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

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

Information about change in options provided in the answer key for the post of AHO Gr B under the Medical Dept of East Coast Railway Bhubaneswar - CIC: Provide documentary proof that option A is the correct answer for Question No. 97

Appellant alleged false implication & victimization for wrongful and discriminatory dismissal from service - PIO: Manual of Departmental Security Instructions, 1994, is a Confidential document and is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(a) - CIC: Denial upheld

Opportunity of inspection of records was granted which the appellant did not avail - Respondent: Appellant’s dismissal case is in progress; He files RTI applications to know about the progress of his case - CIC: Grant another opportunity of inspection

Information specifying the dates on which the Presiding Officer was in attendance for hearings at the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - CIC took an adverse view of the delay and cautioned the public authority to adhere to the timeline under RTI Act

CIC: Appellant is agitating a matter in which he has already been given a relief despite having indulged in bigamy - CIC referred the matter to DRM, North Western Railway to take note of the aberration of lenient view taken in a serious matter like Bigamy

Answer sheets of CBSE Board exam - CIC: PIO is neither aware nor mentioned the dispatched date of their reply; Did not upload it along with his written submission which shows lackadaisical approach; Explanation called for along with the comments of FAA

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

Does non-maintenance of records defeat the rights accrued in favour of the RTI appellant?

Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025 release by MeitY for public consultation

Delhi High Court directs Jamia Millia Islamia University to disclose PhD Thesis under the RTI Act

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

Opportunity of inspection of records was granted which the appellant did not avail - Respondent: Appellant’s dismissal case is in progress; He files RTI applications to know about the progress of his case - CIC: Grant another opportunity of inspection

7 Apr, 2025

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.11.2024 seeking information on the following points:-

1. Refer to the Ministry of Finance letter no. 18/5/2020 dated 18.10.2024, in reference to the SPMCIL letter no. N.M.(HR)/DP/38/02/2017/1370 dated 31.07.2024, signed by Respondent No. 19 Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha-Director (HR) and also in reference to the MoF letter dated 13.05.2024 and Reminder dated 16.07.2024. In this connection, provide photocopies of notes/documents prepared, executed or issued by the Currency and Coinage Division along with file notings and employee signatures, from 22.10.2024 till the date of the PIO's reply.

2. Please refer to my letters dated 02.09.2024 (687 pages plus all exhibits), 10.10.2024, and the Legal Notice dated 04.01.2024, submitted to Adviser Aparna Bhatia, Currency and Coinage Department, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.

In this connection, provide the following documents from 01.08.2024 up to the date of the PIO's reply:

a) Photocopies of notes prepared/executed by the Currency and Coinage Division, including file notings and employee signatures.

b) Photocopies of documents issued to any department, including file notings and employee signatures.

c) Photocopies of documents received from any department, including file notings and employee signatures.

d) Photocopies of documents prepared/executed, including file notings and employee signatures, and the action taken report for points C(2)(b) & (c).

e) Photocopies of documents prepared/executed, including file notings and employee signatures, and the action taken report for point C(2)(d)."

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

The CPIO, Department of Economic Affairs vide letter dated 09.12.2024 replied as under:-

“……..it is informed no such information is available with CPIO.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.12.2024 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission dated 23.02.2025 has been received from the Appellant challenging the PIO’s reply as incorrect and stating that under the RTI Act, the PIO is under obligation to locate or obtain requested information instead of simply claiming that information is not available. He also pointed out that the FAA had not passed any order on his First Appeal.

The Respondent has also sent written submission dated 25.02.2025 reiterating the aforementioned reply sent by the PIO and added that opportunity was inspection of records was granted to the Appellant vide letter dated 11.03.2024, in compliance of CIC’s order dated 16.02.2024 in the case no. CIC/DOEAF/A/2023/622452, but he chose not avail the opportunity. It has also been mentioned by the Respondent that the First Appellate Authority (FAA) had provided the copies of relevant documents available to the applicant and ... FAA had also given an opportunity for personal hearing w.r.t. appeals to the applicant. Accordingly, his First Appeal was disposed of vide Order dated 28.01.2025 (copy enclosed).

Furthermore, the Respondent has added as under:

5. It is pertinent to mention that this Department is also dealing with his case of dismissal from service in SPMCIL. He was an employee working as Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) in India Govt. Mint, Mumbai. His case of dismissal is currently pending with this Department. Sh. Satish Sherkhane used to file RTI applications with this Department to know about the progress of his case. In addition to this, he also files RTI applications to know whether the letters/Emails sent by him or by Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Limited (SPMCIL) (regarding his case) has been "taken on record" in C&C Division. He also files similar kind of RTI Applications and Appeals with SPMCIL regarding his case.

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Present through video conferencing

Respondent: Shri Shambhu Kumar – Under Secretary/CPIO and Shri Abhishek - ASO, Department of Economic Affairs were present during hearing.

The Appellant contended that he was not satisfied with the reply sent by the Respondent alleging that desired information has not been furnished till date. The Respondent reiterated the averments as stated in the aforementioned written submission dated 25.02.2025, pointing out that information available on record had been duly furnished to the Appellant and even inspection of records had been duly offered to the Appellant on 11.03.2024, in compliance with an earlier decision dated 16.02.2024 passed by this Commission, which he chose not to avail.

Decision:

Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, it is noted that information based on available records as defined under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act had been duly furnished by the Respondent, in terms of the provisions of the Act. The written submission dated 25.02.2025 filed by the Respondent is found detailed and self explanatory as such. Hence, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO, Department of Economic Affairs to send a copy of the written submission dated 25.02.2025 along with relevant annexures, to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order.

In view of the averments of the parties during hearing, the Respondent is hereby directed to grant another opportunity of inspection of the relevant records to the Appellant with respect to his queries stated in the RTI Application, on a mutually decided date and time. The Respondent should ensure that records given for inspection should not contain any information which is expressly barred under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act and apply provisions of Section 10 of the RTI Act to redact any information expressly exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act, if deemed necessary while disclosing the records as sought by the Appellant. The Appellant shall approach the Respondent within thirty days from of receipt of this order, to inspect the relevant records. Copy of documents, if desired by the Appellant upon inspection should be provided upon payment of prescribed fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. After inspection of records, the Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission within one week.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Satish Ashok Sherkhane v. Department of Economic Affairs, CIC/DOEAF/A/2025/604540; Date of Decision : 04.03.2025

Opportunity of inspection of records was granted which the appellant did not avail - Respondent: Appellant’s dismissal case is in progress; He files RTI applications to know about the progress of his case - CIC: Grant another opportunity of inspection

Share your comments with RTI Foundation of India.