Central Information Commission came down heavily over Election Office for not providing details of Voter ID card stating that “It is clear that their inaction and non response to RTI application is violation of both of his rights- right to information and right to vote.”
Citing Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. vs Ramesh Chander Bawa on 14th May, 2010, W.P. (C) 6129/2007, where the Honble Delhi High Court held:
Just as the right to vote of the “little” citizen is of profound significance in a democracy, so is the right to information. It is another small but potent key in the hands of India’s “little” people that can “unlock” and lay bare the internal workings of public authorities whose decisions affect their daily lives in myriad unknown ways…
The Election Office, which spends huge money for campaign for enrolment of voters, but does not prefer to inform the applicant for the voter card under RTI also.
Commission thinks that the Election Office machinery should have been responsive to voter card requirements and RTI applications.
When an RTI Applicant sought information from National Bal Bhawan on enquiry report/orders of the two member committee inquiry about the purchase of 100 ACs for the National Bal Bhavan and the related electrical works 
In a Central Information Commission hearing it was advised to Railways Recruitment Board advised not to destroy examination copy during the pendency of a RTI appeal. It was advised by CIC to Change their record retention policy so that a marksheet which is under consideration in an appeal under RTI Act is not destroyed.
Without Disclosure of objections of the third-party information, the appellant cannot make an informed judgement about challenging the Appellate Authority (AA) decision. Denying the RTI Applicant the requested information will mean handicapping him in exercising his legal right. A decision not to disclose the information to the petitioner in view of the objections of the third-party is itself justiciable.
First Appellate authority (FAA) under RTI Act rejected the Appeal just because it was filed beyond 30 days, in the pretext that “There is no provision under RTI for condoning the delay in filing the appeal”. The commission retreated 
The Commission in their five hearings had directed CPIO of HUDA to produce the file notings of allotment of land, application of Medanta, and the prevailing market rate and circle rate of land in that area, at the time of allotment to Medanta Hospital. The best response till date has been “No Control of the Private Hospital” which the commission finds it to be incomplete and misleading information.
Mr. S.C. Agarwal in his RTI application sought copies of communication made between the PMO and DoPT about IFS officer Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi. Commission by its Order had directed MoEFCC to provide pointwise information. Further, S.C. Agarawal in his RTI appeal stated that his RTI is concerned with larger public interest in constitutional governance and zero tolerance of corruption, and thus more information was allowed by CIC. Central Information Commission had directed the PMO to apply the doctrine of severability, while disclosing information of interdepartmental notes to the appellant, i.e., avoiding information which cannot be disclosed and provide the information about Mr. Sanjiv Chaturvedi.
Delhi Government 38 Departments are allowing Ping Pong with RTI Applications, claims the RTI Applicant. A senior Citizen RTI Application asking for handicapped pension for his wife was transferred to 29 Public Information Officers (PIOs). Among those authorities, some of them transferred the application to each other. The issue is in fact, multiple transfers of the RTI application from CM office to a number of PIOs, spending huge amount of money on the correspondence and yielding nothing.
Recent Comments