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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIC: Though the reply given by the PIO, Brach Office was appropriate as the file was not available with them, the fact remains that the file was available with the Corporate Office - CIC: Collect the information u/s 5(4) and provide to the appellant

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

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

Reasons for seeking certified copies is not inconsistent with the provisions of RTI Act

Regulation 21 of Consumer Protection Regulation does not prohibit grant of records to RTI Applicants

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

Name of CPIO & FAA at CBI, provisions of law about nondisclosure of name of CPIO & FAA while disposing of application/ Appeal etc. was sought - CIC: As the RTI Application & Appeal(s) have been filed collectively by two persons, it is not maintainable

23 Oct, 2023

Information sought:

The Appellants filed an RTI application dated 19.06.2022 seeking the following information:

“Please provide information the certified copies with a stamp of the following:

1) Please provide information showing the name of the FAA (Unnamed, Undisclosed, Unidentified) who replied to our FA No. 190 vide its order (No. 22/(69)/(A)/2022-PD/391) dated 13APR2022, with his/her contact details.

2) Please provide information regarding service rules applicable to him/her.

3) Please provide information regarding details of concerned Vigilance Office such as name of the vigilance authority, contact details such as telephone number, mobile number, official address, email etc. to which FAAs of CBI are bound by their service rules.

4) Please provide information regarding the provisions of law, if any, about nondisclosure of name of the FAA while disposing of First Appeal as per RTI Act 2005.

5) any other information available in any form with CBI as regards to above points of information.”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellants on 07.07.2022 stating as under:

“It is to be informed that vide Notification F. No. 1/3/2011-IR dated 09.06.2011 of the Govt. of India, issued u/s 24 of the RTI Act 2005, the Central Bureau of Investigation has been put at Sl. No. 23 of the Second Schedule to Right to Information Act, 2005, subject to the provisions of Section 24 of RTI Act. The information sought by you, vide your RTI applications referred above, does not pertain to any specific case of corruption or violation of human rights; hence, your RTI application is accordingly disposed of.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellants filed a First Appeal dated 07.08.2022. FAA’s order, dated 06.09.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.

CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/643367

Information sought:

The Appellants filed an RTI application dated 26.04.2022 seeking the following information:

“Please provide information the certified copies with a stamp of the following:

1) Please provide information showing the name of the CPIO who replied to our RTI No. 190, with his/her contact details.

2) Please provide information regarding service rules applicable to him/her.

4) Please provide information regarding the provisions of law, if any, about nondisclosure of name of the CPIO while replying to RTI Application as per RTI Act 2005.

5) any other information available in any form with CBI as regards to above points of information.”

The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellants on 12.07.2022 stating as under:

“The RTI applicant sought information vide his online RTI application having Registration no. CBIMH/R/E/21/00607 dated 15.12.2021. He was replied vide letter dated 06.04.2022. The application further made RTI application and challenged and disputed the reply of CPIO dated 06.04.2022 in place of filing appeal.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellants filed a First Appeal dated 19.06.2022. FAA’s order, dated 04.08.2022, upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal(s).

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Not present.

Respondent: Balbir Jain, AIG(P) & CPIO along with Pawan Kumar Shukla, Inspector, CBI present in person.

The Commission remarked at the outset that since the instant RTI Application and Appeal(s) have been filed collectively by two persons, the instant Appeal is not maintainable.

Decision:

In furtherance of the hearing proceedings, the attention of the parties is drawn towards the provision of Section 6(1) of the RTI Act which provides as under:

“6. Request for obtaining information.—

(1) A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to—

(a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;

Since the instant RTI Application is not filed as per the laid down provisions, the appeal(s) are treated as infructuous.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Saroj Punhani

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mr GV Malwad and Mr VN Malwad v. CBI Policy Division, CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/654255 + CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/643367; Date of Decision: 20/09/2023

Contrary decision in Samir Kumar Haldar v. Employees Provident Fund Organization, Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001429; 16 July 2010

Name of CPIO & FAA at CBI, provisions of law about nondisclosure of name of CPIO & FAA while disposing of application/ Appeal etc. was sought - CIC: As the RTI Application & Appeal(s) have been filed collectively by two persons, it is not maintainable

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.