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

..

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

How to file a RTI application

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

Print

An individual should file the RTI application himself

8 Sep, 2012

Background

The appellant sought certified copies of letters conveying consent of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) given to Petroleum Conservation Research Association (PCRA) in respect of certain officers. The Public Information Officer informed the appellant that requested information could not be disclosed to him under section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

View of CIC

The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the name of one person of IOCL has been mentioned in the appeal, who was on deputation to PCRA and has now been prematurely repatriated to IOCL. The Commission held that the appellant sought the third party information for which he has not been able to establish any larger public interest. Therefore, holding that there is no apparent infirmity in the decision of the PIO, the CIC rejected the appeal. The Commission added that if the concerned individual were to file the RTI application himself, the Commission’s decision would have been different.

Citation: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar (Adv.) v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited in File No.CIC/LS/C/2011/003509

RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/627
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.