A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters

CIC took grave exception to the initial deemed refusal caused by the then PIO as well as his failure to comply with the FAA’s order; PIO to send a proper written explanation for the above omission and in doing so, the onus of omission lies with the PIO

Appellant: Information provided by the Respondent is case specific; the general rules under which a PLI proposal can be rejected were not provided - CIC enquired and directed the Respondent to re-examine and furnish the general P.O.I.F. rules

Appellant: Though Rajubhai inherited a house, he misrepresented his eligibility to wrongfully qualify for and receive the PMAY subsidy; Records and actions taken sought - NHB: No formal complaint lodged - CIC: No intervention required in the matter

CIC: Section 138(1)(b) of the IT Act specifically states that information relating to an assessee can only be supplied subject to the satisfaction of Principal Chief Commissioner or CC or PC or Commissioner; It would prevail over Section 22 of the RTI Act

PIO provided a cyclostyled response to applicant seeking information about distance Mode at Private Universities - CIC: Conduct of PIO indicates a sheer disregard for the mandate of the RTI Act; Penalty of Rs. 5,000/- imposed for deemed refusal

Information was not provided by the Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Waqf and FAA’s order was also not complied; PIO abstained from hearing - CIC issued a SCN to the present PIO and the then PIO for imposing penalty u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act

Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively

Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?

No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa

Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?

There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP

Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Disclosure of marks secured by the appellant and others in the District Court Clerical recruitment process

Transparency is a pathway to better Elections and stronger Democracy

RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs

2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered

Share on facebook Tweet Email Gmail Google Rediff

CIC: The appellant is advised to refrain from misusing the RTI Act; He has the right to seek information but it should be sought without being repetitive - CIC directed the respondents to revisit all the five RTI applications & send reply on them

23 May, 2015

ORDER

CIC/MP/A/2014/000952

1. The appellant, Shri Rajesh Vyas, submitted RTI application dated March 20, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Bikaner seeking copy of order through which new branch of the respondent bank was opened at Pugal road instead of Karni Industrial etc., through a total of 5 points.

2. Vide reply dated April 4, 2013, the CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant. Not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO concerned, the appellant preferred an appeal dated April 10, 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) stating that information on point 14 had been wrongly denied to him. Vide letter dated May 1, 2013, the appellant was informed information sought was exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; of the RTI Act.

3. Dissatisfied with the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission stating that information had not been given to him.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission.

CIC/MP/A/2014/000953

1. The appellant, Shri Rajesh Vyas, submitted RTI application dated October 18, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Bikaner seeking copy of order through which new branch of the respondent bank was opened at Pugal road instead of Karni Industrial and the basis of fixing rent etc., through a total of 8 points.

2. Vide reply dated October 24, 2013, the CPIO informed the appellant that information had been already furnished vide replies dated 1.5.2013, 4.4.2013, 2.9.2013 & 23.9.2013 with respect to other RTI application filed by him. Not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO concerned, the appellant preferred an appeal dated November 12, 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) seeking information. Vide order dated December 3, 2013, the FAA held that information had been provided to the appellant.

3. Dissatisfied with the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission stating that information had not been given to him.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission.

CIC/MP/A/2014/000969

1. The appellant, Shri Rajesh Vyas, submitted RTI application dated NIL before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Bikaner seeking copy of order/ license issued by RBI/competent authority for opening of new branch at Pugal road instead of Karni Industrial etc., through a total of 6points.

2. Vide reply dated May 1, 2013, the CPIO furnished a point wise reply to the appellant. Not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO concerned, the appellant preferred an appeal dated May 6, 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) seeking information under point 1 of his RTI application. No rder had been passed by the FAA in this case.

3. Dissatisfied with the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission.

CIC/MP/A/2014/001122

1. The appellant, Shri Rajesh Vyas, submitted RTI application dated December 24, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Bikaner seeking information regarding opening of new branch at Pugal road instead of Karni Industrial area and basis on which the rent has been fixed etc., through a total of 8 points.

2. The appellant preferred an appeal dated January 30, 2014 to the first appellate authority (FAA) when he did not receive any reply within the stipulated time period. Vide reply dated February 1, 2014, the CPIO informed the appellant that point wise reply had been given vide letters dated 1.5.2013, 4.4.2013, 2.9.2013 & 23.9.2013.

3. Dissatisfied with the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission.

CIC/MP/A/2014/001125

1. The appellant, Shri Rajesh Vyas, submitted RTI application dated March 15, 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Bikaner seeking copy of order of the competent authority for opening a new branch at Karni Industrial Area and that of opening a new branch at Pugal road etc., through a total of 5 points.

2. The appellant preferred an appeal dated May 2, 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) stating that no information had been furnished.

3. Dissatisfied with the public authority, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Commission seeking information.

4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had been wrongly denied the desired information.

DECISION

5. The Commission observed that the appellant is misusing the RTI Act by asking similar information through a number of RTI applications and making slight differences here and there. There was mismatch in the information sought in the RTI application and that provided through various letters quoted in the respondents/CPIO responses. For example case no. 000953 had RTI dated 18.10.2013 and CPIO reply dated 24.10.2013 and its enclosures. The appellant had also not enclosed the correct replies along with the second appeal which created confusion. During hearing the appellant mentioned that his building was far better and he had all the requisite approvals but it was not hired by the respondents. He appears to have a grievance but instead of taking it to an appropriate forum for redressal he has filed five RTI applications seeking the same or similar information.

6. The appellant is advised to refrain from misusing the RTI Act. He has the right to seek information but it should be sought without being repetitive. The Commission directs the respondents to revisit all the five RTI applications and send reply on all the five RTIs within two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission with a copy to the Commission while identifying the points that are common and identical as these need not be replied to repeatedly. The appeal is disposed of.

(Manjula Prasher)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Rajesh Vyas v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000952 CIC/MP/A/2014/000953 CIC/MP/A/2014/000969 CIC/MP/A/2014/001122 CIC/MP/A/2014/001125

CIC: The appellant is advised to refrain from misusing the RTI Act; He has the right to seek information but it should be sought without being repetitive - CIC directed the respondents to revisit all the five RTI applications & send reply on them

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.