USEFUL LINKS

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
   
   

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

• 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
  
  
• Sec 4(2)
  The requirements of clause (b) of sub-section (1) to provide as much information suo motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that the public have minimum resort to the use of this Act to obtain information. Click here

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
2. The respondent PIO is hereby directed to write to said offices/branches under Section 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act 2005 Sh. Asit Jolly dated : 17.08.2022 Adj.
3. Post deliberations, the PIO Shri Bhupinder Singh states that Shri Sandeep Singh Sidhu, A.P.O. and Shri Preet Bhateja, A.P.O. are the concerned officials who may also be called for the hearing. The PIO Shri Bhupinder Singh is directed to coordinate with these officials and  supply hard copy of information sought by the appellant. The PIO Shri Bhupinder Singh, Shri Sandeep Singh and Shri Preet Bhateja, APOs O/o BDPO Fazilka are directed to come present in person before the Bench on the next date of hearing. Lt. Gen Ajae Kumar Sharma : 07.09.2022 Adj.

Section - 5 (5)

1. The respondent PIO is hereby directed to write to said offices/branches under Section 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act 2005 Sh. Asit Jolly dated : 17.08.2022 Adj.
   
   

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

1. 1. Three Commissioners Order
      Public Authority Can't Transfer RTI Application under Sec - 6 (3) with in own Public authority,  
      "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….." Order Pronounced by Hon'ble Three Commissioners Larger Bench (Chander Prakash) on Dated 08.02.2016 in AC 2313 of 2013 View on Page No. 17
      
   2. Single Commissioner Order on the above said same issue
      4. After hearing the version of the appellant and the representatives of PIO, the Bench observes that the information sought by the appellant relates to number of PIOs i.e. MC, Ludhiana. The Bench also observes from the version of the representative of PIO that the information sought by the appellant relates to such issues which entail collection, collating and compilation of information as a number of PIOs are involved.
      5. The Bench, as per observations made above, is of the view that the appellant cannot seek information in single RTI application from multiple public authorities. 01.09.2022
   3. Single Commissioner Order on the above said same issue
      It is appropriate to consider the instructions issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training No. 10/2/2008-IR dated 12.6.2008 to transfer the RTI application of the appellant under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to ‘public authority’ and not to the ‘public authorities’. AC 3690 of  2022 dt 13.10.2022 Sh. Suresh Arora
       
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
4. After examining the documents placed on record, it is found that the RTI request of the appellant should have been transferred to the concerned office within stipulated time under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act and as the proper procedure was not followed by the respondent party, accordingly, the Public Information Officer office of District Education Officer (Elem.), Ludhiana and B.P.E.O., Mangat - II, is directed to supply the required information to the appellant after collecting the same from the concerned office before the next date of hearing. View order

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

Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.

1. The respondent present has brought a copy of complaint (6 pages ) and has given to the complainant. The complainant said that the copy of complaint is not certified. The PIO is directed to provide the certified copy of the information to the complainant within 2 days.
   
   CC 871 of  2017 dt 6.Sep.2018 Khushwant Singh

2. Information Seeker requested for information on dated 18 April 2019 under life or liberty providable within 48 hours Then complaint has been submitted on dated : 20 April 2019 through registered post to Hon'ble Punjab State Information Commission, Chandigarh.
   Information seeker received the information on dated : 3.May.2019 (i.e with in 15 days)
   
   CC 374 of  2019 dt 2.May.2019 Preety Chawla

3. Information Seeker requested for information on dated 17 April 2019 under life or liberty providable within 48 hours. first appeal has been filled on dated : 20.April.2019 then second appeal has been submitted on dated : 23 April 2019 to Hon'ble Punjab State Information Commission, Chandigarh.
   Information seeker received the information on dated : 3.May.2019 (i.e with in 16 days)
   
   AC 1496 of  2019 dt 8.May.2019 Sh. Hem Inder Singh - Commissioner

4. Hearing Notice Under Life or Liberty
   
   Notice in AC 534 of 2022 (Life or Liberty)
   
   

1. The point-wise reply with respect to the information sought.(Point No. 12 (ii)) on page 16 CWP-17672 2023 PHHC Chandigarh.

2. The appellant says that the respondents has asked him to deposit an amount of Rs.3,272/- for point no. 7 to 12 of RTI Application. He requests the court to direct the respondents to supply him the amount of fees point-wise.
   
   applicant has already demanded the point-wise documentation fee for point no 7 to 12 of RTI application. The respondent PIO is directed to bifurcate and intimate the documentation fee point wise for point 7 to 12 of RTI application as already requisite by the applicant to the respondent by the next date of hearing so that the applicant may pay the documentation fee for required point and provide the requisite information accordingly, failing to which action under Section 20(1) will be initiated against the respondent PIO. 
   Ac 167 of 2018 dt 20.March.2018 Dr. Pawan Kumar Singla

3. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to provide the details of information point-wise of 18 points as per RTI application
   AC 900 of 2018 dt : 3.May.2018 : Sh. Hem Inder Singh - Commissioner

4. The appellant has once again contended that he had in fact written to the respondent PIO vide his Letter Dated 8.8.2021, seeking details of the copying cost by way of a cost breakup.
         An examination of the reply submitted by the respondent PIO shows that such a cost breakup was in fact communicated to the appellant vide Letter No. 1536 Dated 16.8.2021
   AC 603 of 2022 dt : 31.08.20 Sh. Asit Jolly - Commissioner

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 
    

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

1. 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. AC-521 of 2013 dt : 08.02.2016 PSIC on Page No. 6 

2. 	Information sought	Order passed
   Point-1 & 2	As per respondent enquiry is pending and information cannot be provided.	Merely stating that the enquiry is pending is not the correct way to deny the information. The PIO is directed to justify the usage of exemptions in section 8 and give it in writing that why disclosure of information will hamper the investigation. process and pass a speaking order. AC-2564 of 2020 Dt : 21.09.2021 Khushwant Singh

3. The Commission finds that the consignment of challan to a Trial Court does not preclude
   supply of information to the appellant. Said information which would have qualify for exemption
   as per Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act 2005, during the course of investigation no longer qualifies
   for said exemption. Final AC-833 of 2022 dt : 11.08.2022 Sh. Asit Jolly
4. It was pointed out to the respondent that since the Hon’ble High court has not forbidden publication of information pertaining to the matter cited in the RTI application, said information be supplied to the appellant after due attestation. This must be done within 10 days with a copy of the PIO’s reply and information to the Commission. Final AC-1703 of 2022 dt : 17.08.2022 Sh. Asit Jolly

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

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

19(8)a(iii)  Section 19(8)(a)(iii) of the RTI Act, which empowers the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission to require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including by publishing certain information or categories of information, Click here

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

RTI Act sec 19(8)(b) - "require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;"

1. Para 7 : I have also looked into all the facts and circumstances of the case. In my view this is a fit case, where award of compensation under Section 19 (8) (b) is also called for. I have no doubt in my mind that this state of affairs has also come about on account of the absence of adequate machinery for handling the RTI work in O/o PIO –cum – Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Jaitu, District Faridkot, is thus, responsible for the inadequate handling of the RTI requests and in the instant case as well.
   Para 8 : I, therefore, order that compensation of Rs. 4000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only) be paid to the Appellant for the detriments suffered by him. Sh. Hem Inder Singh Ac-1997 of 2019 dated : 27.02.2020 Appellant Madan Lal
   
   
2. 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. represented by Madan Lal
   
   
3. Compensation Rs.10,000/- awarded in 7 cases to appellant on dated : 25.06.2021 by Shri. Khuswant Singh

1. A Penalty of Rs.5,000/- is imposed on the Sh.Gurdas Singh, PIO-NC Jaito which will be deposited in the Govt. Treasury....
2. The PIO is also directed to provide information to the appellant as decided at the hearing  on 16.08.2021. 
   Sh. Khushwant Singh

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

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

1. Para 8 : According to this Section, the provisions of RTI Act shall have effect notwithstanding there being anything inconsistent thereto contained either in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, or any other law including any instrument having effect by virtue of any law for the time being in  force. Meaning thereby, other than this Act, the other statutory provisions which are inconsistent with the RTI Act, would not operate within the campus, ambit and sphere where the RTI Act operates. The provisions of this Act  would, therefore, have precedence and would for all intents and purposes, hold the field, viz-a-viz any inconsistency with any other statute or law or instrument having effect by virtue of any law except for the riders, exceptions and exemptions from disclosure of information provided for under the RTI Act itself such as Sections 8 to 11 etc.
   CWP No.12016 of 2016 Decide On Oct.5.2018 Punjab Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (PDF Format)
   
   
2. 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
   
   
3. 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

1. Nomination of an Officer who should act as an APIO in the Bhathinda region
   Click to View