The RTI Act mandates timely disclosure of information, and public interest overrides claims of personal information when public funds are involved.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(j) and 20(1) - Non-response to RTI application - Appellant sought information regarding transport allowance recovery during COVID-19 - CPIO failed to respond within stipulated time, leading to a second appeal - The Commission noted the defiance of the CPIO and FAA in adhering to RTI norms, indicating a deliberate obstruction to the Appellant's right to information. (Paras 1-12)

(B) Public Interest - The information sought pertains to public funds and transparency in the functioning of public authorities, which cannot be denied under the guise of personal information. (Paras 11-12)

(C) Compliance - CPIO directed to provide revised responses to the RTI application, ensuring compliance with the RTI Act within 15 days. (Paras 10-12)

(D) Penalty - CPIO and FAA summoned to explain their omissions and potential penalties for non-compliance with the RTI Act. (Paras 10-11)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking information on transport allowance recovery during the COVID-19 period, which was not responded to by the CPIO, leading to a second appeal.

Findings of Court:
The CPIO's failure to provide timely responses and the FAA's inadequate handling of the appeal were noted as violations of the RTI Act.

Issues: The main issues included the CPIO's failure to provide information and the justification for denying the RTI application.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in public service, ruling that information related to public funds cannot be withheld under the pretext of personal information.

Result: The appeal is disposed of with directions for compliance.

ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1. “Copy of notification issued to account section for recovery of TA (Transport allowance) of non-teaching staff for covid 19 period with details of month for which TA have been recovered.

2. Copy of notification issued to employees to attend duty (describing reason for calling them) during the covid-19 period for those months for which TA paid to them.

3. Attendance record of those employees who attended college in physical mode for the period for which TA was paid to them.

4. Copy of notification send to individual employees informing/explaining reason to them for recovery of their TA for the Covid 19 period and their consent on the same.

5. Copy of note sheet placed before competent authority (Governing Body) for getting permission before recovery of TA and order/resolution thereof of competent authority/GB for the same….” etc.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 14.12.2023. FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 30.01.2024.

4. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person and on behalf of the Respondent, Prof. Sachin Mittal, CPIO & Subash Chandra Agarwal, RTI Consultant attended the hearing in person.

5. The Appellant relied on the exhaustive written submissions filed by him on 05.02.2025, stating inter alia as under:

“5. When the Second Appeal CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650599 and CIC/UODEL/A/2023/650595 dated 31.10.2023 of undersigned were listed for hearing on 14/06/2024 and the information is sent to both the parties then the in hurry and in a casual approach, PIO rejected the RTI application (filled online vide registration number DDUCO/R/2023/60011 dated 25.10.2023) on 03.06.2024 at 15.44.52 pm, simply by saying reason of rejection "Others" without uploading any document related to reply and has knowingly and intentionally mentioned that reply has attached while No documents of reply had been uploaded on the online portal. (Copy of screen shot is annexed as Annexudel for your kind reference).

6. Also, PIO had not supplied reply as he had mentioned online that reply is attached, through any means of communication to the undersigned. This is another falls statement had been written by PIO on online portal to mislead applicant.

7. On the same line and on the same day i.e. on 03.06.2024 within a gap of two hours, FAA disposed-off the Appeal of undersigned at 17:13:18 pm by saying in his decision that PIO has replied to the applicant vide DDUC/RTI/Reply/2013/256 dated 31.05.2024 which was never reached to applicant.

8. All the activities related to reply of RTI application and disposing of FA were performed after expire of the limit of days fixed in the RTI Act. RTI application is disposed of by the both responsible authorities after a long period that is nearly after a delay of eight months which is clear cut violation of rules established in the Act and all these are done deliberately, knowingly and intentionally to hide the information and escaped from accountability.

That not entertain of RTI application by the PIO shows his casual approach towards the Act. Also, decision not taken by FAA on appeal filed by applicant encouraged PIO for his irresponsible behaviour and casual approach in adhering the guidelines of the Act. Both the authorities are crushing the spirit of RTI Act and violating every norms which has been provided to the citizen of India and in any way trying to hide the information which is in larger interest of public.

Hence, from above facts this may observed that PIO has violated the norms set for supplying information under RTI Act-2005. It seems that FAA is also a part of PIO decision for not supplying information because of all information directly related to the office of the Officiating Principal and is custodian of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 1722

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONANANDI RAMALINGAM, JDr. SANJAI SHARMA – AppellantVersusUniversity of Delhi – RespondentCIC/UODEL/A/2024/604103

The RTI Act mandates timely disclosure of information, and public interest overrides claims of personal information when public funds are involved.

Cases Referred (1)

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
ANANDI RAMALINGAM, J
Dr. SANJAI SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
University of Delhi – Respondent
CIC/UODEL/A/2024/604103