DD 12-3-2020

Caste certificate of another employee is personal information and is exempted from disclosure

Delhi High Court in its order dated 01.07.2019 in W.P.(C) 776/2016 & CM. No. 3376/2016 titled as Baljeet Singh v. The Pio, Industrial Training Institute, Jahangirpuri &Anr has observed as follows:- “11. In the case in hand, the respondent no.2 has sought the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. The information is a personal information as the caste to which the petitioner belongs is an issue inter-se between the respondent no.1 and the petitioner i.e. between employer and employee and this aspect is governed by service rules. The disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity. In fact, it is held so by a Coordinate Bench of this court in UPSC v. Pinki Ganeriwal, W.P.(C) 5812/2010 decided on November 8, 2013.”
Jagdish Singh Parihar vs. CPIO, M/o. Railways, West Central Railway
S.A.No. CIC/WECRL/A/2018/144963 DD 19-3-2020

Educational certificates of other employee exempted from disclosure

Educational qualification certificates of some other employee available in the records of the public authority in a fiduciary relationship are exempted under Section 8(1)(e) r/w Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Also, there is no public interest in the matter. This position has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated 06.08.2013 in the Civil Appeal No. 6362/2013 titled as UPSC v. Gourhari Kamila.
Jagdish Singh Parihar vs. CPIO, M/o. Railways, West Central Railway
S.A.No. CIC/WECRL/A/2018/144963 DD 19-3-2020

Information denied apprehending endanger to the life or physical safety of the officers

Appellant had sought information pertaining to the names of CEO, A.E, J.E present at the time of sealing of the property which was not disclosed due to security reasons and disclosure of the same had no relationship to any larger public interest.
CIC upheld the said decision observing that disclosure of details of CEO, A.E, J.E who were present during sealing of the property may endanger the life or physical safety of the said officers and thus cannot be disclosed as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Ritesh Tanwar vs. CPIO, Delhi Cantonment Board
File No : CIC/DCBRD/A/2018/152730

 

Only information which is available on record can be provided

Appellant had sought information pertaining to a Mosque. CPIO submitted that the Appellant had been informed that they do not have any records pertaining to the construction/existence of relevant Mosque.
CIC held that only information which is available on record can be provided as per the provision of the RTI Act and as the information sought was not available on record it upheld the submission of the CPIO.
Ritesh Tanwar vs. CPIO, Delhi Cantonment Board
File No : CIC/DCBRD/A/2018/152723 DD 17-3-2020

 

Information denied apprehending endanger to the life or physical safety of the officers

Appellant had sought information pertaining to the names of CEO, A.E, J.E present at the time of sealing of the property which was not disclosed due to security reasons and disclosure of the same had no relationship to any larger public interest.
CIC upheld the said decision observing that disclosure of details of CEO, A.E, J.E who were present during sealing of the property may endanger the life or physical safety of the said officers and thus cannot be disclosed as per Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act.
Ritesh Tanwar vs. CPIO, Delhi Cantonment Board
File No : CIC/DCBRD/A/2018/152730

 

Only information which is available on record can be provided

Appellant had sought information pertaining to a Mosque. CPIO submitted that the Appellant had been informed that they do not have any records pertaining to the construction/existence of relevant Mosque.
CIC held that only information which is available on record can be provided as per the provision of the RTI Act and as the information sought was not available on record it upheld the submission of the CPIO.
Ritesh Tanwar vs. CPIO, Delhi Cantonment Board
File No : CIC/DCBRD/A/2018/152723 DD 17-3-2020

 

Only the information available, existing & held by PIO can be disclosed.

CIC has observed that under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under the control of the public authority can be provided and the CPIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. In support of its above decision, CIC has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandiah v. Administrative Officer in SLP (C).34868 of 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010)
Sandhya Das vs CPIO., EPFO,
File no.: – CIC/EPFOG/A/2019/135034 DD 16-3-2020