A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters
..
 
 
one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters
Menu
Web-Site Launch Photographs
RTI Act, 2005
Hindi
English
Other language
Rules
Central rules
State rules
Guide book
DOPT circulars
Important judgments
Supreme court
High court
Tracking the appeal at CIC
Link to Information Commission
Link to other Organisations
For an Applicant
FAQ
For a PIO
FAQ
Feedback
Books on RTI
Join us


Appellant: I have submitted my personal application to PMO and without hearing of witness or awaiting outcome representation, I was fired from Air Force - CIC: PIO has provided the information which is available on record; No further intervention needed     Right to Information Act 2005    Personnel allegedly gave wrong information to FM in the reply to parliamentary question - Respondent: A speculative request - CIC: Desist from filing repetitive RTI Applications as Appeal(s) emanating from the same are liable to be summarily dismissed     Right to Information Act 2005    Central Empowered Committee: Documents pertaining to particular application filed by Sheth Anandji Kalyanji Trust and sought by the Applicant are not available in records - CIC: Appropriate response has been provided; Explain the absence during hearing     Right to Information Act 2005    Refusal by Financial Services Institutions Bureau (FSIB) to provide information related to the appointment of Mr. Pankaj Dwivedi, accused of heinous crimes against women, as Executive Director in Public Sector Banks - CIC: Denail u/s 8(1)(j) is justified     Right to Information Act 2005    What does the term “Relevant Trades” in eligibility criteria mean? - CIC: Requisite information should have been disclosed upfront or through FAQs; Advisory issued u/s 25(5) to disclose the meaning of “Relevant Trade” & to create a FAQ section on website     Right to Information Act 2005    Respondent: Complaint has been forwarded to the Special Commissioner (Vig.) Delhi Police for necessary action; Delhi Police works under MHA, GoI which is a separate Government - CIC: PIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held     Right to Information Act 2005    Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively     Right to Information Act 2005    Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?     Right to Information Act 2005    No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa     Right to Information Act 2005    Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?     Right to Information Act 2005    There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP     Right to Information Act 2005    Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai     Right to Information Act 2005    RTI portal – Supreme Court issues contempt notice to the States and UTs     Right to Information Act 2005    Reasons for seeking certified copies is not inconsistent with the provisions of RTI Act     Right to Information Act 2005    Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants     Right to Information Act 2005   
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
FAQ

When can an applicant request the Information Commission to levy penalty?

An applicant can request the Information Commission of there is a delay or denial of information without any reasonable cause. If incomplete or misleading information has been provided or there has been a tampering of records or destruction of records deliberately to avoid providing information, there would be a ground for levy of penalty.

Thus, if the PIO has, without any reasonable cause,

       refused to receive an application for information,

       has not furnished information within the time limit specified under section 7(1),

       malafidely denied the request for information,

       knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information,

       destroyed information which was the subject of the request, or

       obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.