Grahak Jago Grahak Jago Grahak Jago Grahak Jago
Home | RTI Services - Fees | Achievements | New Efforts | Governing Body | RTI  FAQ | Contact Us


Grahak Jago - Right To Information Act 2005

RTI Act 2005 in English or Hindi

Paid Services
(For Information from Govt Department or Semi Govt Department or information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; )
To Prepare and Drafting RTI Application after Analyses your Problem.
: INR 500/-
RTI 1st Appeal
To Prepare and Drafting First Appeal If Information Not Received with in 30 Days or Incomplete information received : INR 750/-
RTI 2nd Appeal / Complaint
To Prepare and Drafting Second Appeal If Information Not Received with in 45 Days or Incomplete information received : INR 1000/-
Personal Hearing On Behalf of Appellant/Complainant
To Prepare and Drafting Relative Document for The Case,

+ Extra Charges To Appear before Information Commission
: INR 1500/-
Contact To :
Madan Lal - (RTI Activist since March 2007)
Mob : 98723-67068 (10:00 am - 6:00 pm)
Prove you're Indian :: Govt to RTI Applicant - Punjab Kesari 16.June.2016

Application to Apply for Indian Citizenship Certificate Performa Application

Info panel can't let off erring officer(Public Information Officer) with just a warning : HC Click to View

Our Efforts :

  1. Recently Appeal Case AC - 3542 of 2014 has been represented by us
    in which on dated :  6.Oct.2015 - 2:00 pm Hon'able State Information Commission Punjab has 
    imposed Penalty Rs.25,000/- on PIO and Awarded Compensation Rs.10,000/- to Appellant. Click to View

  2. Chief Information Commissioner has Ordered to Inquire the Matter With In 2 Months Time Frame : -
    PIO informs that the appellant has inspected the record and information running into 5 pages has been supplied to him. He further informs that the inquiry into the matter is to be conducted by Regional Deputy Director, Local
    Bodies, Ferozepur. He assures that as and when the inquiry is complete, the remaining information will be supplied to the appellant. Accordingly, Regional Deputy Director Local Government, Ferozepur is directed to complete the inquiry in a time bound manner within 2 months and necessary action be taken under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, which mandates to ensure transparency as well as accountability.
    Appeal Case No. 1391 of 2017 Dated : 24.July.2017

  3. It is found that due to evasive and irresponsible behavior of the respondent PIO concerned the appellant has suffered a lot of determinants for not getting the requisite information on time, even after paying the demanded documentation on time and that too is demanded in excess. I am of the view that compensation be awarded to the appellant, Sh. Sandeep Kumar.
    Hence I award a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- (One Thousand) to the appellant. The compensation amount must be paid through Cheque or demand draft in favour of Sandeep Kumar from the account of Public Authority concerned and not from the individual’s account.

    The respondent PIO is also directed to refund the full amount of documentation fee i.e. Rs 400/- to the appellant and the information provided is considered as free of cost.

    Incomplete Information has been provided to him as the appellant has paid Rs 400/- as documentation fee for 200 pages as demanded by the respondent PIO but the respondent has provided only 95 pages and rest 105 pages are pending.

    PIO, on this states and assures that complete available information has been provided to the appellant and by mistake Rs 400/- was demanded from the appellant. On this, Sh. Madan Lal the representative of appellant show his dissatisfaction stating that
    The respondent PIO has also demanded RS 100/- for 50 pages in Appeal Case no. AC -3348 of 2016 to be heard today and similarly provided less no. of pages i.e 07 pages and documentation fee comes out to be Rs 14/- only. He further added that this has also been done in previous RTI requests.
    APPEAL CASE NO. 3322 of 2016 Dated : 26.July.2017

  4. Appeal No. 1442 of 2014 Decided on : 11.Dec.2015 has been represented by us,

    in which State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Punjab has ordered : -

    The respondents/Op Nos. 1 & 2 are further directed not to charge enhanced rate of R.O. water then as agreed in the agreement dated 2.5.2011, until the enhanced rates are approved by the Joint Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner/Chairman District Planning Board, Bathinda as per Point No. 7.3 of the agreement. Op Nos. 1 & 2 are also directed to go for Uranium test of the water periodically as per agreement." i.e.Six month Basis

Some Important Orders / Section Wiseb>
Second Appeal Against Punjab Gramin Bank should be sent to Central Information Commission New Delhi. CC - 648/2011 dt : 4.April.2011 Sh. Surinder Singh
Appeal Case Disposed of and closed on dated 16.Feb.2016 without providing full information by Sh. R.S. Nagi - Commissioner.
On the request of appellant (our active Member) to Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner Punjab, the appeal case AC-560 of 2015 has been re-opened and transferred to the bench of Sh. A.S. Chanduraian for further hearing fixed on 30.05.2016
Section - 2(f)
  1. Further, information which a public authority can access under any other law from a private body is also ―information‖ under section 2(f). The public authority should be entitled to ask for the said information under law from the private body. WPC 7265 of 2007 Hon'able High Court Delhi
  2. Receive Information relating to private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force
    Click here to View Dated : 07.Nov.2008 (SICP)
  3. Click here to view Dated : 02.08.2007 (CIC)

Section - 2(h)(d)
The CMC, Ludhiana is hereby declared to be a public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act 04.May.2012 Sh. R.I. Singh

NGOs that get Govt grant covered under RTI Act 09.Aug.2011 SIC

Non-Government Organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government Click here to view Dated : 26.02.2010 (SICP)

Public Utility service providers are under RTI Act, So gas Agencies should come under RTI Act Click here to view

Section - 2(j)

  1. The appellant’s contention that he is entitled to seek information under RTI Act and not by paying prescribed fee under other provisions/ regulations on the account of premises that Section 22 of the RTI Act overrides other Acts is not legally sustainable. 06.April.2016 FB - on Page 13
  2. Once the information is in a public domain it cannot be said to be “held” by the respondent public authority  06.April.2016 FB - on Page 13
  3. Information already available in the public domain would not be treated as information held by or under control of public authority pursuant to sec 2(j) of the right to information act 2005. Therefore the provisions of RTI 2005 would not be applicable for providing copies of such documents / information to the public. : Departmental Circular 1/2006 Ministry of Company Affairs  view

    'Section 610 of the companies act, 1956 provide that any person may inspect any document kept by ROC and obtain copy of any document from the ROC concerned on payment of prescribed fee' : Decision of Hon'rable MM Ansari  (Information Commissioner) Dated : 29.March.2006

Section - 2(j)(ii)

PIO provide information as "Attested to be True Copy" instead of Certified Copies, when appellant appeal and objection / demanded information as per RTI Sec 2 (j) (ii)  "taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;" then Appellate authority i.e Commissioner ordered to provide certified copies of information to the appellant. Ordered for Certified Copy
Section - 3

Application to Apply for Indian Citizenship Certificate Performa Application
  1. Matter is sub-judice should not discourage  citizen from seeking information to prove his or her innocence.
    Click here to View CIC - Dated : 10.April.2007
  2. Information Seeker should not apply as secretary or president etc. of organization
    See : CC-109/2009 dt : 31.03.2009 of State Information commission Punjab.
    Click to View
  3. Association would not come under the definition of citizens KIC 72 APL 06
Section - 4
  • Sec 4(1)(a)
    Indane said that list of gas agency's all consumers names, consumer numbers and address in CD not separated from our software but when CIC Delhi Ordered then Indane provided the above said information in CD  -  Click to View

  • Not Acceptable Bland Submission by the PIO ("Record is Not Available"),
    So Responsibility Fixed for loss of Records.....
    Click here to View Dated : 08.July.2008 and 27.08.2008
  • Respondent is directed to supply legible copy of the information asked for,
    Further DFSC is directed to direct his staff to maintain all receipt & dispatch register as per rules because More Than One letter (with the Addition of "A") are kept Under Same serial no. by DFSC Office Bathinda
    Click here to View Dated : 20.Nov.2008 

  • Sec 4(1), 4(2)
    Based on conjoint reading of preamble to the RTI Act and its Section 19(8) and Section 4.1& 4.2 , the Commission directs the public authority through its head i.e. Vice Chancellor to henceforth ensure that the Selection Committees put up their criteria for selection, including for None found Suitable in public domain to ensure transparency in selection. Such criteria can't be confidential or "opaque." SICP 11.06.2015 Click to View

  • Sec 4(1)(b)
    Section 4(1) (b) mandates a Public Authority proactively to make public the salaries and allowances of the employees with it. The qualifications of the officials should also be in public domain as they occupy a public office. The respondents accordingly are advised to furnish the information available with them even if the employees have been outsourced from a service provider.” 21.12.2017 (11:30 am)

  • Sec 4(1)(b)(xiii)
    To Control malpractices by Gas Agency then Consumer can ask for list of consumers held by LPG Distributors Click here
Section - 5
  1. Nomination of an officer to act as the PIO at Bharat Petroleum Corporation Bathinda
    Click to View
  2. Nomination of an Officer who should act as an APIO in the Bhathinda region
    Click to View

Section - 5 (4)

  1. Penalty on Mr. Antony, Engineering Officer to Chief Engineer & Deemed PIO
    Click to View CIC 26.April.2012


Section 6 (Punjab Govt Sub Rule 4 (4))

The fee, assessed under sub-rule (3), shall be informed to the applicant by the State Public Information Officer in Form 'D' within a period of ten days from the receipt of application.

Order of Punjab State Information Commissioner (Prof. Vinay Kappor Mehra dated : 10.May.2017)
After hearing the respondent, it is ascertained that the respondent has demanded the fee after the expiry of ten days. Therefore, the respondent is directed to refund the money to the complainant by demand draft within ten days under intimation to the Commission. If the orders of the Commission will not be complied with, a penalty provision shall be invoked against the PIO as per RTI Act, 2005. Complaint Case No. 1544 of 2016

Section - 6 (2) - I D Proof

Identity Proof Under RTI Act

  1. In making the said request the applicant is not required to give ............................................ or any other personal details excepting those which are necessary for contacting him Chief Information Commissioner Punjab (on Second Last Page)
  2. In making the said request the applicant is not required to give ............................................ or any other personal details excepting those which are necessary for contacting him  Supreme Court (in para [24])  2012(1) RCR (Civil)374
  3. An applicant making request for information shall not be required to give any reason for requesting the information or any other personal details except those that may be necessary for contacting him Section 6 (2) of RTI Act
  4. PIO demanded identity proof from applicant but Honorable Chief Information Commissioner Punjab ask to provide information. Identity proof is required only in all complaints. 24.Aug.2015
  5.  Deemed PIO demanded identity proof from information seeker, Honorable Commissioner Punjab Sh. Chander Parkash imposed penalty Rs. 25,000/- on dated : 06.Oct.2015 at 2:00pm. view
  6.  Not require I.D.(Identity) proof before Public Information Officer due to security reasons. view
  7. Applicant no need to Identity proof before PIO: SIC Punjab View to Letter

Section - 6 (3)
  1. Public Authority Can't Transfer RTI Application under Sec - 6 (3) with in own Public authority,  View on Page No. 17
    "Each of the sections or department of a public Authority cannot be treated as a separate or distinct public authority. If any information is available with one section or the department, it shall be deemed to be available with the Public Authority as one single entity CPIO cannot take a view contrary to this….."
  2. Appellant compensated with Rs.2500/- because respondent has not acted as per clause 6(3) of the RTI Act 2005. Compensation Rs. 2500/- given through DD Dated 13.07.2009 to Appellant. View DD
    View order (in Word File) Dated : 12.June.2009 of Hon'ble SICP
  3. Since the PIO had failed to transfer the RTI application within stipulated period, the onus of collecting the information and providing the same to the appellant is with him alone View order


Section - 7

Delay in RTI  (due to shortage of staff) can not be allowed : Hon'ble High Court

Section - 7, sub sec 6 (All Information is free of cost)
  1. Even after receiving amount, the information was not given by authority to the complainant within 30 days, So SICP ordered to refund the amount Rs.100/-
    Click here to View 30.April.2010

  2. Public Authority must give full information Attested and
    As per provisions of sec 7 (6) "the information shall be provided free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub section 1" (30 Days)
    Click here to View order of SICP  Dated : 08.July.2008
  3. DFSC Bathinda was tantamount to his compelling the complainant to go to his office, which is not permissible under the RTI Act. 
    Click here to View order of SICP  
  4. Regarding Wrong Heading / Address on Indian Postal Order (IPO's)
     Click here to View order of SICP  

  5. Since the relevant record is said to be missing, an inquiry has been ordered by the respondent to fix responsibility. It is expected that on conclusion of the inquiry, the respondent shall take appropriate action against those found guilty for loss of public record.

    The respondent is directed to reconstruct the record and see if the requested information can be furnished on the basis of reconstructed record.  Click here to View order of SICP  dated : 5.Feb.2014 
Section - 7, sub sec 9
(Requested information in Desired language)
Jai Kumar Jain
Applied to Delhi Development Authority (DDA) asking for information in hindi as he has applied to the PIO in hindi. Should DDA. provide the information in hindi?

Ans : Yes. The CIC directed DDA. to provide the requested information in (translated into) Hindi within 25 days of the issue of its decision.
Decision no . CIC/WB/A/2006/00117 - 13 June, 2006 Click Here To View
(Requested information as Desired Format / Colour)

Shri Balvir Singh Saini (complainant) states that he wants coloured photo copies of the information supplied to him.
Decision no . CC No. 1286/07.08.2008 SICP Click Here To View

Section - 8

8(1)(e) - (
विश्वास के सम्बन्ध मे रखी सूचना )

धारा 8 के अन्तर्गत छूट मै कहीं 'गोपनीय' शब्द का उल्लेख़ नहीं, गोपनीय बता कर सूचना रोकी नहीं जा सकती.

2.Candidates have right to inspect answer sheets : SC Click Here to View 


It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the trial too, the information on case diaries can’t be held back taking refuge under Section 8 (1) (h) by simply stating that the information is not givable or exempted but the respondent PIO has to demonstrate as to how the revelation of information would impede the process of investigation or apprehensions of offenders or prosecution of the offenders at that critical stage where the information was being sought. View on Page No. 6 


Seeking the certified copies of the nomination papers of the candidates who contested the municipal elections for the Municipal Committee, Jaito .... nomination papers, which are filed by the candidates, are required to be made public for the knowledge of the common man. Such being the case, the PIO is directed to provide certified copies of the documents asked for by the appellant within 15 working days from today under intimation to the Commission. 23.Dec.2015 AC-3427 of 2015  

Educational Certificates of Govt Employees are not third party information 11.Mar.2016 AC-271 of 2016 (VC)

In view of the aforesaid order, the information sought by the petitioner in respect of the recruitment is the information which is not exempted from disclosure. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The order dated 01.11.2011 (Annexure P-12) passed by the State Information Commission is set aside. The respondents are directed to disclose the information sought for, in accordance with law. CWP : 22229 of 2011  Punjab & Haryana High Court

Information sought by the petitioner in respect of the recruitment is the information which is not exempted from disclosure 14.Mar.2016 AC-2835 of 2015 (DB)

Disclose Returns of immovable Property of officers under group A and B. Punjab Govt Notification Dated 26.Sep.2014

Disclose Returns of immovable Property of officers under group A and B. 12.Jan.2017 AC-2692 of 2016 (VCM)

Section - 11 (1) -

Order of the Commission is direct disclosure of information is void being in violation of Section 11 of the Act, which requires the Commission to issue a notice in writing to the third party  Bombay, Goa 
Section - 18

nder sec 18 of the act, No Provision in RTI to compensate the complainant. CP 21.Jan.2016

According to para 30 and 31 of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal no. 10787 to 10788 of 2011 in a case ; Chief Information Commissioner & another V/s State of Manipur and another before Ld. Judges - Sh. Asok Kumar Ganguly and Gyan Sudha Misra, the Commission could not allow to information seeker(complainant) to have access of the information under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005  CP 03.May.2016 1:00pm

Under sec 18 of the act, Commissioner has no power to direct the respondent to furnish the information. para[5,29]
View/a> 2012(1) RCR (Civil)374

Stern action will be taken if threatened RTI Applicant - CIC Delhi class="blue_link_l" target="_blank" href="rti/doc/rti_awadem_karta_ko_dhamki.jpg">Click Here to View

under sec 18 (1) (e)
CPIO should attest each page of the records supplied to the Appellant. Click Here to View 

Applicant no need to Identity proof before PIO: SIC Punjab Click to View

under sec 18 (3)(d)
requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any court or office." Click to View

Section - 19

Action taken by first appellate authority on hiding RTI information Click to View

19(1) First Appellate Authority can not summon information seeker under RTI ACT : Punjab Govt.

CIC- Doctors prescribing Medicines/Consumables by Brand Name is in Violation of Rules and Guidelines,
Doctors Should prescribe Medicines/Consumables by their Pharmacological names.
Click Here to View Dated : 24.Nov.2008

19(8)a(ii)  Nomination of an officer to act as the PIO at Bharat Petroleum Corporation Bathinda
Click to View

19(8) Based on conjoint reading of preamble to the RTI Act and its Section 19(8) and Section 4.1& 4.2 , the Commission directs the public authority through its head i.e. Vice Chancellor to henceforth ensure that the Selection Committees put up their criteria for selection, including for None found Suitable in public domain to ensure transparency in selection. Such criteria can't be confidential or "opaque." SICP 11.06.2015 Click to View

19(8)(b) Compensation Rs. 10,000/- awarded to Harish Chander on dated 6.Oct.2015 - 2:00 pm by Hon'ble Commissioner Shri Chander Parkash in AC - 3542 of 2014. Click to View

Applicant no need to Identity proof before PIO: SIC Punjab Click to View

Section - 20
  1. Penalty imposed on four Public Information Officers of Municipal Corporation Ludhiana in one appeal case AC-1681/2016 on dated : 12.Aug.2016 :: Chief Information Commissioner Punjab  Click to View
  2. SHIMLA: Enhancing the penalty imposed for a 14-day delay in supplying information under the RTI Act, the Himachal Pradesh high court doubled the fine, holding that the state information commission (SIC) did not have any power to impose penalty other than that prescribed under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
            Allowing the petition of Sanjay Hindwan, a Solan resident, who pleaded his case in person, the division bench of Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Sanjay Karol observed, "Once the SIC comes to the conclusion that penalty has to be imposed, then the same must be at Rs 250 per day and not at any other rate at the whims and fancy of the commission."
    Time of India 04.09.2012

  3. On Receiving Notice from State Information Commission Punjab, Public Information officer delivered Information Quickly, But  complainant go to SICP -Chandigarh again and again for insisting compensation and penalty for Delay.
    State Information Commission Punjab imposed penalty of Rs.5000/-
    Click to View - 10.Feb.2009
Section - 22
  1. In the case titled as Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. … Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. … the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para number 18 of its judgement held that Section 22 of RTI Act provides that the provisions of the said Act will have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. Therefore the provisions of the RTI Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye-laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examinations. As a result, unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer-books fall under the exempted category of information described in clause (e) of section 8(1) of RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer-books, even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under the rules/bye-laws of the examining body governing the examinations. View on Page no. 21

  2. The University authorities erred in asking for a fee of Rs.10,000/- or in prescribing a time limit of three weeks for seeking the information. Under the Right to Information Act, 2005 no time limit has been prescribed and fee is to be charged in accordance with the Punjab Right to Information Rules, 2007 as notified by the State Government vide G.S.R.16/C.A.22/2005/S.27/2007.
    The appellant has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2011(3) RCR-Civil 914 (Central Board of Secondary Education vs. Adityabadopdaya and others)
    Click to View - AC No. 1038 of 2011 - dt : 30.Dec.2011
Section - 25 (5)
  1. Nomination of an Officer who should act as an APIO in the Bhathinda region
    Click to View
Section - 28

Chief information Commissioner has no Power to review its orders unless statutorily conferred
ref :
M K Sharma vs State information commi anr on 11 Jan 2013 - Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ petition no 17122/2012 Click to View

There is no provision in the RTI Act, 2005 for the Commission to entertain appeal/review petition against its own order.  1.Dec.2014 PSIC

Our View : Appellate authority must be nominated against order of state information Commissioner/Commissioners

Appeal Case Disposed off on dated 12.Mar.2014. but Appellant  has not received information, 
So, after waiting approx Six Months,  Appellant requested to initiate contempt Proceedings.
Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner Punjab awarded Compensation of Rs.2000/- also to the appellant for delay and other detriment suffered by  him Click here to view

Appellate Authority/PIO/APIO can't delegate his/her own powers to other officers :
The grouse made in this petition is against the orders passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana delegating the powers of the Appellate Authority/PIO/APIO to the officers other than those designated by the Government" CWP 18137 of 2013 Hon'ble Punjab and Haryan High Court

Appellate authority, PIO, APIO of Education Department Punjab Click to View

Appellate authority, PIO, APIO of Local Government Punjab Click to View
Appellate authority, PIO, APIO of Department of Revenue, Rehabilitation and Disaster Management (DC Offices) Punjab Click to View
Time Limit for held / kept different records by Nagar Councils (Local Bodies), Punjab Click to View
"All men by nature desire to know." - Aristotle
Home About Us FAQ Privacy Policy Contacts

Grahak Jago | Email :