INTRODUCTION:

Right to Information Act 2005 mandates timely response to citizen requests for government
information. It is an initiative taken by Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions to provide a– RTI Portal Gateway to the citizens
for quick search of information on the details of first Appellate Authorities, PIOs etc.
amongst others, besides access to RTI related information / disclosures published on the
web by various Public Authorities under the government of India as well as the State
Governments.

Objective of the Right to Information Act :

The basic object of the Right to Information Act is to empower the citizens,promote
transparency and accountability in the working of the Government, contain corruption, and
make our democracy work for the people in real sense.It goes without saying that an
informed citizen is better equipped to keep necessary vigil on the instruments of
governance and make the government more accountable to the governed.The Act is a big
step towards making the citizens informed about the activities of the Government.

Here are a few case laws passed under the RTI Act, 2005

A. Police Department
B. Income Tax Department
C. Public Works Departments
D. Banks
E. Revenue

Case Law: 1

First Appellate Authority cum Additional Director General of Police and another vs. Chief
Information Commission Haryana and another
Facts of the Case:

1. Mr. Rajender Verma sought information under the provisions of Right to Information Act,
2005 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') in relation to the number of posts available
and filled in the cadre of the ASIs/SIs/Inspectors and language stenographers
2. This information was denied by State Public Information Officer, for the reasons that the
same is exempt from disclosure in view of the notification dated 29.12.2005 issued by the
Haryana Government under Section 24(4) of the Act. The appeal was also dismissed by
learned first Appellate Authority on 13.2.2009. However, the State Information
Commissioner, Haryana accepted the second appeal filed by respondent .

Legal Position:

Section 24(4) of the Right to Information act, 2005

“Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to such intelligence and security organizations,
being organizations established by the State Government, as that Government may, from
time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify: Provided that the information
pertaining to the allegations of corruption and human rights violations shall not be
excluded under this sub-section:

Provided further that in the case of information sought for is in respect of allegations of
violation of human rights, the information shall only be provided after the approval of the
State Information Commission and, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, such
information shall be provided within forty-five days from the date of the receipt of request.”

The question needs to be examined is whether the information in respect of encroachment

of the public land or of filling up the public post can be said to be the information
"pertaining to allegation of corruption".

Judgement passed:

The expression pertaining to allegation of corruption cannot be exhaustively defined. Toght

to Information Act, 2005 was enacted to establish the society governed by law in which
corruption has no place. The Act envisages a transparent public office. Therefore, even in
organizations which are exempt from the provisions of the Act, in terms of the notification
issued under Section 24(4) of the Act, still information which relates to corruption or the
information which excludes the allegation of corruption would be relevant information and
cannot be denied for the reasons that the organization is exempted under the Act.

The information sought in the present case is in respect of the number of vacancies which
have fallen to the share of the specified category and whether such posts have been filled
up from amongst the eligible candidates. If such information is disclosed, it will lead to
transparent administration which is antithesis of corruption. If organization has nothing to
hide or to cover a corrupt practice, the information should be made available. The
information sought may help in dispelling favoritism, nepotism or arbitrariness. Such
information is necessary for establishing the transparent administration. Therefore, we do
not find any illegality in the order passed by the State Information Commissioner, Haryana
and affirmed by learned Single Judge in the orders impugned in the present appeals.

Case Law: 2
Smt. Jagvinder Kaur, Vs. Public Information Officer,

Facts of the case:

1. Jagvinder Kaur vide her application dated 08.09.2009, addressed to the PIO, office of
the SSP, Bathinda had sought information under Right to Information Act, as per the
details mentioned below: –
 Attested copies of complete inquiry report alongwith noting file.
 Attested copies of complete case diary (Zimni) relating to FIR No. 36 dt.
18.03.09.

2. The said information was denied by the SSP, Bathinda

3. Aggrieved against the denial of the information under RTI, Jagvinder Kaur filed a
complaint with the State Commission alleging that the PIO has failed to provide
information within the specified time under Section 7(1) of the Right to Information
 Act. It was further alleged that the information sought concerns the life and liberty
of her husband, who is in judicial custody and lodged in Bathinda jail.
4. During the course of hearing, the difference of opinion between the complainant
and the respondent was narrowed down to only one issue: – Whether attested
copies of complete case diary (Zimni) relating to FIR No. 36/9 of Police Station
Rampura Phool could be obtained by the complainant under the provisions of the
Right to Information Act?
5. On this issue, the respondent’s stand is that this information can not be supplied as
there is a specific bar imposed by Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. against supply of this
information. Also There is a bar under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act against supply of
document in cases where prosecution of offenders is pending in court of law.
6. Complainant on the other hand argued that Section 22 of the RTI Act overrides all
other Acts for the time being in force. To the extent the provisions of Section 172
and 172(3) Cr.P.C. are contrary to the substantive provisions of The Right to
Information Act, these Sections of Cr.P.C shall stand superseded and will have no
adverse effect on the request of an information seeker. He further argued that in the
present case, ‘challan’ has been presented in the Court. Since investigation has been
completed and trial is under process before the judicial court, discloser of
information relating to case-diary (Zimni) could not possibly have any prejudicial
effect on investigation or prosecution of the accused. The information, therefore,
should not be denied under provisions of RTI Act.

Legal Position:

Section 22: –

“Act to have overriding effect. – The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding
anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Officials Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and
any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any
law other than this Act.”
Discussions and principles of law Applied

1. The provisions of Section 22 have an overriding effect and therefore it must be

held that so far as supply of information under RTI Act is concerned, the provisions
of Section 172 Cr. P. C shall not act as a bar.
2. The next question which needs to be determined is: whether a case diary is an
information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
3. From the description of case diary in Section 172(1) of the Cr.P.C, it is clear that a
case diary is nothing but a record of the sequence of investigation and the various
stages or steps of investigation reduced in writing on a sheet of paper/s. A case-
diary therefore would be a paper and a document or a logbook well within the
meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is also a memo, which is colloquial for
memorandum. A case diary therefore certainly falls well within the definition of
word ‘information’ as defined in the RTI Act.
4. Coming to the second argument of the respondent that the information is exempt
from disclosure under Section 8 of RTI Act, it is correct that the “information which
would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of
offenders” can be withheld. Under Section 8(1) (h), there is no legal obligation to
give such information to an information seeker.
5. It is true that under Section 8(h) exemption can be availed, if disclosure of the
information would impede the process of prosecution. However, it is not an
automatic exemption implying that in each and every case where investigation or
prosecution is pending, information is not discloseable. For the respondent, it is not
enough to merely plead that investigation or prosecution is pending; he has to plead
and show that such a discloser of information would impede the process of
investigation or prosecution etc. Without substantiating such a plea or without giving
any cogent justification, the information cannot be withheld. The respondent should
not only allege but also at least prima facie show that disclosure of information
would impede the process of investigation / prosecution etc.  In the present case,
investigation has been completed and ‘challan’ has been presented. Trial is going
on in the court. The respondent has not shown how and in what way discloser of
 the case diary at this stage, will impede the prosecution of the accused. No reason
or justification has come forward from the respondent.

Judgement passed: complainant has a right to access the information sought by him and
the respondent is under a statutory obligation to supply attested copies of the case dairy
to him

Case Law: 3

Shri Rajeev Bhardwaj vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 25 July, 2011

Facts of the case:

1. The appellant in his application requested for all the documents available in the
Prosecution/judicial file with regard to FIR i.e. all case diaries, all correspondences,
file notings, prosecution scrutiny records and all others documents available on
Prosecution/judicial file.
2. The Appellant had filed his RTI application with the Directorate of Prosecution after
the charge sheet had already been filed by the Delhi Police.
3. The Directorate of Prosecution had transferred the said RTI application to PIO, Delhi
Police, Police Headquarter.
4. The CPIO and FAA of Delhi Police in their respective orders have stated that
disclosure of requested information i.e. case diary, is exempted under Section 8(1)
(h) of the RTI Act as the disclosure of
Appeal No's CIC/WB/A/2008/01348 & CIC/WB/C/2008/00527SM such information
will impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders.
5. At the time of hearing before the Commission, it was put to the Respondent to show
as to how the disclosure of the requested information would impede the process of
investigation or for that matter, hamper the process of prosecution, to which the
Respondent failed to furnish any response to the Commission other than
citing Section 172(3) of CrPC.
 6. On the other hand the Appellant had submitted that the disclosure of requested
information does not fall under any of the exemptions enlisted under Section 8(1) of
the RTI Act and particularly, clause (h) therein. The Appellant has submitted that in
the present case the investigation is over and police has already filed the charge
sheet before the concerned Court. So now, at this stage, the argument that
disclosure will impede the process of investigation appears nothing but tenuous to
the Commission.

Judgement:

The Commission, in the special facts and circumstances of the present appeal holds that all
the entries in case diaries pertaining to the arrest of the appellant and other documents
requested to be disclosed by the Appellant, if held and maintained by PS Malviya Nagar with
respect to FIR No. 348/07 shall be disclosed to the Appellant as the disclosure of such
information would not in any manner impede the process of prosecution or investigation as
already discussed above at length and Directorate of Prosecution claims that they are not
relying upon the documents asked under the RTI Application addressed to them.

For Income Tax Department:

Case Law: 1

Shri Milap Choraria v.Central Board of Direct Taxes [Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2008/00628,
date of decision: 15-06-2009]

Facts of the case:

The son of the Appellant got married with Ms. Sushmita Karnavat in 1996 and the wife and
they started living separately in 2003 due to differences - Smt. Sushmita Choraria lodged FIR
No. 151/2007 at Police Station Shiv Pur, against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law
and certain other members of the Choraria family - The case was registered u/s 498A IPC
read with sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Domestic Violence Act etc. on
the allegations that FIR named accused forced Smt. Sushmita Karnavat's father Inder Chand
Karnavat to give dowry valued at about rupees 50 lacs in the marriage.

Year-wise Income and Expenditure - In this context, the Appellant had requested for
information relating to year-wise Income and Expenditure shown by his daughter-in-law
Smt. SushmitaKarnavat in her Income Tax Returns from 1995 onwards - The CPIO after
hearing the third party i.e. Smt. SushmitaKarnavat, refused to disclose information in terms
of section 8(1)(d), (e), (g) & (j) of RTI Act.

Discussions & Findings:

The Appellant pleaded that section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act was not attracted as the ITRs are
filed under the mandate of law and, therefore, the question of fiduciary relationship
between the assessee and Income Tax Department does not arise -Further, section 8(1)(g)
was not attracted as disclosure of information was not likely to endanger the life of Smt.
Sushmita Karnavat - The appellant claimed that he required this information in order to
defend himself in the criminal case instituted against him and his entire family by Smt.
SushmitaKarnavat - Information sought by would lead to his exoneration in the criminal case
instituted against him and, thus, it would be in larger public interest - The appellant also
claimed that the provision of Section 11 cannot be applied in respect of any documents
including Income Tax Returns and comments submitted therewith by a Tax Payer or any
other person under the mandate of the provision of any law.

Section 138 of the IT Act - The respondent submitted that the disclosure of IT Returns would
set a dangerous precedent and open up a pandora's box - Section 138 of the IT Act provides
absolute discretion to the Commissioner of Income Tax for disclosure of IT Returns if it is in
public interest so to do - It is also his submission that it is open to the Appellant to obtain an
order from a Court whereupon the Income Tax Authorities would produce copies of the IT
Returns before the Court and the Court would then decide whether to disclose them or no -
It is his further submission that disclosure of IT Returns is likely to be misused by the
Appellant or his son to the detriment of Smt. Sushmita Karnawat .
Judgement passed:

The Commission ruled that the Income Tax Returns have been rightly held to be 'personal
information' exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) and the appellant herein has not been
able to establish that a larger public interest would be served by disclosure.
Case Law: 2

Shri Philips C. Abraham v. Income Tax Department, Chennai

Facts of the case:

The complainant was an employee of a company called NEPC Micon Limited, Chennai - He
submitted that TDS was deducted from his monthly salary during January, 1996 to March,
1997and in proof thereof, he has produced two salary bills showing that TDS of Rs. 12,267
each was deducted for these two months - It is the complainant's claim that total TDS
deduction amounts to Rs. 1,33,937 for the whole period but the same was not remitted to
the Income Tax Department - Hence, he sought information as to whether the TDS
deductions were remitted to the Income Tax Department or not - It was informed M/s. NEPS
Micon Limited had not remitted his TDS deductions to the Income Tax Department.

Income Tax remittance of a company - The complainant request to let him know whether
TDS deductions in respect of other employees of the aforesaid company were remitted to
the Income Tax Department or not and to give him names and designations of employees in
respect of whom TDS was deducted and the quantum thereof - It was refused u/s 8(1)(j) of
the RTI Act - It appears that he had filed another RTI application before the CPIO wherein he
wanted to know as to what action had been taken by the Income Tax Department against
the company for the non-remittance. The CPIO had informed him vide letter dated
05/12/2007 that third party information could not be disclosed to him in terms of clause (j)
of section 8(1).

Discussions & Findings:

Clear allegations of cheating - In view of an impression that the company appears to have
played foul with the Appellant in the matter of non-remittance of his TDS deductions, the
Commission directed the Addl. CIT, Chennai, to cause an inquiry into the matter as to
whether any TDS deductions were made from the salary of the complainant for the period
for which he was in the service of M/s. NEPC, Micon Limited and whether these deductions
were remitted to the Income Tax Department and submit a report to the Commission in six
weeks with proposed line of further action –
Judgement passed:

Further, the Commission observed that the decision dated 05-12-2007 of CPIO to the effect
that the names and designations of 63 employees and the quantum of TDS deductions made
by the company cannot be disclosed to the complainant in terms of clause (j) of the RTI Act
does not appear to be sustainable in law in as much as secrecy cannot be permitted when
there are loud and clear allegations of cheating, forgery, defalcation of accounts and
embezzlement.
Case Law: 3

Ms. Anumeha, C/o Association for Democratic Reforms, New Delhi v. Income Tax

[Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2007/01029, 01263 to 01270, dated 29-4-2008]

Facts of the case:

The appellant sought to know whether the political parties identified by her submitted their
Income Tax Returns for the years 2002-03 to 2006-07, PAN Nos. allotted to these parties
and also sought copies of the Income Tax Returns filed by the political parties –

Discussions & Findings:

as this was third party information the Commission afforded hearing to all the political
parties, who opposed the disclosure - the Commission held that political parties are
essentially civil society institutions and are, therefore, non-governmental - their uniqueness
lies in the fact that inspite of being non-governmental, political parties come to wield or
directly or indirectly influence, exercise of governmental power - it is this link between State
power and political parties that has assumed critical significance in the context of the Right
of Information - transparency in funding of political parties in a democracy is the norm and
must be promoted in public interest - in the present case that promotion is being effected
through the disclosure of the Income Tax Returns of the political parties.

Judgement passed:

The Commission directed that the public authorities shall provide to the appellant Income
Tax Returns of the political parties filed with them and also the Assessment Orders for the
period mentioned in the RTI-application - the Commission, however, directed that there
should be no disclosure of the PANs of such parties.
Case Law: 4

Shri S.P. Goyal v.Income Tax (Inv), Ludhiana

Facts, Discussions & Findings:

Section 8(1)(j) - Inspection of files connected with certain search and seizure operation
carried out by the Income Tax Department against the appellant's "group concerns" during
1993 sought - the Commission observed that the information is personal and does not
involve any public purpose - therefore, exempted u/s 8(1)(j).

Letters written by the appellant to the public authority - The Commission ruled that as the
originator of that correspondence, he was the main custodian of the letters, which cannot
be said to be held by or under the exclusive control of the public authority.

Section 8(1)(g) - Search and Seizure - The Commission observed that Public authorities
engaged in law enforcement receive confidential information from their informants or other
sources - disclosure of such information may lead to inflicting avoidable injury on such
informants as well as compromising their ability to effectively assist the public authority in
its law enforcement function –

Judgement Passed:

when a person at the receiving end of the law-enforcement seeks to subvert the process by
invoking the RTI Act to contrive to access vital information critical to that process, the
provisions of the Act have to be strictly interpreted to make sure that larger public interest
is not allowed to suffer - the information also held exempt u/s 8(1)(g).
Case Law: 4

Shri Sunit Shah v. Income Tax Department

Facts of the case:

A Survey Team of the Income Tax Department visited the commercial premises of the
Appellant accompanied by a number of security personnel. Additional police personnel
were also requisitioned later on. In this connection, the Appellant had filed two RTI
applications dated 28-03-2008 and dated 10-05-2008 for seeking information on certain
points.

The number of officials deployed in the survey team which continued at the premises for 23
hours along with their names, designations, place of posting of each member, address and
telephone numbers of each and every official; the authority who was monitoring the survey
team; the number of armed policemen deployed along with survey team, designation,
telephone number and address of each and everybody; the Number of vehicles, classified
vehicle alongwith registration number; How much amount was expended on the Dinner,
Breakfast and Lunch brought from Nathu's Sweets and whether it was debited to official
account etc. In subsequent RTI application, the Appellant had sought information how many
authorized persons were indicated on the authorization letter in respect of 188, Gopal Park,
Chander Nagar, Delhi, along with their names; Names of persons and their number who put
signatures as witnesses on authorization letter; How many officers, staff members,
inspectors and peons were deployed in the survey team repeating some earlier questions.

Discussions & Findings:

The Commission noted that the Survey was conducted under the authority of law and the
competent Authority had authorized certain officers to conduct the Survey - The
Commission observed that the "… plea of the Income Tax Department that disclosure of
names and designations of the officers deployed in the Survey would cause them
harassment, intimidation and even personal threats appears to be rather far-fetched. The
officers deployed in the Survey are public servants and, admittedly, they have acted under
the colour of the office and they cannot be expected to be so fragile as to insist on keeping
their identities secret while discharging their official duties. The society expects them to be
made of sterner stuff. It may also be apt to refer to the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal wherein it has been held that the police
officers causing an arrest will not only be in uniform but also bear the name plates and in
the eventuality of arrest of any person, would inform the next of kin of the arrestee or his
friend about the arrest having been caused as also about the place where the arrestee is
being detained. This ruling is applicable to the case in hand to some extent in as much as the
officials of the Income Tax Department were performing their public duties while conducting
the Survey and, therefore, there appears to be no harm if their names and designations are
intimated to the Appellant. It is also to be noted that some of this information is disclosable
even otherwise u/s 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act" - The Commission held that the plea of the
Appellant that the amount spent on the breakfast, lunch and dinner of the Survey Team and
the source thereof should be intimated to him appears to be rather trite - The plea of the
respondent that a small amount was spent on it which was contributed by the members of
the Survey Team and that no reimbursement was claimed from the Government appears to
be on the right lines.

Judgement Passed:

The Commission directed to disclose the following information within three weeks time to
the Appellant:- (1) The names, designations and the places of posting of officers and
inspectors of the Department who were deployed in the Survey work; (2) The name and
designation of the authority which was monitoring the Survey Team may be disclosed; and
(3) The registration number of vehicles - whether Departmental or hired - used in the Survey
work may be disclosed as per records.

IMPORTANT RTI CASES UNDER PWD

Case Law: 1
Shri S. K. Marwah vs Public Works Department (Hereinafter Pwd) , on 21 July, 2008

Facts of the case: Two appeals were received from Shri. S. K. Marwah of Munirka, New
Delhi. In his application on 2.3.2007 Shri. Marwah asked has asked the executive Engineer
PWD division No. 12, NCTD for copies of 18 sets of documents. Shri Marwah moved a
second appeal before CIC. His complaint was, "Most of the records and documents
demanded by me under RTI Act 2005 are tempered as per the details given in my
application 8.4.2007 and annexure-I enclosed with it. The documents have been refused at
all levels."

Shri Marwah made a request to the Executive Engineer for copies of six sets of documents
and it was refused on 15.3.2007.
The reason for refusal: Stating that he should obtain this directly from the Executive
Engineer, PWD, New Delhi. He should also send the pay order in his favour. (Reason:
It is not possible to get it deposited in Govt. Account.)

1. Distressed by this response, Shri Marwah moved his appeal to Chief Engineer PWD
Zone-1 only to get the same letter dated 15.3.2007.
2. The appeal was heard on 21.7.2008.
Regarding File No: CIC/WB/A/2007/00662, the appeal is as follows:
i) The First Appellate Authority has not applied his mind when he sent his reply
to the appellant.”
ii) He just forwarded the copy of PIO’s letter with a note stating, that he was
requested to refer the reply.
iii) PIO also mentioned in his letter that all the necessary records available with
that office were already sent to Shri Marwah. The records which were
required do not necessarily have to be in PIO’s office. PIO never stated this
before the Central Information Commission.
iv) The Appellant’s Appeal stated to a matter which is highly technical. Chief
Engineer of the zone (who is the FIRST APELLATE AUTHORITY) who has the
 necessary documents has avoided his responsibility to give his decision under
RTI ACT, 2005 which itself is doubtful.
v) It was requested that FIRST APELLATE AUTHORITY should be asked to file his
reply or decision under RTI ACT, 2005. He should also submit all the
documents in support before the Honourable CIC.
3. For file CIC/WB/A/2007/00661, Shri Marwah pleaded as follows:
i) It was a technical matter and from the records it is shown that THE FIRST
APELLATE AUTHORITY has not acted on this matter and avoided his
responsibility by not giving his decision under RTI ACT, 2005
ii) THE FIRST APELLATE AUTHORITY may be asked to file his reply or decision
with reasons in front of Honourable Central information Commission.

Judgement Passed:

For CIC/WB/A/2007/00662:

i) It is clear that THE FIRST APELLATE AUTHORITY (I.E CHIEF ENGINEER) has neither
heard the Appellant nor “applied his mind” in response to the information
sought.
ii) If indeed tampering of documents occurred then it is Chief Engineer’s
responsibility to satisfy himself as to if and when such tampering took place in
connection with the RTI application. It would cause penalties u/s 20(1).

iii) This file is therefore, remanded to Chief Engineer PWDZone 1 for examination of
the appeal. A decision should be made within fifteen working days of the date of
issue of this Notice.

For CIC/WB/A/2007/00661:

i) This is clear case of refusal of information on unsustainable grounds.

3
ii) Under the RTI ACT, 2005 SEC 6(3)(i), Even if the information sort not been held by
PWD this was required to be transferred to PWD from any other Dept.
iii) However in this case the concerned official (CHIEF ENGINEER) holding the
information is within the same PUBLIC AUTHORITY i.e. PWD. Besides no such
initiatives has been taken.
iv) Therefore it was mandatory for the concerned PIO to seek the assistance of the
concerned officer under section 5(4) to provide the information sought by the
Appellant.
v) He directed to obtain this information within fifteen working days from the date of
the issue of this notice.

Case Law 2:

Shri Varun Krishna vs Public Works Department (Hereinafter PWD), on 27 th August, 2020

Facts of the case: The Appellant filed two RTI Applications seeking information on the
following four points about grievances registered NO: i) GNCTD/E/2018/00215 and ii)
ARNPG/E/2018/00167. The appellant was seeking daily progress from the date of receipt of
his letter till current date. He also wanted to know the Names, Designations, Official Mobile
Numbers of the officers with whom his grievances were lying. Also the detailed action taken
by his or her on that matter. He did not receive any reply from the PIO so he filed a
complaint in the Commission for case no: CIC/PWDDL/C/2018/627153. In case of
CIC/PWDDL/C/2018/630853, first appeal date was scheduled. He did not receive any reply
so he filed a complaint in the Commission. Respondent claims that with respect to case no:
CIC/PWDDL/C/2018/627153, the applicant was informed that the subject matter does not
pertain to PWD, but pertains to MCD and DJB. Also it was confirmed by the respondent that
the subject matter was not transferred to the appropriate custodian of information. With
respect to the case no: CIC/PWDDL/C/2018/630853 the respondent confirmed that no
action was taken. With the case number CIC/PWDDL/C/2018/627155 the applicant was
seeking information about construction work on the road adjacent to Dashmeesh Public
School, Vasundhara Enclave. His questions were

i) He wanted to know the total width of the Dashmeesh Public School and the
proof of its master plan.
 ii) He wanted a copy of the tender. Document’s Technical Specification page
along with Website link where all the details were posted.
iii) He wanted a copy of Purchase order issued to the contractor along with the
total width of the road.
1. He did not receive any reply from PIO. So he filed the complaint in the Commission.
2. Appellant pointed out that in all the cases respondent has not taken any action.

Judgement Passed:

1. There has been lapse of action from the side of the respondent in above all three
cases.
2. The respondent did not take steps to response against the grievances. The
respondent did not provide the correct answer to the RTI Applicant.
3. “The conduct of the respondent reflects total disregard of the law and violation
of the provision of RTI act.”
4. Respondent did not attempt to justify their action during the hearing.

5. “ Such a callous and indifferent attitude of Public Official not only leads to failure
to perform their public duty but is also detrimental to the spirit and purpose of
the RTI ACT, 2005”.
6. After considering all these complaints the Registry of the bench issued a “SHOW
CAUSE Notice” to Shri. Vishnu Rathod-AE (P), PWD -by the Commission “FOR
WILFUL CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE RTI ACT”, BY
i) Obstructing the supply of information
ii) Non implementation of the provision of section 6(3) of the RTI ACT, 2005.
iii) Not transferring the RTI Application to appropriate custodian of
information without any reasonable cause.

CASE 3: Central Information Commission Neeraj Pant vs Public Works Department Delhi on
28 December, 2017 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Room No.414, Baba Gangnath
Marg, Munirka
FACTS of the Case: 1. Appellant through his RTI application had sought for information in
relation to work being undertaken in B122 and 123 by the dept. relating to detais of the
work in progress and the ones completed.

2. Having received no information within the prescribed period, he made a First Appeal.
Claiming nonfurnishng of information, the appellant has approached the commission in
Second Appeal. CIC/SA/A/2014/001417 Page 1 Decision:

3. Both the parties made their submissions. The respondent officers submitted that the RTI
application pertained to another division of the PWD, namely, Division No.B123 to which it
was transferred under intimation to the appellant.

Judgement: The Commission, therefore, directs the PIO/Division No.B123, PWD to furnish
the information to the appellant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The
appeal is disposed of.

CASE 4: Mr. Raju Kumar Singh VS PWD CIC/PWDDL/A/2018/621771

Facts of the Case: Appellant sought information through 7 points pertaining to an email
dated 29.01.2018 complaining poor construction of a nallah cover to various officers
including PWD Minister.

Provide the date and diary number of which said grievence had been registered with each
official or dept separately.
What was the reason that he could not hear from anyone after three weeks.?
How long it will take to repair the said Nallah Cover?
iv) To provide the name and addresses of the contractor by whom the said
nallah cover were constructed with a copy of Bill submitted by the
contractor for payment.
 2. Respondant’s answer; Communication letter dated 14.02.2020 was received by the
PIO/Office Supt., PWD intimating that the instant RTI Application was received online
on 20.02.2020 it was transferred to the respective dept.

Judgement: Upon perusal of facts on record as well as on the basis of the submission
of the Respondant during hearingCIC observed that the instant RTI application has
been transferred repeatedly between various authorities and the same has not been
annexed by the Appellant while filing the second appeal. Commission also observed
that the respondant failed in transferring the present RTI application to the
appropriate authority .

Under the given circumstances the Commission deems it fit to remand the instant
case back to the FAA/SE, PWD, IP Estate, New Delhi to determine the actual
custodian of information, transfer the RTI to them and pass a reasoned, within 4
weeks from the date of issue of this order, failing of which appropriate legal action
will be taken against the errant officers.

Banks

Case Law 1:

Shri Mukul Srivastava vs Indian Institute Of Banking & ... on 9 February, 2010

Facts of the case:

In this case, the Complainant had approached the Indian Institute of Banking and Finance
(Institute) on February 24, 2009 seeking a number of information in respect of the JAIIB
Examinations held on 18 November 2007 including the complete scores/marks obtained by
the candidates for both the exams with their respective answer sheets. On behalf of the
Institute, in a reply dated 19 March 2009, he was informed that it was not a Public
Authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act and, hence, could not provide him with
any of information. The Complainant has, thus, come before the Central Information
Commission seeking direction to the Institute for providing him with the desired
information.

Discussions & Findings:

not only the policy making and executive bodies of this Institute are substantially manned
by the senior executives of the Public Sector Banks and the bulk of its finances also come
directly or indirectly from those Banks. The services of the Institute are largely subscribed to
and enjoyed by the Public Sector Banks and their employees. There is a very close
relationship between the Public Sector Banks and this Institute, almost verging on mutual
dependence. The defining characteristics of a Non-Governmental Organisation as a Public
Authority, as per Section 2(h)(ii), is that it should be substantially financed directly or
indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. This Institute, is a Non
Governmental Organisation being substantially financed by the Public Sector Banks directly
and indirectly is nothing but a Public Authority. We, therefore, hold that this Institute is a
Public Authority and the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act shall apply to it
completely.

Besides, as far as its activities are concerned, this Institute conducts various examinations
for the officers and the employees of the Banks, CIC/SM/C/2009/00610-SM predominantly
from the Public Sector Banks. The services rendered by it through holding of examinations
and setting standards for the Banking sector is a public service even if the participants have
to pay a fee for taking the examinations. There is a little difference this Institute and other
such bodies as the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), Indian Institute of
Chartered Accounts, Institute of Cost and Work Accountants of India and others which
conduct various examinations in their respective fields with a view to setting benchmarks
and standards and giving marks/scores and certificates on the basis of which the society
evaluate the merits of those individuals. Thus, this Institute not only fulfils the condition of
substantial financing as stipulated in Section 2(h)(ii), it also performs public service covering
a vast section of population. Therefore, there is no doubt that this Institute is a Public
Authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and
subjected to that the provisions of the Right to Information Act shall extend to it.
Judgement Passed:

Institute must appoint a Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) within 30 working days
from the receipt of this order and provide the desired information to the Complainant
within the same period. A compliance of our order be sent to us immediately thereafter.

Case Law 2:

Mrmahesh Chander Kantharia vs State Bank Of India on 5 August, 2016

The appellant, Shri Mahesh Chandra Kantharia, through his RTI application sought following
information in respect of a current bank account of M/s Trimurti Textiles Industries,
Madanganj, Kishangarh, maintained at SBI's Madangang, Kishanganj branch: 1. copy of
account statement for the period from 18.01.1991 to 30.06.1992; 2. copies of form,
registers and other records prepared on 28.10.1992 in connection with renewal of loan in
respect of said account; and 3. copy of SBI's rules relating to renewal of loan, enforced
during the years 1990 to 1995.

The CPIO provided a copy of account statement to the appellant as sought in point no. 1 of
the RTI application and denied the information on point no. 2 on the ground of non
availability, while mentioning that the information sought in said point was more than
twenty years old. As for point no. 3, the CPIO stated that the information sought was not
clear. Dissatisfied, the appellant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority
(FAA), who directed the CPIO to provide the information on point no. 2 if the same was
available in the branch concerned and had not been destroyed, and also give him copy of
rule relating to renewal of loan, which were in force during the year 1990-95, if its
compilation was available in the branch concerned. The FAA upheld the CPIO's reply on
point no.1 while recording that in appeal the appellant had requested for some additional
information on said point which could not be provided in view of the provisions of the RTI
Act, 2005. The appellant however did not receive any reply from the CPIO and thus filed the
present appeal before the Commission requesting disclosure of complete information.

Judgement passed:
 Since the information in question is not available with the respondents, no direction for its
disclosure can be given. Under the RTI Act, a public authority is required to provide only that
information which is available in its records subject to the exemptions in Section 8 (1) of
the RTI Act. It cannot be compelled to provide information which is not present in its
records. 

 At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI
Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a
combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information'
under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in
the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such
information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But where the information
sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not
required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority,
the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non
available information and then furnish it to an applicant

Case Law 3:

Canara Bank vs The Central Information ... on 11 July, 2007

Facts of The Case

The information requested for were the following:

(i) Posting/transfer of clerical staff of the Canara Bank to other branches for the period 1-1-
2002 to 31-7-2006.

(ii) Officials promoted and posted to other branches in Ernakulam district.

(iii) Clerical staff transferred in Ernakulam district on temporary basis during the period 1-1-
02 to 31-7-06.

(iv) Details of appointment/promotion of clerical staff other than mentioned in (i) and (ii)
above during 1-1-02 to 31-7-06 in district Ernakulam.
(v) Furnish copies of transfer guidelines pertaining to clerical staff during 1-1-02 to 31-7-06.
The applicant has sought the aforesaid information as per the pro forma drawn by the (sic)
him.

The bank seeks to deny furnishing of these informations to the 2nd respondent under the
Right to Information Act ("the Act" for short) only those informations mentioned in Section
4 of the Act alone need be furnished, (2) the information requested for by the 2nd
respondent is exempted from disclosure by virtue of Sub-sections (e) and (j) of Section
8(1) of the Right to Information Act, and (3) the information sought for by the 2nd
respondent was so voluminous that it is physically impossible to furnish the same without
employing considerable manpower and time.

Judgement Passed:

the, information mentioned in Section 3 is not circumscribed by Section 4 at all. Section
4 only lays down certain obligations the public authorities are required to perform in
addition to the duty to furnish information to citizen when requested for. These obligations
are to be compulsorily performed apart from the other liability on the part of the public
authority to supply information available with them as defined under the Act subject of
course to the exceptions laid down in the Act. The information detailed in Section 4 has to
be compulsorily published by the public authority on its own without any request from
anybody. Further, there is no indication anywhere in the Act to the effect that the
'information' as defined in Section 2(f) is confined to those mentioned in Section 4 of the
Act. Therefore, I am unable to hold that only information mentioned in Section 4 need be
supplied to citizens on request. Hence, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the
petitioner in this regard. The information mentioned in Section 8(1)(j) is personal
information which are so intimately private in nature that the disclosure of the same would
not benefit any other person, but would result in the invasion of the privacy of that person.
In the present case, without the information requested for the 2nd respondent would not
be in a position to effectively pursue his claim for transfer in preference to others. On the
other hand, the disclosure of such information would not cause unwarranted invasion of
privacy of the other employees in any manner insofar as that information is not one which
those employees can keep to themselves.
Revenue

Sandeep Kumar vs Department Of Revenue on 4 December, 2017

Facts of the case:

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points regarding the date of
conviction if one Shri. Arun Kumar Gurjar, IRS in the matter of CBI v. Arun Kumar Gurjar,
whether the said officer was placed under suspension or had been reinstated and if
reinstated, the date of reinstatement and the present place of posting and designation.

Keeping in view the facts of the case and submissions made by both the parties, it is evident
that suitable response had been provided by the CPIO/FAA. No further intervention of the
Commission is warranted in this matter. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.