CPIO is bound to implement the Order of FAA

CIC observed that no additional reply had been provided to the appellant even after a direction from the FAA to provide the requisite information vide his order dated 03.08.2018. CIC expressed its extreme displeasure towards the irresponsible attitude of the then CPIO who had not even paid heed to his own FAA’s order and had […]

CIC has held that S.8(1)(j) applies only to individuals or persons

CIC has held that in common language, the adjective “personal‟ is found applicable to “person”, an individual and not to an Institution or a Corporate; that the term “personal” cannot be related to Institutions, Organisations or Corporates and S. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act cannot be applied when the information concerns Institutions, Organisations or Corporates. […]

Information relating to commercial data of 3rd parties refused

CIC has upheld PIO’s decision to refuse disclosure of 3rd parties commercial data observing that disclosing of the commercial data of third party(s) has the potential of affecting their competitive position; that the appellant had not mentioned his relation with the concerned companies in the RTI application nor established any larger public interest in the […]

Request for disclosure of reasons for passing award refused

Applicant had sought information regarding the reasons on the basis of which award was given to Mr. Satish despite causing loss to the company with respect to maintenance of spare parts. The same was not considered. CIC agreed with the PIO observing that the appellant had not sought any specific documents and therefore, the CPIO […]

RTI applicant not entitled for copies of her own documents

CIC has held that the appellant is not entitled to seek her own documents in terms of the judgment of the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 26781 of 2013 and M.P. No. 1 of 2013 titled as The Central Information Commission v. B. Bharathi dated 17.09.2014, wherein, it is observed as follows:- “24. Insofar […]

CIC – collection and collation of information diverts the resources

Appellant had sought information regarding use of fly ash bricks by contract agency in construction work in Deolali cantt. PIO provided him an opportunity of inspection but he did not avail it. On Second Appeal, CIC held that information sought will require collection and collation of inputs disproportionately diverting the resources of public authority, attracting […]

RTI Act does not enable seeking clarification

The appellant wanted to know as to why he was not considered for appointment to the post of Railway Sub Inspector. PIO’s stand was that the appellant had sought information in the form of a query that is not covered within the definition of ‘information’ u/S 2(f) of the RTI Act. CIC., following the decision […]

Caste Certificate not disclosed

CIC in S.A. No. CIC/SERLK/A/2018/115309 DD 29-11-2019 – Dr. Bimal Kumar Raj … vs CPIO, M/o. Railways, South Eastern Railway following the decisions of the Delhi High Court dated 08.11.2013 in W.P.(C) 5812/2010 in UPSC v. Pinki Ganeriwal, and the order dated 01.07.2019 in W.P.(C) 776/2016 & CM. No. 3376/2016 in Baljeet Singh v. The […]

Disclosure of verification and promotion reports refused

CIC in S.A. No. CIC/SERLK/A/2018/115309 DD 29-11-2019 – Dr. Bimal Kumar Raj … vs CPIO, M/o. Railways, South Eastern Railway in terms of the legal principle enunciated by the Supreme Court Dt 31.08.2017 in CA No. 22 of 2009 in Canara Bank v. C.S. Shyam refused disclosure of copies of verification reports, promotion reports, etc. […]

CIC directs disclosure of official’s attendance details

RTI applicant had sought an official’s posting details, copy of attendance register, reasons for his absence and details of penalties imposed upon him. Directing disclosure of attendance details, CIC has observed that it is the duty of every public servant to attend the office on time and remain present during the working hours and that […]

RTI Act does not allow seeking futuristic or presumptive information

RTI application related to the requests regarding initiation of action for appointment of 74 employees. CIC has observed that the appellant is seeking futuristic /presumptive response w.r.t. redressal of his grievance, which the PIO is not obliged to answer under the RTI Act, 2005 in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of […]