Home » Right to Information » CIC Decisions/Court Judgements » Selected Decisions of Central Information Commission (CIC)
CIC Decisions

Selected Decisions of Central Information Commission (CIC)

LINKS TO OTHER RTI PAGES
Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise.
Decisions of Central Information Commission (CIC) – Subject-Wise
.

RTI – Rules/Guidelines/Orders (Date-Wise).
RTI Rules/Orders (Subject-Wise)
.

RTI – Court Judgements

MORE: Latest Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT)/DPPW Orders/Circulars

Go to RTI News.

RECENT DECISIONS/JUDGEMENTS

2024

  • CIC Order dated 16.01.2024 on the second appeal filed by Shri Govind Prasad Goel Vs. Manager, RTI, FCI, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh – CIC: “प्रस्तुत संदर्भ में यह उल्लेख प्रासंगिक होगा कि सिविल अपील संख्या 10045/2010 (सीपीआईओ, उच्चतम न्यायालय बनाम सुभाष चन्द्र अग्रवाल) में उच्चतम न्यायालय ने दिनांक 13.11.2019 को दिये गए अपने निर्णय में यह अधिकथित किया है कि किसी व्यक्ति के व्यक्तिगत रिकार्ड, जिसमें व्यक्ति का नाम, पता, भौतिक, मानसिक, शारीरिक अवस्था, ग्रेड, उत्तर पत्रक, योग्यता, कार्य-निष्पादन, मूल्यांकन रिकार्ड, एसीआर, अनुशासनात्मक कार्यवाही, चिकित्सा रिकार्ड, आयकर रिकार्ड, आदि उस व्यक्ति की निजी सूचना की श्रेणी में आती है, जिसका प्रकटन सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 8(1)(जे) के प्रावधानों के अंतर्गत किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नहीं की जा सकती है। [Section 8(1)(j); Personal Information]
  • CIC Order dated 12.01.2024 on the second appeal filed by Mandeep Vs. CPIO, Canara Bank, Bengaluru – CIC: “Perusal of the record further revealed that the duties and responsibilities of the agricultural field officers, as sought on point no. 6 of the RTI application, is dependent upon their posting, department, and the nature of the work, and no such guideline is available with the respondent authority, however, the same is not reflecting in the aforesaid reply of the respondent. Thus, the exemption claimed by the respondent on point no. 6 of the RTI application is incorrect. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to provide a revised reply on the basis of submission given during the course of hearing ...” [Section 8(1)(a); Banking, Duties of Bank Officer]

2023

  • CIC Order dated 28.12.2023 on the second appeal filed by Harmohan Kumar Arora Vs. CPIO, UCO Bank, Kolkata – CIC: “… … the reply of the CPIO is incomplete. Even though the CPIO in his reply has explained that as per points no. (b) & (c) of the Information Disclosure Policy Document 2022-23 dated 16.09.2022, the information being confidential in nature cannot be provided, however, no exemption as enlisted u/s 8 of the RTI Act has been claimed by the CPIO. The CPIO should note that only such information is exempted from disclosure if the same falls under any of the sub-categories mentioned in Section 8 of the RTI Act. The CPIO is therefore directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant on these points while claiming a proper exemption under the provisions of the RTI Act.
    1. With regard to point no. 4, the information has been rightly denied u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. xxx xxx

    10. In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply on points no. 1, 2 & 3 as per the provisions of the RTI Act.” [Section 8(1)(h); CBI Investigation/Prosecution]

  • CIC Decision dated 25.10.2023 on the Second Appeal filed by Subrata Goswami vs. PIO, Department of Posts, Yogayog Bhawan, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata-12 – Referring to a judgement of Delhi High Court, the CIC, inter alia, observed that ‘malafide’ on the part of the PIO to deny disclosure of information is a sine qua non for imposition of penalties specified under the RTI Act, 2005. The CIC accepted the explanation tendered by the then PIO and found no reason to disbelieve him. There was nothing on record to suggest that he acted malafidely or failed to exercise his due diligence. The penalty proceedings were dropped by the CIC. [Section 20(1); penalty on the CPIO/PIO]
  • CIC Decision dated 27.09.2023 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Ram Meena vs. PIO, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – The CIC observed that in the matter of Khanapuram Gandaiah vs Administrative Officer &Ors. [SLP (CIVIL) NO.34868 OF 2009], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
    “… … The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.” (Emphasis Supplied)
    Hence, it was decided by the CIC that no intervention of the Commission at this stage was required in the matter. [Sections 2(f), 8(1)(h); Case under investigation]
  • CIC Decision dated 27.09.2023 on the Second Appeal filed by Yash Malhotra vs. CPIO, Income Tax Department, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi – The CIC directed the CPIO to provide only the “generic details of the net taxable income/gross income” of the Appellant’s wife for the specified time period as contained in the RTI Application. [Section 8(1)(j); Income of wife]
  • CIC Decision dated 21.08.2023 on the Second Appeal/Complaint filed by Shri Saurabh Agrawal v. PIO, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited – CIC: “Filing a series of RTI applications and inundating the CPIOs with queries is not in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Act. … … A single information seeker cannot usurp a collective right to the detriment of all others having an identical right nor should a person be allowed to file indiscriminate and unchecked Second Appeals/Complaints so as to clog the system of adjudication itself to the disadvantage of others. It will lead to a colossal waste of time and resources of the Commission which has the obligation to cater to thousands of genuine information seekers facing hurdles. The means adopted by the Complainant … … only points to the ignorance of the Complainant about the spirit of the RTI Act.”
    Hence, the complaints were dismissed by the Hon’ble CIC. [Sections 8(1)(d) & (j), 11, 18, 20;  Third Party Information, Indiscriminate Second Appeals/Complaints]
  • CIC Decision dated 06.07.2023 on the Second Appeal filed by Mr. Prabhat Chandra Chaturvedi vs. O/o of Pr. Chief Commissioner of (IT), CCA), Kanpur and O/o of Addl./Jt. CIT, Central Range, Meerut – The Commission, inter alia, directed the CPIO to reiterate his offer of inspection of the relevant available records on a mutually decided date and time.
    Further, copy of documents, as identified and desired by the Appellant was required to be provided free of cost upto 50 pages and thereafter upon receipt of RTI fees as per RTI Rules, 2012. In doing so, the CPIO was at liberty to redact the relevant records of third party’s disclosure of which stood exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act by keeping in view the applicability of Section 10 of RTI Act for severance of records.
    The CPIO was also directed to by the Commision to ensure that due assistance is provided to the Appellant during the inspection in accessing and identifying the records. [Sections 8(1)(j), 10; Inspection of Records, IT Search Operations]
  • CIC Decision dated 09.06.2023 on the Second Appeal filed by Raman Verma vs. Regional Business Officer-IV, Mohali, SBI, Patiala, Punjab – It has, inter alia, been observed by the CIC that “… … outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.”
    It was further observed that point wise replies furnished by the CPIO to assist the Appellant was in the spirit of RTI, merits of which ccould not be called into question. [Sections 2(f), 7(9), 8(1)(d)(e) & (j); Humongous Information Sought by Applicant, Multiple RTI applications, SBI]
  • CIC Decision dated 24.04.2023 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Satwant Singh Yadav vs. PIO, PMA Cell, Director Police-I, Ministry of Home Affairs – The CIC observed that the CPIO has denied the information to the Appellant under Section 8 (1) (i) of the RTI Act for point no. 2, 3 and 4 of the RTI Application, which is legally untenable.The Commission further observed that denial of information under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act for point no. 5 of the RTI Application is not found legally convincing. Therefore, the Commission directed the CPIO to provide a revised reply qua the query number 5 of the instant RTI Application, either justifying the denial of information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, or furnish the information sought by the Appellant, invoking the severability clause under Section 10 of the RTI Act, to redact all personal information related to any third party. [Sections 8(1)(i)&(i), 10; Consideration For Gallantry Award]
  • Secs. 6(1), 8(1)(e) & (j); CM Arvind Kejriwal, Oral request suo motu converted into an RTI application; Educational document is personal information; Personal Information; Penalty on Respondent No.2
    Gujarat High Court directed as under:-
    Para 30
    “In absence of any inherent or suo moto powers being vested in the commission by the RTI Act, the Commission could not have entertained an oral request and suo moto converted it into an RTI application; that too at an appellate stage.”
    xxx                xxx                  xxx
    “40.   Further despite the degree in question being put on the website of the petitioner University for all to see and despite this fact being made expressly clear with precision in the pleadings before this Court and despite the respondent never ever disputing the degree in question either during the pendency of these proceedings or even during final hearing, the respondent No.2 has persisted with the matter. This is one more reason to impose costs while allowing this petition.
    41 Accordingly, petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.04.2016 passed in proceeding is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with Gujarat State Legal Services Authority within a period of 4 weeks from the date of this judgment.” – Gujarat HC Judgment dated 31.03.2023 – Gujarat University vs. M Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) & 3 other(s) [Sec. 6(1), 8(1)(e) & (j); CM Arvind Kejriwal, Oral request suo motu converted into an RTI application; Educational document is personal information; Personal Information; Penalty on Respondent No.2]
  • Section 24(1)
    — Delhi High Court: “Thus, considering the fact that the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau is clearly exempted under Section 24(1) read with Schedule II of the RTI Act, the direction of the CIC to provide the outcome of the complaint to the Respondent/ RTI Applicant is not sustainable and the same would be contrary to law. Accordingly, the said finding and direction of the CIC is set aside.” –   Delhi HC Judgment dated 25.01.2023 – CPIO, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau Vs. G.S. Srinivasan
  • ACRs/Merit List of Defence Officer
    — Delhi High Court: “15. In the opinion of this Court, the information sought in the present petition would not be liable to be disclosed, owing to the nature of the information i.e., relating to senior personnel in the Navy. The CIC’s order does not warrant any interference.” –  Delhi HC Judgment dated 11.01.2023 – Jagjit Singh Pal Singh Virk Vs. Union of India & Anr. [ACRs/Merit List of Naval Officer] 
  • CIC Decision dated 06.01.2023 on the Second Appeal filed by Ms Renu Bala Kochhar Vs. Public Information Officers, DDA, New Delhi – The Commission directed the then PIO through the present PIO to send his/her written submissions to justify as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the gross violation of its provisions. Further, in doing so, if any other persons are also responsible for the omission, the then PIO was required to serve a copy of this order on such other persons to ensure that written submissions of all such concerned persons are sent to the Commission. [Section 20; CPIO’s role]

2022

  • CIC Decision dated 25.11.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. CPIO, Department of Revenue, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, including Delhi Waqf Board – The Commission, inter alia, directed the CPIO, Delhi Wakf Board, to provide compensation of Rs 25000/- to the Appellant keeping in view the mental agony he faced and man hours and resources he lost due to stonewalling of the information by DWB for almost nine months.
    The Commission has also observed that the highest Court of the country in passing this order (on 13.05.1993 for special financial benefits from public treasury to only Imams and muezzins in the mosques) acted in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Article 27, which says that the tax payers money will not be used to favour any particular religion.
    The Commission deemed this matter of extreme importance for the unity and integrity of the nation and interfaith harmony, and directed its registry to forward a copy of this order to Hon’ble Union Law Minister with the Commission’s recommendation for suitable action to ensure enforcement of provisions of Articles 25 to 28 of the Constitution of India in letter and spirit, to keep all religions of India at par in terms of payment of monthly remuneration of priests of different religions at the cost of the pubic exchequers (both Central and State) and also other matters. [Sections 5(4), 7(6), Art. 27 of Constitution; Imams of Masjid, Priest of Temple, Delhi Waqf Board]
  • CIC Decision dated 11.11.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Chitresh Kumar Banjare Vs. PIO (1) Delhi Police & (2) Delhi State Legal Services Authority – CIC: “Yet, it is found that the Appellant has undermined the spirit of the RTI Act by clogging the system with a barrage of RTI applications, merely claiming irregularities within the JNU administration.
    In the light of the aforementioned decisions, and the fact that more than 118 cases of the same Appellant on the same subject matter have so far been adjudicated by different Information Commissioners of this Commission, the Commission is not inclined to entertain any further adjudication on the same subject, since no cause of action subsists under the RTI Act.”
    [Multiple RTI Applications]
  • CIC Decision dated 01.11.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Sura Prasad Pati Vs. CPIO, Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of India), Bhubaneswar – Son can’t get details of deceased mother’s pension account without death certificate
    CIC: “… … the appellant was son of family pension holder Smt. Rebati Pati, hence, was entitled to the information sought by him. However, in compliance of the FAA’s order, the appellant had not provided the death certificate of account holder. In case he completes the formalities, the information may be provided to him…” [Sections 8(1)(e) & (j), 20(1); Family Pension Details]
  • CIC Decision dated 01.11.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs. PIO, CISF – The CIC observed that keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties the Commission at the outset observes that the CRPF is an organization exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 as per Section 24 (1) r/w the Second Schedule of the Act and information can only be disclosed in such cases where allegations of corruption or violation of human rights is alleged which the Appellant in the instant case has not justified. The only contention of the Appellant was that the information sought does not pertain to the core activities of the organization which may jeopardize the security of the state Hence, no further intervention was required in this case.
    [Section 24(1); CSIF as an exempted oganisation]
  • CIC Order dated 16.09.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Gautam Saren Vs. CPIO, National Test House, Kolkata – The Commission observed that the reply provided by the then CPIO was inappropriate and that a blanket denial of information under the garb of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act was inadequate as no personal information of third party has been sought by the Appellant. The Commission admonished the then CPIO for providing such mindless and incongruous replies. Hence, the Commission deemed it fit to direct the present CPIO to provide revised and specific information qua the instant RTI Application to the Appellant. [Sections 8(1)(j), 5(4); Dates of Joining of Officers, National Test House]
  • CIC Decision dated 04.08.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Prakash Gopalan Vs. Public Information Officer, Office of CPMG, Kerala Circle, Deptt. of Posts, Thiruvananthapuram – The Commission directed the concerned PIO to furnish a revised reply to the Appellant, with regards to total period of working in the office as on the specified date, as mentioned in the RTI Application. The PIO was also required by the Commission to make sure that any third-party information or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 shall not be disclosed to the appellant while providing the said reply. [Section 8(1)(j); Department of Posts]
  • CIC Order dated 01.08.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Anil Kumr Agrawal Vs. CPIO, Canara Bank, Hapur – The Commission noted that the respondent pleaded that they had not received the application dated 27.02.2020. The Commission directed the CPIO to seek necessary assistance and communicate with the appellant in order to respond to the RTI application within the timelines prescribed under the RTI Act. [Section 20(1); Non-Receipt of RTI Application, Canara Bank]
  • CIC Decision dated 06.06.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Dr. Rajiv Khatri Vs. CPIO, University Grants Commission, New Delhi – CIC: “….. the Commission is extremely irked to note that the onus of replying to the instant RTI Application is being shifted across different division of UGC.The Commission expresses severe displeasure for showcasing lackadaisical approach of the Respondent in the instant matter. The Commission further notes that even after an efflux of 2 years of time, the Respondent public authority is yet to ascertain the actual custodian of the information. The Commission treats this as a blatant error and willful violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and the said conduct of the Respondent Authority is highly admonished.”
    [UGC, Grievance Redressal Mechanism in UGC]
  • CIC Decision dated 25.05.2022 on the Second Appeal,Complaint filed by Prasoon Shekhar Vs. CPIO, Bar Council of India, New Delhi – CIC: “The FAA burst into frenzied arguments with the Appellant for bringing up allegations of lack of transparency and for insisting on non-compliance of earlier Commission’s directions. The Commission took exception to the disdainful conduct of the FAA and closed the hearing proceedings.” xxxxx
    The Commission directed the FAA to place this order before their competent authority to ensure that action is expedited with respect to the upgradation of the BCI website while also incorporating the stipulations of the Commission in the H N Pathak case. The Commission also directed the CPIO to reiterate the opportunity of inspection of the available records to the Appellant and facilitate the same on a mutually decided date & time.[Conduct of FAA, Bar Council of India, Inspection of Colleges by BCI]
  • CIC Decision dated 27.04.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Hari Gupta Vs. CPIO, Office of DG of Income Tax, Lucknow – Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation) is an “Exempted Organization”. CIC: “… no further disclosure in this respect is warranted in the matter in keeping with the provision of Section 24 of the RTI Act.”
    [Sec 24; Tax Evasion Petition (TEP), Exempted Organisation]
  • CIC Decision dated 25.04.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Savio J.F. Correia Vs. CPIO, Mormugao Port Trust, Goa –  The CIC, inter alia, observed that “The Commission is thus unable to appreciate the square applicability of Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act to the specific information sought for in the RTI Application in the absence of any justification to this effect by the CPIO as required under Section 19(5) of the RTI Act, and therefore the denial of the information is not acceptable.” The Commission, therefore, directed the CPIO to provide the available information under the categories mentioned in the RTI Application in the form of a written reply or an extract wherein only these heads of information figure, as per the provisions of the RTI Act. [Secs. 8(1)(d) & (j), 19(5); Financial Investment by Statutory Body]
  • CIC Decision dated 23.02.2022 on the Second Appeal/Complaint filed by Sh. Nagsen Rajaram Suralkar Vs. Department of Posts, Office of Supdt. of Post Office, Bhuswal, Maharashtra – The CIC, inter alia, observed that the CPIO has erred in providing the caste related information of all the employees in response to point no. 1 of RTI Application to the Appellant without seeking consent of said employees under Section 11 of RTI Act. In this regard, the CPIO was advised to follow due process of law as envisaged under the RTI Act before parting with any information which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. [Section 8(1)(j); Caste-Related Information of Employees]
  • CIC Decision dated 22.02.2022 on the Second Appeal/Complaint filed by Sh. J.P. Tiwari Vs. CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi – The CIC decided that it (the facts of the case) reflected on the then CPIO’s gross non-application of mind and a lackadaisical approach in executing the statutory duty cast upon him by virtue of the RTI Act. Nonetheless, the US & then CPIO was directed by the Commission to send his written explanation stating as to why no effort was invested by him in locating the averred complaint despite being provided with the reference of the relevant CVC’s forwarding note. [Acton Taken, Complaint Matter, File Notings]
  • CIC Order dated 03.01.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Mr. Om Prakash Vijaivergia Vs. CPIO, State Bank of India, Siliguri, Darjeeling, West Bengal – The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, CPIO/ Regional Manager attended the hearing through audio-call. Both the parties submitted their written submissions and the same were taken on record.
    CIC: “8. In view of the above, the Commission hereby issues strict warning to the concerned CPIO for not providing the available information for so long. That the conduct of the concerned CPIO is highly objectionable and same should be brought to the notice of his controlling authority for an appropriate view. He is being reprimanded for future as the information that could have been provided on time, also not provided by the concerned CPIO. That the conduct of the concerned FAA is also found to be lacking as the first appeal has not been disposed off meticulously, therefore the FAA’s conduct should also be examined by its controlling authority.
    9. xxx xxx Further, the Commission observes that if the technical vendor is not cooperating with the CPIO, the controlling authority should take an appropriate view on competence performance of the vendor. …..” [Conduct of the CPIO; FAA]

2021

  • CIC Decision dated 29.10.2021 on the Second Appeal filed by Mr. Dhavalkumar Kirtikumar Patel Vs. CPIO, National Mission for Manuscripts, New Delhi, and CPIOs of 4 other organisations – The CIC directed the NMM to put  in  public  domain  the  around  3  lakhs  manuscripts  (according  to  the  respondent) which it has digitized so far within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this order. The CIC also directed the NMM  to  allow the  appellant  official access (including downloading) of 30,000 manuscripts it has already put in public domain out of  the  total  around  3  lakhs  manuscript  digitized  so  far. Further, the appellant was required to bear downloading cost which he had offered to bear during the course of hearing. [Manuscripts Catalogued by NMM, Larger Public Interest, Third Party Information]
  • CIC Decision dated 22.10.2021 on the Second Appeal filed by Love Gogia Vs. CPIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Office of CGM, Pune – The CIC has held that “Under the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005, in an appeal proceeding, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the CPIO. The CPIO in his reply had clearly failed to justify his position as to how the disclosure of information would be in contravention of the  provisions  enshrined  under Section  8 of  the  RTI  Act,  2005  and  what commercial confidence would be breached as the information sought by the appellant is very general in nature.” The CPIO was directed to re-visit the RTI application and provide a revised reply to the appellant and it was also directed that he should note that in case he is unable to justify the exemption so claimed, the sought for information should be provided to the appellant free of cost. [Sections 8(1)(d), 19(5); BSNL’s ERP System]
  • CIC Decision dated 16.08.2021 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Saurav Das Vs. CPIO, Department of Health & Family Welfare – The CIC decided: “However, in view of the extraordinary predicament the world finds itself in, it is of vital importance that all relevant updates, notifications and information which are likely to serve larger public interest, and address concerns and worries should be widely disseminated to create awareness among the public. The Respondent must note that dissemination of vital information is as much a national duty as proper and effective discharge of their onerous responsibilities.” [Sections 2(f), 6(3), 7(1), 8(1)(a), 19 and 25(5); Centralised Procurement of COVID-19 Vaccines for States, Foreign Aid, Larger Public interest, Life and Liberty Clause, Suo Motu Disclosure]
  • CIC Decision dated 13.08.2021 on the Second Appeal/Complaint filed by Shri Shyamlal Yadav Vs. PIO, CPV Division, Ministry of External Affairs – As per the Decision of CIC, the RTI application was mechanically replied to by the erstwhile CPIO without application of mind. The Commission thus cautioned the erstwhile CPIO and Dy Passport Officer (Ops) to ensure that RTI applications are not dealt with in a casual manner in future. The Commission also directed the incumbent CPIO to re-examine the RTI application and provide the information. [Section 2(f); Passports, CPIO/PIO]
  • CIC Decision dated 17.05.2021 on the Complaint filed by Shri Aniket Gaurav Vs. PIO, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare – CIC: “However, before concluding the decision at hand, the Commission wishes to advise the Respondent to ensure that maximum information which serves larger public interest, is proactively disclosed, to enhance transparency and dissemination of correct information. This will also obviate the need for filing of RTI cases by citizens on matters of such vital importance.” [Sections 4, 18; Covid Vaccination Result Data]
  • CIC Decision dated 23.03.2021 on the Second Appeal/Complaint filed by Shri Venkatesh Nayak Vs. CPIO, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, New Delhi – The CIC observed that “The Commission observes at the outset that the denial of the information in the initial reply of the CPIO under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act was grossly inappropriate as no justification was provided for invoking the said exemption, in fact, the CPIO merely reproduced the provision of Section 8(1)(i) in his reply to the RTI Application. The said conduct of the CPIO is viewed adversely by the Commission as it is suggestive of his non-application of mind in dealing with the matters under the RTI Act.” The CPIO was severely admonished for the inappropriate denial of the information to the Appellant and he is warned to ensure that due diligence is exercised while dealing with the RTI Applications in future.
    Regarding the prayer of the Appellant regarding the suo motu disclosure of the Cabinet note pertaining to The Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019 in light of the provisions of Section 4(1)(c) & 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act as well as Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act a copy of the order was marked to the Secretary, MoSJ, to look into the prayer of the Appellant. [Sections 4, 8(1)(i); Cabinet Note, etc., Public Authority]
  • CIC Decision dated 16.02.2021 on the Second Appeal filed by Jitendra Kumar vs. CPIO, O/o Income Tax Officer, Aligarh, UP – The Central Information Commission directed the respondent to inform to the appellant the current status of his Tax Evasion Petition and/or if the said TEP has already been disposed of, then, broad outcome of the Tax Evasion Petition should be informed to the appellant as per his RTI application, before transfer of the TEP to the Investigation wing. [Sections 8(1)(j); Tax Evasion Petition]
  • Section 8(1)(h)
    Delhi High Court: It was held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that “the legal position as settled by this court is that cogent reasons have to be given by the public authority as to how and why the investigation or prosecution will get impaired or hampered by giving the information in question.” [Exemption under Sec. 8(1)(h)]Delhi HC Judgement dated 05.02.2021 – Amit Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi >>> RTI – Court Judgements
  • Section 8(1)(d)
    Delhi High Court: “On the basis of the above judgments, the following principles can be clearly gleaned:
    i) CPIO/PIOs cannot withhold information without reasonable cause;
    xxx       xxx
    v) PIO/CPIO cannot function merely as “post offices” but instead are responsible to ensure that the information sought under the RTI Act is provided
    xxx      xxx
    viii) Information cannot be refused without reasonable cause.”
    [Section 5(3), 5(4), 5(5), 8(1)(d); PIO/CPIO]Delhi HC Judgement dated 22.01.2021 – Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Erstwhile CPIO) Union Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr.
  • Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 – Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr. – Delhi High Court: Whenever information is sought under the RTI Act, disclosure of an interest in the information sought would be necessary to establish the bona fides of the applicant. Non-disclosure of the same could result in injustice to several other affected persons, whose information is sought. The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the “High Court of Delhi (Middle Income Group) legal Aid Society”. …” [Sections 8(1)(j); Disclosure of an Interest in the Information, Candidatures’ Particulars] – Delhi HC Judgment dated 12.01.2021 – Har Kishan Vs. President Secretariat through its Secretary & Anr.

2020

  • CIC Decision dated 28.12.2020 on the Second Appeals filed by Deeksha Chaudhary Vs. CPIO, Air India Ltd., New Delhi – The CIC decided that it was necessary to ascertain the compliance of the FAA’s order dated 12.11.2018 and that in order to expedite dissemination of the information and ensure compliance of the FAA’s order, it was thus deemed expedient that the 25 second appeals be remanded to the FAA to ensure compliance of his/her earlier order dated 12.11.2018 in response to the Appellant’s first appeals, in order to address the central issue agitated by the Appellant. [Section 7(9); Second Appeals Remanded to FAA]
  • CIC Decision dated 21.12.2020 on the Second Appeal by Vihar Durve Vs. CPIO, State Bank of India, Mumbai – CIC: “The Commission upholds the contention of the respondent that in the disclosure of the names of the donors and donees of electoral bonds from books of accounts may be in contravention of the provisions contained under section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of RTI Act. There appears to be no larger public interest overriding the right to privacy of the donors and donees concerned.” [Sections 8(1)(e) & (j); Donors & Donees of Electoral Bonds, Larger Public Interest]
  • CIC Decision dated 06.11.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Rahmat Bano Vs. Office of Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Jodhpur, Rajasthan – CIC: “9. Taking into consideration the aforementioned analysis and the judgments of the Higher Courts, the Commission directs the respondent to inform the appellant about the generic details of the net taxable income/gross income of her husband held and available with the Public Authority for the period 2017-2018 ….
    10. The details/copy of income tax returns and other personal information of third party need not to be disclosed to the appellant except as mentioned at para no. 9 above.[Sections 8(1)(j), 19(3); Copy of Husband’s ITRs]
  • CIC Decision dated 05.11.2020 on the Complaint filed by Varun Krishna Vs. CPIO, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Mumbai – CIC: “The CPIO cannot be expected to examine and make judgement to find out the name of the official and then provide him report of the controlling authority, reasons for non-disposal including name, official mobile number and designation of their controlling authority. xxx   xxx In light of the factual matrix of these cases and the legal principles enunciated in the aforementioned case-laws, this Commission comes to the conclusion that no action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 is warranted in these cases.[Sections 18, 18(1)(e), 20; Penalty on CPIO pressed by the Complainant]
  • CIC Decision dated 30.10.2020 on the Second Appeal/Complaint by Shri Kuldeep Kumar Baranwal v. CPIO, Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi – As per the CIC Decision, the queries of the Appellant were vague, hypothetical, clarificatory and interpretative in nature which do not fall within the definition of information/right to information as per Section 2 (f)/(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant was advised to strictly refrain in future from seeking information under the RTI Act by filing such applications before offices which do not ordinarily possess the relevant information. [Section 2(f), 2(j), 8(1) (d), or (j); Improper Use of RTI Act]
  • CIC Decision dated 16.09.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Mahendra Singh Vs. PIO/SDM (Narela), Naya Bans, Delhi through Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Consultant of PIO – A significant aspect of this case is that it was remanded back to FAA by the CIC and that the Respondent was represented by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, consultant/representative of the PIO through audio conference.
    CIC: “Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission observes that the Appellant is not satisfied with the information provided by the Respondent. It is further observed that the Appellant has brought in certain aspects during the hearing which is outside the adjudicatory powers of the Commission.
    Hence, Commission deems it fit to remand the instant case back to Shri Tanvir Ahmed, FAA/ADM-North to provide a fair hearing to the relevant parties i.e., Appellant, Respondent and the BDO concerned and pass a reasoned, speaking order by 31.12.2020.. ..” [Agricultural Land]
  • Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors. – Delhi High Court: In absence of even a remote connection with any larger public interest, disclosure of information would be exempted as the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act. [Sections 7, 8(1)(j); Attendance Record] – Delhi HC Judgment dated 31.08.2020 – Dr. R.S. Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCTD & Ors..
  • CIC Decision dated 26.08.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Smt. Meeta Agrawal Vs. CPIO, DGM(G) & Nodal PIO, North Central Railway, RTI Cell, Subedarganj, Allahabad -In light of the Delhi High Court Judgment dated 24.11.2014 [in the case of Naresh Trehan v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (W.P(C) 85/2010)], and considering the facts of the case, the Commission observed that the grounds for the cancellation of the tender, the minutes and approval of the competent authority must be made available to a tender participant as non-disclosure of the same would have affected the competitive as well as personal interest of the said participant. The Commission, therefore, directed the respondent to provide requisite information on point nos. 1, 3 and 4, after redacting information which related to commercial confidence or personal information of third parties, the disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8(1) (d), or (j) of the RTI Act, to the appellant. [Section 8(1) (d), or (j); Minutes of the Tender Committee, Approval of the Competent Authority]
  • CIC Decision dated 23.07.2020 on the Complaint filed by Mr. Saurav Das Vs. CPIOs, ICMR, and Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi – CIC: ” … it is the considered  view of the Commission that authentic, verified and cogent reply based on factual information needs to be furnished to the Complainant as also disclose on the Public Authority website for the benefit of public at large. The fact that the application shuttled from one Division of the Public Authority to another indicates that there is a very urgent requirement for not only notifying a Nodal Authority in the M/o H&FW to compile, collate and consolidate the information sought in the RTI application but to effectively act and suo motu upload the same on its website in compliance with Section-4 of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission advises the Secretary, Health & Family Welfare to have this matter examined at an appropriate level and the Nodal Authority so notified should furnish all the details sought by the Complainant in a clear, cogent and precise manner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email.”  [Sections 4, 6(3), 8(1)(a); Coronavirus-related Information]
  • CIC Decision dated 20.07.2020 on the Second Appeal/Complaint by Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. PIO, NDMC, Narela Zone, New Delhi – In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, audio hearings (audio conferencing) were scheduled by the Hon’ble Central Information Commission after giving prior notice to both the parties.
    The Commission observed that the PIO had made a mockery of the FAA’s order by merely re-sending the initial PIO reply, which had not been received by the Appellant till the date of hearing. The Commission directed the PIO to furnish a comprehensive status report with respect to the property under reference by the specified date failing which action would be initiated against the PIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. [Immovable Property; PIO]
  • CIC Decision dated 10.07.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Smt. Basavantamma Vs. CPIO, Office of the Income Tax Officer, Bengaluru – CIC : 14. … “… this Commission after considering the factual matrix of the case is of the opinion that in the absence of any larger public interest in the matter, the appellant is not entitled to seek the details of the Income Tax Returns filed by the third party, Mr. G H Sharanappa which is exempted u/Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
    It is to be noted that the appellant has requested this Commission for disclosure of at least the ‘gross income’ of Mr. G H Sharanappa so that she could defend her matrimonial case. Therefore, considering the aspect of marital discord between the husband and wife vis-à-vis her right of maintenance, this Commission is of the opinion that the respondent should consider providing only the limited information of the last six years, i.e. the numerical figure(s) of the ‘gross income’ of her husband, Mr. G H Sharanappa …” [Sections 8(1)(j), 19(3),20; Income Tax Return Details of Spouse]
  • CIC Decision dated 24.06.2020 on the Second Appeal by Shri Baljeet Singh Vs. CPIO, Central University of Haryana, Mahendergarh (Haryana) – The CIC decided that the CPIO erred in stating that no information was asked, whereas the information sought was specific and it is relevant to mention that right to information includes right to inspect also. The CIC directed the CPIO to provide a revised reply to the appellant in respect of point no. 3 of the RTI application. In point No.3, the applicant had sought a copy of the Minutes of Meetings of the Committee constituted for considering promotions, held from 01 January 2018 to 30 April 2019, for considering promotion/selection of non-teaching staff (posts). [Section 8(1)(j); Minutes of DPC/Committee]
  • CIC Decision dated 22.06.2020 on the Second Appeal by Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. CPIO, Office of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai/Kolkata/New Delhi/Chennai – The CIC, in view of the facts and upon hearing the parties at great length came to the conclusion that ‘right to information’ under the RTI Act, 2005 also includes right to obtain accessible information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device. Therefore, denial of accessible information in the CD/DVD format under the RTI Act, 2005 could not be upheld by the CIC. [Sections 2(j)(iv), 4(2), Rule 15 of the Customs and Excise Settlement Commission Procedure 2007; Copies of orders passed by the Settlement Commission, no. of orders passed, etc.].
  • CIC Decision dated 05.06.2020 on the Complaint filed by Mr. Venkatesh Nayak Vs. CPIO, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi – The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the district-wise number of hospitals and healthcare facilities called by any other name, designated as COVID-19 treatment centers as on date; postal addresses and telephone numbers of the hospitals and healthcare facilities and other issues related thereto. The complainant, Mr. Venkatesh Nayak, attended the hearing through WhatsApp.
    From the Respondent’s side, the hearing was attended by Dr. Sandeep Sharma, CPIO (SJH), Mr. Mahesh Mangla, CAPIO, SJH, Dr. R. Laxmi Narayan, ADG, ICMR, Dr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Prof. Chest Med. LHMC, Dr. U.B. Das, CMO, DGHS in person; Mr. Rajender Kumar, US, PH Division, M/o H&FW and Mr. G.P. Samanta, CPIO & US (Hospital-D) (SJH, RML and LHMC) through WhatsApp/TC. Expressing its displeasure at the state of affairs, the CIC advised the Secretary, M/o H&FW to designate an officer of an appropriate seniority as a Nodal Officer to examine the matter and suo motu disclose the information sought in the RTI application on the website of the Public Authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order in the larger public interest. [Section 4(1); Distt.-Wise No. of Hospitals for Covid Treatment]
  • CIC Order dated 03.06.2020 on the Appeal filed by Priti Ranjan Das Vs. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai – The Appellant and the Respondent were not present during the course of the hearing. The CIC ordered as under:-
    “6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, feels that it is necessary for both parties to be present for proper adjudication of the issues raised in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is adjourned.” [Sections 8(1)(a)&(d), 11(1),20(1); Appeal from Public Authority]
  • CIC Decision dated 01.05.2020 on the Complaint filed by Mr. Anil Sood Vs. CPIO & Nodal Officer, Office of Central Govt. Health Scheme. R.K. Puram Sector 12, New Delhi-22 The complainant attended the hearing through WhatsApp.
    The CIC in the case of the complaint filed by Mr. Anil Sood Vs. CPIO & Nodal Officer of Central Govt. Health Scheme, R.K. Puram Sector 12, New Delhi-22, observed on May 01, 2020 that there was complete negligence and laxity in the public authority (CGHS) in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflected disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent (CGHS) in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.  [PIO, Public Authority, CGHS, Supply of Medicines to WCs]
  • CIC Decision dated 24.04.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Smt. Kairun BiBi Vs. CPIO, Steel Authority of India, Dhanbad [Sections 19(3), 20; CPIO (Warning to CPIO)]
  • CIC Decision dated 23.04.2020 on the Complaint filed by Mr. Varun Krishna Vs. CPIO & Dy. GM (Legal), Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., New Delhi [Section 20(1); ATR, File Notings, CPIO, Public Authority]
  • CIC Decision dated 22.04.2020 on the Complaint filed by Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta Vs. CPIO, University of Delhi  – The CIC in the case of the complaint by Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta Vs. CPIO, University of Delhi, decided on April 22, 2020, as under:-
    (i)         An advisory was issued u/s 25(5) of the RTI Act to the Secretary DoPT to evolve a system after coordinating with the Director General, NIC in the spirit of the RTI Act and take immediate steps towards providing a platform for implementation of Sec 7(1) of the RTI Act.
    (ii)         A report on the action taken on the advisory might be sent to the Commission by the Secretary, DoPT within 7 days from the date of withdrawal of lockdown. Due to the ongoing pandemic of coronavirus in the country and the prevalent lock down, the Commission found it appropriate to highlight the issue of Sec 7(1) implementation by citizens more so, when postal receipt of RTI applications are minimal, in such situations all public authorities should encourage RTI applications through e-mail in case of life and liberty matter.
    (iii)        A unique e-mail id can be created by the CPIOs in this regard and reflected in their respective website. A method of online acceptance of RTI fees also has to be thought of in this regard. In so far as other normal RTIs are concerned, the RTI portal can be used. The Deputy Registrar was directed to  circulate this order widely to the public authorities related to the Registry. [Sections 4(1)(b), 7(1), 19(1), 25(5); Sports Quota, Delhi University, Public Authority, Minutes of Meeting]
  • CIC Decision dated 19.03.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Ajay Manda Vs. CPIO, Ch. Charan Singh National Institute of Agriculture Marketing, Jaipur – CIC: “Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the rival contentions made by the parties, the Commission deems it appropriate to dismiss this appeal, as voluminous information was sought for which replies have been provided and any further requirement for disclosure would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. The appellant is advised to be responsible and avoid filing repeated RTI applications seeking voluminous information.” – [Section 7(9); Habitual RTI Applicant]
  •  CIC Decision dated 17.03.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Mr. D.T. Eshwaran Vs. CPIO, Central Govt. Employees Welfare Housing Organization, New Delhi – The Commission expressed extreme displeasure at the conduct of the CPIO in flouting the FAA’s order. Hence, the concerned CPIO was issued a strict warning to be careful in future with regard to the observations, made in the Decision. The present CPIO was directed to serve a copy of this order to the then CPIO for his information and in case such kind of lapse is repeated in future, the Commission decided that it would be constrained to initiate penal action against him under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act.
    The Hon’ble Commission also directed the present CPIO to comply with the direction given by the FAA. It was also ordered by the Hon’ble Commission that the CPIO should note that at this stage he cannot transfer the RTI application, however, he could obtain information from its custodian after seeking assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act. It was further ordered that the onus was now on him to obtain the required information and provide it to the appellant as per the timeline specified in the Decision. [Sections 5(4), 20; CPIO, Construction Work]
  • Certified Copies of Court Documents
    SC: “42. … … In the absence of inherent inconsistency between the provisions of the RTI  Act and other law, overriding effect of RTI Act would not apply.
    (ii) The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.” – (Secs. 2, 4(b), 6(2), 8(1)(a) to (j), 19, 22, 31; Disclosure of Information; Certified Copies of Court Documents)-  SC Judgment dated 04.03.2020 – Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and Another >>>  RTI – Court Judgements
  • CIC Decision dated 21.02.2020 on the Second Appeal by Mr. Amit Khera v. CPIO, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Delhi. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited in the Decision, the Commission instructed the Respondent (HPCL) to disclose the broad outcome of the investigation redacting information exempted under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Appellant as also suo moto disclose the same on their website. – [Sections 2(f), 2(j), 8(1)(d); Investigation Report]
  • CIC Decision dated 10.02.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Ajay Kumar v. CPIO, Northern Central Railway, Agra.  CIC: “7. Further, this Commission observes that the reply dated 21-03-2018 on point no. 2 is evasive in nature wherein the then CPIO did not apply his mind while replying to the RTI application and therefore, the CPIO is hereby issued a warning for future to be careful and not to contravene the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.* [Sections 19(3), 20; Warning to CPIO, Recruitment]
  • CIC Decision dated 06.02.2020 on the Second Appeal by Mr. Rana Ranjan v. CPIO, National Insurance Company Ltd., Bhavnagar, Gujarat – [Sections 2(f), 8(1)(j); Leave Record]

2019

2018

  • CIC Decision dated 24.12.2018 – Mr. R.S. Rai v. CPIO, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Jabalpur  – CIC: “The Appellant could not substantiate his claims regarding mala fide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause.” [Sections 2(f), 20; Leave Record, Result Analysis]
  • CIC Decision dated 21.12.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Sounder Rajan v. CPIO, IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai – CIC: The Commission, however, notes that the Notice for Hearing served upon the appellant was returned undelivered to the Commission with the remark “Deceased”. In view of the death of the appellant and the Commission’s Circular F. No.2/Management regulation2007/CIC-MR dated 18.06.2018, the Commission directs the respondent to publish the information sought vide point nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the RTI application, as per the available records, suo-motu on their website …..” [Sec. 2(f), 4, 20; FD Account]
  • CIC Decision dated 19.12.2018 – Nirmal Singh Dhiman v. CPIO, Deptt. of Ex-Servicemen, New Delhi – CIC: “In the event, the averred letters and corresponding noting(s) remain untraceable, Commission directs the CPIO to file an appropriate affidavit to this effect stating the efforts made in tracing out the information and the factum of non-receipt of letters and unavailability of file noting(s). The said affidavit should be sent to the Commission with its copy duly endorsed to the Appellant.” [Section 2(f); File Notings]
  • CIC Decision dated 08.11.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. CPIO, Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports, New Delhi – The CIC directed for complimentary passes for hockey matches being put in public domain [Sections 6(3), 7(6), 8(1)(d), (e) & (j), 8(2); File Notings, Complimentary Passes, Hockey India League]
  • CIC Decision dated 02.11.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Sandeep Singh Jadoun v. PIO, DGEAT – CIC issued show-cause notice to RBI governor for non-disclosure of wilful defaulters’ list [Sections 2(f), 4(1)(b),(c),(d), 8(1)(a),(d),(e) & (h), 8(2), 19(8), 22; NPA]
  • Differently-Abled
    SC: “Additionally, we think it appropriate to ask the authorities to explore any kind of advanced technology that has developed in the meantime so that other methods can be introduced. We are absolutely sure that if the petitioner would point out, the cognizance of the same shall be taken. We are also certain that the authority shall, with all sincerity and concern, explore further possibilities with the available on-line application/mechanism.” – SC Judgment dated 27.09.2018 – Aseer Jamal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
  •  CIC Decision dated 05.09.2018 on the Appeal filed by R.P. Verma Vs. CPIO, Ordnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun – CIC: The CPIO was directed to place this order before their competent authority to pass a speaking order ….. Appellant was warned against the misuse of RTI Act in future and was advised to make judicious use of his right to information. [Appointment, Misuse of RTI]
  • RTI
    Delhi High Court has held as under:-
    “… … the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only. The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore, there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the Act and the legislative intention, we see no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration.” [Sections 19(1), 20 of the RTI Act] –   Delhi HC Judgment dated 29.08.2018 – R.K. Jain Vs. Union of India
  • CIC Decision dated 06.08.2018 on the Appeal filed by Mr. K.S. Jain Vs. CPIO, Dte. Gen. of Vig., Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi – The Appellant was not able to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to establish the larger public interest in disclosure which outweighs the harm to the protected interests. The Commission observed that the said matter pertained to exemption claimed u/s 8 (1) (h) and not Section 8 (1) (j). The Commission also observed that the applicant therein sought information in the context of his own suspension pending disciplinary action, whereas in the present instance, the Appellant had sought information regarding a third party. [Sections 8(1)(h), 8(1)(j); Public Interest, 3rd Party]
  • CIC Decision dated 06.08.2018 on the Appeal filed by Ms. Rashi Agrawal Vs. CPIO, SPMCIL, New Delhi, CPIO, Indian Security Press, Nashik – CIC: “… … it is evident that the transfer of RTI application u/s 6 (3) to the concerned PIO was not made by the Respondent (SPMCIL, New Delhi) vide its initial reply dated 29.07.2016 and that no reply had been furnished by the Respondent (ISP Nashik) subsequent to the transfer of points 03 and 05 of the RTI application by FAA, SPMCIL, vide letter dated 06.09.2016 which was a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission, therefore instructs the CMD, SPMCIL, to depute an officer of a senior rank to seek the explanation to the show cause notice from the concerned CPIOs and furnish the details sought by the Complainant …..” [Sections 6(3), 20(1); Processing of RTI Application/1st Appeal]
  • CIC Decision dated 30.07.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. CPIO, Min. of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, New Delhi – The CIC was of the opinion that a token amount of Rs.1,000/- should be paid as compensation to the appellant u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the detriment caused to him and that this amount of Rs.1,000/- is to be paid by the public authority, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change as compensation to the appellant u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the detriment caused him for the delay caused. [Sections 2(f), 19, 19(8)(b); File Notings, Compensations to Complainant]
  • CIC Decision dated 11.07.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri S.P. Sinha Vs APIO, Min. of Shipping, MMD, Mumbai – The Hon’ble Commission directed the concerned CPIO to disclose the sought for information after obtaining consent of the third parties. Regarding Point No.5 of the RTI application, the respondent CPIO was directed to fix a joint inspection of relevant records on a mutually convenient date and at mutually convenient time and place and thereafter to provide certified copies of records as selected by the appellant free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act. [Sections 7(6), 8(1)(j), 11(1) of the RTI Act; DPC; File Notings, Third Party Information]
  • CIC Decision dated 04.07.2018 on the Appeal,Complaint filed by Shri Hans Raj Chug Vs. PIO, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi –  As per the CIC decision, the Commission, inter alia, found that the objection of third party(ies) was not legally tenable considering that information sought was not personal in nature. Thus the reply of the PIO and the FAA were set aside. It has been further observed by the Hon’ble Commission that the FAA had skipped the analysis of the queries vis-a-vis the responses, though he is supposed to exercise his expertise based on domain knowledge. Hence, the Commission remanded this case back to the FAA for complete and proper adjudication of the issues and ensuring that information shall be provided to the appellant upon obtaining the same from the relevant custodians of information, invoking [Section 5(4) of the RTI Act; First Appellate Authority; Third Party Information]
  • CIC Decision dated 27.06.2018 on the Appeal,Complaint filed by Mr. R. Natarajan Vs. PIO, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare – The CIC observed as under:-
    “The society is a creation of MCI, housed in the MCI building for extending ease of functioning. In garb of functional autonomy, the parent body MCI cannot be said to have abrogated its right to access information from the society.”
    “The process of bestowing national honours cannot be kept away from public scrutiny. Any practice facilitating opacity will go on to diminish the sanctity of the honour and its past recipients.”
    The CPIO, MCI was accordingly directed to access information from Secretary, Dr. B.C. Roy National Award Fund and furnish the same to the appellant. [Dr. B.C. Roy National Award]
  • CIC Decision dated 25.06.2018 on the Appeal filed by Balkrishna Porwal Vs. PIO, Department of Posts – As per the CIC Decision, by denying the information the appellant was not only harassed by the public authority, but also by the CPIO, and that while public authority denied him the documents which he was entitled under SHW Act of 2013, the CPIO denied them under RTI Act besides wrongfully invoking Section 8(1) (d) and (g). For the reasons stated in its decision, Hon’ble Commission concluded that denial of information to the appellant was without any reasonable cause, and hence liable for maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 under section 20 of RTI Act, Hon’ble Commission also found it as a fit case to recommend the public authority to initiate disciplinary action against the CPIO in view of the analysis, in the above-referred decision. [Sections 8(1)(d) & (j) and 20; Section 16 of SHW Act of 2013; Inquiry Report; Sexual Harassment; File Notings]
  • CIC Decision dated 25.06.2018 on the Appeal filed by Ajay Kumar Vs. CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Lucknow – The CIC observed  that  the  1st appellate  authority  order  dated  13-06-2017  was  not  proper,  wherein,  the  1st appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation. In fact, the RTI application was never received by the CPIO. Therefore, calculation of timelines done by the 1st appellate authority was without application of mind. The 1st appellate authority was advised to adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act/Rules while disposing of 1st appeal(s).
    The Deputy Registrar was directed to send complete RTI application file to the CPIO for taking necessary action. [First Appellate Authority (FAA)]
  • CIC Decision dated 18.06.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Neeraj Sharma Vs. CPIO, Rajya Sabha Sectt., New Delhi – The  CIC was  of  the  view  that  the  delay  of more  than  5  days  in transferring  the  application  had  been  duly  explained  by  the  respondent and the  appellant was  provided  a  reply well  within  the stipulated  period  of  time. The Commission did not find any reasons to impose penalty on the CPIO. [Sec. 6(3); CPIO)]
  • CIC Decision dated 31.05.2018 on the Appeal filed by Hitender Vs. CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi – The Commission was of the opinion that the complainant (who was an Australian citizen with the OCI card) could not be treated as Indian citizen for the purpose of seeking information u/Section 3 of the RTI Act. Moreover, the RTI Act, 2005 does not have any provisions for furnishing information to overseas citizen of India. It is applicable to Indian citizen(s) only. [Overseas Citizen of India]
  • CIC Decision dated 07.05.2018 on the Appeal,Complaint filed by Mr. M. Dinesh Vs. PIO, Bureau of Immigration,IB (MHA) – It was, inter alia, observed by Hon’ble Information Commissioner that he was left with no doubt that a man preparing for his self defense in penal proceeding exercises his basic human right. Any impediment in the same would invariably be a breach of human right. The term ‘violation’ as preceding the term ‘human right’ in proviso to Section 24 of the RTI Act had to be understood in a broader manner so as to cover any past or ongoing violation of human rights.
    The appellant was seeking information about his own travel details to prove his innocence in a criminal proceeding. The information sought was crucial to the appellant for a fair opportunity of self defence. The Hon’ble Commission was not considering the culpability or innocence of the appellant in the criminal case set up against him; but declining a fair opportunity to arrange for material of self defence would certainly breach the human right of appellant. Furthermore, there was no impediment in terms of exceptions carved out in Section 8 of the RTI Act prohibiting dissemination of information sought. Accordingly, the Commission directed the PIO, Bureau of Immigration, Intelligence Bureau/MHA to provide complete information sought within four weeks of receipt of the order. [Sections 8 & 24; Human Rights; Self Defence]
  • CIC Decision dated 11.07.2017 on the complaint filed by Shri Saurabh Bindal Vs. Delhi Lawn Tennis Association(uploaded on CIC website on 19.04.2018– The issue before the bench of the Central Information Commission was to decide whether Delhi Lawn Tennis Association is a public authority per section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2008. In the light of the reasons stated in the Order and in order to avoid multiple litigation, the bench refrained from passing an order at that stage. The matter was adjourned sine die and it was open to the parties to agitate the matter before the Commission again after the superior courts have pronounced their decision. [Section 2(h); Delhi Lawn Tennis Association is or is not a Public Authority under the RTI Act]
  • CIC Decision dated 19.04.2018 on the Appeal filed by Ashok Pandit Vs. CPIO, State Bank of India, Maheshkhunt, Khagaria, Bihar – CIC: “The copy of Land Possession Certificate (LPC) and land receipts of the borrowers is personal information of the third parties i.e. the borrowers, which is held by the Bank in a fiduciary capacity, the disclosure of which  has  no  relationship  to  any  public  interest  and  would  cause  an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the third parties. Hence, the disclosure of the information sought is exempted under Section 8(1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act. However, the total number of KCC loans sanctioned from 05.08.2016 till date should be disclosed.” [Section 8(1)(e) and (j); Land Possession Certificate]
  • CIC upholds PMO’s decision not to disclose Aadhaar details of PM [Section 8(1)(j); Personal Information] CIC Decision dated 19.02.2018 on Appeal filed by Soni S. Eramath Vs. CPIO, Prime Minister’s Office, New Delhi 
  • SC: “Weighing the need for transparency and accountability on the one hand and requirement of optimum use of fiscal resources and confidentiality of sensitive information on the other, we are of the view that information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically. Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing. Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by the UPSC as quoted above which will not be in public interest.” (Emphasis Added.) (Sections 8,9,11) –  SC Judgement dated 20.02.2018 – Union Public Service Commission, etc. Vs. Angesh Kumar & Ors. Etc. >>> RTI-Court Judgements
  • Delhi HC: “Section 8 of the Act provides for exemption from disclosure of certain information and none of the provisions of Section 8 provide for blanket exemption that entitles the respondent to withhold all notings on a file.”, ” …. the reasoning, that the notings or information generated by an employee during the course of his employment is his information and thus has to be treated as relating to a third party, is flawed.” [Sections 2(f),8(1)(e),11(1),19(3); File Notings, Third Party Information] –  Delhi HC Judgement dated 12.02.2018 – Paras Nath Singh Vs. Union of India >>> RTI-Court Judgements
  • CIC Decision dated 22.01.2018 on the Second Appeal,Complaint filed by Shri Rajender Saxena Vs. PIO,EE, Citi Zone, North Delhi Municipal Corporation – CIC: “Perusal of the records of the case reveal that the FAA has passed a non-speaking and summary order without specifying how the PIO’s order is incomplete and unsatisfactory. The case is remanded back to the FAA to adjudicate over the matter and decide the same on merits, giving specific directions to the PIO to furnish the deficient information, if any.” [FAA, CPIO]
  • CIC Decision dated 18.01.2018 on the Complaint filed by A. Gopi Krishna Vs. CPIO, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Visakhapatnam – CIC: “The Commission, therefore,
    directs the FAA, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Visakhapatnam, to inquire into the matter as to whether the RTI application was received in the branch and, if so, what action was taken on the RTI application. The FAA shall also, if required, take appropriate departmental action against the officers responsible for the misplacement of the RTI application. A copy of the inquiry report along with the action taken report may be provided to the Commission as well as to the appellant within a period of six weeks. …”  [FAA, CPIO, Departmental Action for Misplacement of RTI Application]

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

SELECTED CIC DECISIONS (DATE-WISE)

(a) CIC DECISIONS (From 01.01.2016 Onwards), (b) CIC DECISIONS (From 01.01.2015 To 31.12.2015), (c) CIC DECISIONS (From 01.10.2014 To 31.12.2014), (d) CIC DECISIONS (From 01.01.2014 To 30.09.2014), (e) CIC DECISIONS (From 01.10.2013 To 31.12.2013), (f) CIC DECISIONS (01.07.2013 To 30.09.2013), (g) CIC DECISIONS (From 15.02.2013 To 30.06.2013), (h) CIC DECISIONS (From 01.10.2012 To 15.10.2012), (i) CIC DECISIONS (01.07.2012 To 30.09.2012), (i) CIC DECISIONS (01.04.2012 To 30.06.2012), (k) CIC DECISIONS (01.01.2012 To 31.3.2012), (l) CIC DECISIONS (01.10.2011 To 31.12.2011)

(a) [

  CIC Order dated 16.01.2024 on the second appeal filed by Shri Govind Prasad Goel Vs. Manager, RTI, FCI, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh (310.1 KiB, 146 hits)

  CIC Order dated 12.01.2024 on the second appeal filed by Mandeep Vs. CPIO, Canara Bank, Bengaluru (174.9 KiB, 144 hits)

  CIC Order dated 28.12.2023 on the second appeal filed by Harmohan Kumar Arora Vs. CPIO, UCO Bank, Kolkata (145.4 KiB, 144 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 25.10.2023 on the Second Appeal filed by Subrata Goswami vs. PIO, Department of Posts, Yogayog Bhawan, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata-12 (289.8 KiB, 423 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 27.09.2023 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Ram Meena vs. PIO, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, I.P. Estate, New Delhi (324.5 KiB, 412 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 27.09.2023 on the Second Appeal filed by Yash Malhotra vs. CPIO, Income Tax Department, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi (355.0 KiB, 431 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 21.08.2023 on the Second Appeal/Complaint filed by Shri Saurabh Agrawal v. PIO, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (1.0 MiB, 804 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 06.07.2023 on the Second Appeal filed by Mr. Prabhat Chandra Chaturvedi vs. O/o of Pr. Chief Commissioner of (IT), CCA), Kanpur and O/o of Addl./Jt. CIT, Central Range, Meerut (208.6 KiB, 775 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 09.06.2023 on the Second Appeal filed by Raman Verma vs. Regional Business Officer-IV, Mohali, SBI, Patiala, Punjab (630.8 KiB, 827 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 24.04.2023 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Satwant Singh Yadav vs. PIO, PMA Cell, Director Police-I, Ministry of Home Affairs (877.7 KiB, 1,211 hits)

  Gujarat HC Judgment dated 31.03.2023 - Gujarat University vs. M Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar) & 3 other(s) (796.5 KiB, 1,494 hits)

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 25.01.2023 - CPIO, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau Vs. G.S. Srinivasan (639.8 KiB, 1,338 hits)

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 11.01.2023 - Jagjit Singh Pal Singh Virk Vs. Union of India & Anr. (710.4 KiB, 1,239 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 06.01.2023 on the Second Appeal filed by Ms Renu Bala Kochhar Vs. Public Information Officers, DDA, New Delhi (375.5 KiB, 1,892 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 25.11.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. CPIO, Department of Revenue, Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, including Delhi Waqf Board (433.8 KiB, 2,080 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 11.11.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Chitresh Kumar Banjare Vs. PIO (1) Delhi Police & (2) Delhi State Legal Services Authority (3.9 MiB, 1,682 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 01.11.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Sura Prasad Pati Vs. CPIO, Punjab National Bank (Erstwhile United Bank of India), Bhubaneswar (143.2 KiB, 1,630 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 01.11.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Rajeev Kumar Agarwal Vs. PIO, CISF (312.8 KiB, 1,672 hits)

  CIC Order dated 16.09.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Gautam Saren Vs. CPIO, National Test House, Kolkata (1.4 MiB, 2,558 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 04.08.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Prakash Gopalan Vs. Public Information Officer, Office of CPMG, Kerala Circle, Deptt. of Posts, Thiruvananthapuram (507.4 KiB, 2,443 hits)

  CIC Order dated 01.08.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Anil Kumr Agrawal Vs. CPIO, Canara Bank, Hapur (180.9 KiB, 2,423 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 06.06.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Dr. Rajiv Khatri Vs. CPIO, University Grants Commission, New Delhi (1.1 MiB, 2,474 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 25.05.2022 on the Second Appeal,Complaint filed by Prasoon Shekhar Vs. CPIO, Bar Council of India, New Delhi (188.2 KiB, 2,408 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 27.04.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Hari Gupta Vs. CPIO, Office of DG of Income Tax, Lucknow (188.2 KiB, 1,871 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 25.04.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Savio J.F. Correia Vs. CPIO, Mormugao Port Trust, Goa (196.5 KiB, 1,860 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 23.02.2022 on the Second Appeal/Complaint filed by Sh. Nagsen Rajaram Suralkar Vs. Department of Posts, Office of Supdt. of Post Office, Bhuswal, Maharashtra (179.9 KiB, 2,006 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 22.02.2022 on the Second Appeal/Complaint filed by Sh. J.P. Tiwari Vs. CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi (190.6 KiB, 1,889 hits)

  CIC Order dated 03.01.2022 on the Second Appeal filed by Mr. Om Prakash Vijaivergia Vs. CPIO, State Bank of India, Siliguri, Darjeeling, West Bengal (140.3 KiB, 1,916 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 29.10.2021 on the Second Appeal filed by Mr. Dhavalkumar Kirtikumar Patel Vs. CPIO, National Mission for Manuscripts, New Delhi, and CPIOs of 4 other organisations (430.2 KiB, 1,923 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 22.10.2021 on the Second Appeal filed by Love Gogia Vs. CPIO, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Office of CGM, Pune (222.5 KiB, 2,024 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 16.08.2021 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Saurav Das Vs. CPIO, Department of Health & Family Welfare (1.9 MiB, 2,165 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 13.08.2021 on the Second Appeal/Complaint filed by Shri Shyamlal Yadav Vs. PIO, CPV Division, Ministry of External Affairs (729.2 KiB, 2,114 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 17.05.2021 on the Complaint filed by Shri Aniket Gaurav Vs. PIO, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (15.8 MiB, 2,251 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 23.03.2021 on the Second Appeal/Complaint filed by Shri Venkatesh Nayak Vs. CPIO, Department of Social Justice & Empowerment, New Delhi (138.3 KiB, 2,468 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 16.02.2021 on the Second Appeal filed by Jitendra Kumar vs. CPIO, O/o Income Tax Officer, Aligarh, UP (151.8 KiB, 2,666 hits)

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 05.02.2021 - Amit Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi (489.9 KiB, 2,998 hits)

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 22.01.2021 - Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta (Erstwhile CPIO) Union Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Central Information Commission & Anr. (889.7 KiB, 3,625 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 28.12.2020 on the Second Appeals filed by Deeksha Chaudhary Vs. CPIO, Air India Ltd., New Delhi (1.2 MiB, 2,725 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 21.12.2020 on the Second Appeal by Vihar Durve Vs. CPIO, State Bank of India, Mumbai (140.3 KiB, 3,323 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 06.11.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Rahmat Bano Vs. Office of Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Jodhpur, Rajasthan (157.9 KiB, 2,849 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 05.11.2020 on the Complaint filed by Varun Krishna Vs. CPIO, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Mumbai (150.7 KiB, 2,839 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 30.10.2020 on the Second Appeal/Complaint by Shri Kuldeep Kumar Baranwal v. CPIO, Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi (489.0 KiB, 3,074 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 16.09.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Mahendra Singh Vs. PIO/SDM (Narela), Naya Bans, Delhi through Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Consultant of PIO (695.0 KiB, 2,869 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 26.08.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Smt. Meeta Agrawal Vs. CPIO, DGM(G) & Nodal PIO, North Central Railway, RTI Cell, Subedarganj, Allahabad (787.5 KiB, 3,025 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 23.07.2020 on the Complaint filed by Mr. Saurav Das Vs. CPIOs, ICMR, and Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi (277.4 KiB, 3,030 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 20.07.2020 on the Second Appeal/Complaint by Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. PIO, NDMC, Narela Zone, New Delhi (195.7 KiB, 2,996 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 10.07.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Smt. Basavantamma Vs. CPIO, Office of the Income Tax Officer, Bengaluru (818.8 KiB, 2,875 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 24.06.2020 on the Second Appeal by Shri Baljeet Singh Vs. CPIO, Central University of Haryana, Mahendergarh (Haryana) (815.2 KiB, 3,105 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 22.06.2020 on the Second Appeal by Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. CPIO, Office of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Settlement Commission, Mumbai/Kolkata/New Delhi/Chennai (584.0 KiB, 3,140 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 05.06.2020 on the Complaint filed by Mr. Venkatesh Nayak Vs. CPIO, Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi (312.0 KiB, 2,748 hits)

  CIC Order dated 03.06.2020 on the Appeal filed by Priti Ranjan Das on behalf of the HDFC Bank Vs. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai (160.6 KiB, 2,822 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 01.05.2020 on the Complaint filed by Mr. Anil Sood Vs. CPIO & Nodal Officer, Office of Central Govt. Health Scheme. R.K. Puram Sector 12, New Delhi-22 (1.4 MiB, 4,333 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 24.04.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Smt. Kairun BiBi Vs. CPIO, Steel Authority of India, Dhanbad (530.5 KiB, 2,940 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 23.04.2020 on the Complaint filed by Mr. Varun Krishna Vs. CPIO & Dy. GM (Legal), Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., New Delhi (1.8 MiB, 3,025 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 22.04.2020 on the Complaint filed by Mr. Mohit Kumar Gupta Vs. CPIO, University of Delhi (884.2 KiB, 2,958 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 19.03.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Ajay Manda Vs. CPIO, Ch. Charan Singh National Institute of Agriculture Marketing, Jaipur (260.7 KiB, 3,111 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 17.03.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Mr. D.T. Eshwaran Vs. CPIO, Central Govt. Employees Welfare Housing Organization, New Delhi (500.9 KiB, 2,947 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 21.02.2020 on the Second Appeal by Mr. Amit Khera v. CPIO, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Delhi (253.6 KiB, 3,621 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 10.02.2020 on the Second Appeal filed by Ajay Kumar v. CPIO, Northern Central Railway, Agra (122.5 KiB, 3,209 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 06.02.2020 on the Second Appeal by Mr. Rana Ranjan v. CPIO, National Insurance Company Ltd., Bhavnagar, Gujarat (221.4 KiB, 3,368 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 20.12.2019 on the Complaint filed by Mr. Kripalani M. v. CPIO, Office of Pr. Commissioner of Customs, Menezies Aviation Cargo Terminal, Bangaluru (Full Bench Decision) (257.7 KiB, 3,299 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgment dated 17.12.2019 - Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (364.3 KiB, 3,842 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 06.12.2019 on the Complaint filed by Neeraj Sharma v. CPIO, National Payments Corporation of India, New Delhi (Full Bench Decision) (1.0 MiB, 3,297 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 05.12.2019 on the Second Appeal filed by Priti Ranjan Das Vs. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai (136.5 KiB, 3,704 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 29.11.2019 on the Second Appeal filed by Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui v. CPIO, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi (Full Bench Decision) (456.2 KiB, 3,301 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 27.11.2019 on the Second Appeal filed by Shiv Kumar Kanoi Vs. CPIO, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Mumbai (151.9 KiB, 3,656 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 27.11.2019 on the Second Appeal filed by Anand Nallan Vs. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai (158.7 KiB, 3,640 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 07.11.2019 on the Second Appeal filed by Rakesh Sharma Vs. Asstt. Secretary & CPIO, Central Board of Secondary Education, Regional Office, Allahabad (520.3 KiB, 3,973 hits)

  Madras HC Judgment dated 16.10.2019 - The Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Chennai (234.3 KiB, 4,313 hits)

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 10.10.2019 - Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr Vs. Krishan Kumar (463.3 KiB, 4,241 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 09.09.2019 on the Second Appeal filed by Vipin Jain v. CPIO, UCO Bank, Indore (150.0 KiB, 4,357 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 01.08.2019 on the Second Appeal filed by Nikhil Kumar Singh v. CPIOs, Central Board of Secondary Education (176.0 KiB, 4,746 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 29.07.2019 on the Second Appeal filed by Ms. Renu Garg v. CPIOs, Delhi Police (136.5 KiB, 4,661 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 02.07.2019 on the Second Appeal file by Commodore Lokesh K. Batra V. CPIO, Deptt. of Personnel & Training, New Delhi (146.3 KiB, 4,813 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 28.06.2019 on the Second Appeal filed by Mandeep V. CPIO, Bureau of Immigration, New Delhi, CPIO, IB, New Delhi (641.0 KiB, 4,838 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 12.06.2019 on the second Appeal filed by Ujwala Kokde V. CPOI, Ministry of Home Affairs, Judicial Division, New Delhi (718.8 KiB, 4,860 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 22.05.2019 on the Second Appeal filed by Ms. Nutan Thankur vs. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai (729.1 KiB, 5,121 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 17.05.2019 on the Second Appeal filed by Gopal Kumar Jha vs. CPIO, State Bank of India, Patna (3.2 MiB, 5,299 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 29.04.2019 on the Appeal filed by Shri Manoj Kumar v. CPIO, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch, Patna (160.6 KiB, 5,446 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 26.04.2019 on the Complaint filed by Monish Gulati v. CPIO, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi (177.6 KiB, 5,419 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 25.04.2019 on the Appeal filed by D. Sounderraj v. CPIO, Air India, Air Transport Services Ltd., Mumbai (174.4 KiB, 5,488 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 26.03.2019 on the Appeal filed by Nutan Thakur v. CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi (164.3 KiB, 5,822 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 11.03.2019 on the Appeal filed by Shri Ashok Rameshbhai Mistry v. CPIO, Dena Bank, Surat (130.2 KiB, 5,776 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 07.03.2019 on the Appeal filed by Shri Vipin Yadav v. PIO, Office of the Land Acquisition Collector (South-West), GNCTD (484.0 KiB, 5,767 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 15.02.2019 on the Appeal filed by Shri R.P. Rohilla v. PIO, Dte. General of Health Services, New Delhi (125.4 KiB, 6,089 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 13.02.2019 on the Appeal filed by Ms Pushpa Devi v. CPIO, Central Coalfield Limited, Jharkhand (590.4 KiB, 5,997 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 12.02.2019 on the Appeal filed by Shri Razaak K. Haider v. CPIO Election Commission of India, New Delhi (666.2 KiB, 5,748 hits)

  Delhi HC Judgment dated 16.01.2019 - Ehtisham Qutubuddin Siddique v. CPIO Intelligence Bureau (370.6 KiB, 6,607 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 15.01.2019 on the Appeal filed by Mr. Kantilal B. Chavda v. CPIO, Central University of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, Gujarat (225.6 KiB, 6,818 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 10.01.2019 on the Complaint filed by Shri S.S. Chawla v. Director,CPIO, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi (186.8 KiB, 6,368 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 24.12.2018 - Mr. R.S. Rai v. CPIO, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Jabalpur (173.2 KiB, 6,624 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 21.12.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Sounder Rajan v. CPIO, IDBI Bank Limited, Mumbai (128.8 KiB, 6,497 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 19.12.2018 - Nirmal Singh Dhiman v. CPIO, Deptt. of Ex-Servicemen, New Delhi (148.8 KiB, 6,539 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 08.11.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. CPIO, Min. of Youth Affairs & Sports, New Delhi (321.5 KiB, 7,330 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 02.11.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Sandeep Singh Jadoun v. PIO, DGEAT (523.3 KiB, 7,629 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 05.09.2018 on the Appeal filed by R.P. Verma Vs. CPIO, Ordnance Factory, Raipur, Dehradun (153.6 KiB, 7,644 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 06.08.2018 on the Appeal filed by Mr. K.S. Jain Vs. CPIO, Dte. Gen. of Vig., Customs & Central Excise, New Delhi (175.6 KiB, 6,878 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 06.08.2018 on the Appeal filed by Ms. Rashi Agrawal Vs. CPIO, SPMCIL, New Delhi, CPIO, Indian Security Press, Nashik (165.0 KiB, 6,477 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 30.07.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. CPIO, Min. of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, New Delhi (483.5 KiB, 6,437 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 11.07.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri S.P. Sinha Vs APIO, Min. of Shipping, MMD, Mumbai (60.6 KiB, 6,600 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 04.07.2018 on the Appeal,Complaint filed by Shri Hans Raj Chug Vs. PIO, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi (288.3 KiB, 6,371 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 27.06.2018 on the Appeal,Complaint filed by Mr. R. Natarajan Vs. PIO, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (484.7 KiB, 6,710 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 25.06.2018 on the Appeal filed by Balkrishna Porwal Vs. PIO, Department of Posts (192.5 KiB, 6,885 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 25.06.2018 on the Appeal filed by Ajay Kumar Vs. CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Lucknow (44.7 KiB, 7,571 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 18.06.2018 on the Appeal filed by Shri Neeraj Sharma Vs. CPIO, Rajya Sabha Sectt., New Delhi (55.6 KiB, 7,571 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 31.05.2018 on the Appeal filed by Hitender Vs. CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi (58.4 KiB, 7,593 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 07.05.2018 on the Appeal/Complaint filed by Mr. M. Dinesh Vs. PIO, Bureau of Immigration,IB (MHA) (362.6 KiB, 6,585 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 11.07.2017 on the complaint filed by Shri Saurabh Bindal Vs. Delhi Lawn Tennis Association(uploaded on CIC website on 19.04.2018) (12.2 MiB, 7,874 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 19.04.2018 on the Appeal filed by Ashok Pandit Vs. CPIO, State Bank of India, Maheshkhunt, Khagaria, Bihar (62.4 KiB, 8,108 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 19.02.2018 on Appeal filed by Soni S. Eramath Vs. CPIO, Prime Minister's Office, New Delhi (57.2 KiB, 8,289 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 22.01.2018 on the Second Appeal,Complaint filed by Shri Rajender Saxena Vs. PIO,EE, Citi Zone, North Delhi Municipal Corporation (161.1 KiB, 9,167 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 18.01.2018 on the Complaint filed by A. Gopi Krishna Vs. CPIO, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Visakhapatnam (64.4 KiB, 9,047 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 05.12.2017 on Appeal filed by Madhu Vs. PIO & Sr. DMM, DRM Office, Northern Railway, New Delhi (484.7 KiB, 9,429 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 05.12.2017 on the Appeal filed by Om Prakash Sharma Vs. PIO, Department of Posts (69.2 KiB, 9,405 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 05.12.2017 on the Appeal filed by Shri Ajay Kumar, Gurgaon Vs. National Institute of Technology, Patna (32.3 KiB, 9,109 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 20.11.2017 on the Complaint filed by Mr. Shailesh Gandhi Vs. The CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office Building, Mumbai (Full Bench Decision) (697.7 KiB, 9,374 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 13.11.2017 on the Complaints filed by Shri R.K. Jain and Ms. Ita Bose against Indian Banks Association, Mumbai (1.1 MiB, 9,591 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 20.10.2017 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Ramraj Sonkar Vs. CPIO, Branch Manager, SBI, Kanpur Nagar (60.5 KiB, 7,207 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 17.10.2017 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Yogesh Chandra Vs. CPIO, Office of SE (Elect.). BSNL, New Delhi (59.8 KiB, 7,243 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 16.10.2017 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Y.N. Prasad Vs. Ahlmad Evening Court (216.2 KiB, 9,099 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 16.09.2017 on the Second Appeal/Complaint filed by Shri Shailesh Gandhi, Shri Madhukar Ganpat Kukde and Shri Nimish S. Agarwal Vs. CDR Cell, IDBI Tower, Mumbai (Full Bench Decision) (16.9 MiB, 7,171 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 14.09.2017 on the Appeal filed by Shri R.B. Patil Vs. PIO, Department of Posts (51.8 KiB, 9,552 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 04.09.2017 on the Second Appeal filed by Shri Ashwani Kumar Avasthi Vs. The CPIO, SBI, Mumbai & Director/GM, IBPS, Mumbai (Full Bench Decision) (9.0 MiB, 7,092 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 08.08.2017 on the Appeal file by Sh. RK Jain, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (358.6 KiB, 9,242 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 28.07.2017 on the Appeal filed by Ms. Krishna Sharma vs. PIO, Department of Posts, Supdt. of Post Offices, Gwalior (67.4 KiB, 9,470 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 28.07.2017 on the Appeal filed by Munna Ahmad vs. PIO, Dargah Committee, Ajmer (60.0 KiB, 8,852 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 16.06.2017 on the Second Appeal filed by Nammi Bano Vs. National Commission for Women (136.5 KiB, 9,676 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 07.06.2017 on the Appeal filed by Mohd. Amin, J&K Vs. CPIO, TCIL, New Delhi (66.5 KiB, 9,057 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 18.05.2017 on the Complaint filed by Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai (286.0 KiB, 9,179 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 06.04.2017 on the Second Appeal filed by Mrs. Gunmala Jain, Lalitpur, UP Vs. CPIO, Sr. Supdt., Jhansi, UP (61.2 KiB, 9,333 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 05.04.2017 on the Second Appeal filed by Sucheta Sureshkumar Vs. PIO, EPFO, Mumbai (61.1 KiB, 10,144 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 30.03.2017 on Second Appeal filed by Amrika Bai V. PIO, EPFO, Raipur (84.2 KiB, 9,908 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 08.03.2017 on the Appeal filed by Insad, New Delhi, Vs. Dy. P.O., Min. of External Affairs, R.K. Puram, New Delhi (62.8 KiB, 9,775 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 09.02.2017 on Appeal filed by Shri Shrigopal Soni Vs. PIO, National Science Centre (51.3 KiB, 10,722 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 06.02.2017 on Appeal filed by Shri Gopal Rao Gudi Vs.PIO, National Council of Science Museum (58.4 KiB, 10,803 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 20.01.2017 on Appeal filed by Mr. Ashwani Kumar Gupta, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh Vs. CPIO, Office of the CLC (C), Raipur, Chhattisgarh (56.7 KiB, 6,620 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 13.01.2017 on Appeal filed by Shri Shanker Goel, New Delhi (39.5 KiB, 6,278 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 04.01.2017 on the Appeal filed by Shri Devraj, Distt. Dharwad, Karnataka vs. CPIO, South Western Railway, Bangalore (51.4 KiB, 10,633 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 04.01.2017 on the Appeal filed by Mr. Ankur Jindal, Delhi, vs. CPIO, West Central Railway, Kota, Rajasthan (61.9 KiB, 9,909 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 29.12.2016 on the Appeal filed by Shri Pradeep B. Sharma, Indore vs. State Bank of India, Jabalpur/Bhopal (36.9 KiB, 10,412 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 27.12.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Harinder Dhingra Vs. PIO, Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi (141.4 KiB, 9,684 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 05.12.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Prashant Katela Vs. CPIO, Railway Board, New Delhi (51.4 KiB, 9,841 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 17.11.2016 on Appeal filed by Mrs. Gayatri Devi, Distt. Patna, Bihar Vs. CPIO, Office of GM, Personnel Branch, Vaishali, Bihar (53.5 KiB, 10,515 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 16.11.2016 on Appeal filed by Mr. Hukma Raj Badala, Pali, Rajasthan Vs. CPIO, North Western Railway Division Office, Ajmer (66.3 KiB, 10,081 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 15.11.2016 on Appeal filed by Mr. Narayan Prasad, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vs. CPIO, DRM Office, Bikaner, Rajasthan (51.5 KiB, 9,908 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 01.11.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Y.K. Mall Vs. PIO, KVS, New Delhi (90.8 KiB, 9,663 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 01.09.2016 on Appeal filed by A.B.S.J. Rao (ESM), Kakinada District, AP Vs. CPIO, NCC Group Hq., Kakinad District, A.P. (54.9 KiB, 10,198 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 31.08.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Joginder Singh, Tihar, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Punjab & Sind Bank, Rajendera Place, New Delhi (169.9 KiB, 10,531 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 16.08.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Tolendra Kumar Baghmar, Chhattisgarh Vs. CPIO, Dena Bank, Raipur (211.0 KiB, 10,427 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 16.08.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Sham Sundar, Faridkot, Punjab Vs. CPIOs at Mumbai and Chandigarh, NABARD (219.2 KiB, 10,084 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 22.07.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Bhramanand Mishra Vs. PIO, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Lucknow (517.0 KiB, 11,763 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 21.07.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Gulab Singh Rana, GM, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai Vs. CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai (805.4 KiB, 12,868 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 11.07.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Vivek Duggal Vs. CPIO, Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board, N. Delhi (Div. Bench Decision) (307.1 KiB, 10,783 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 28.06.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Nanik Premchand Rajwani, Distt. Thane Vs CPIO, Union Bank of India, Mumbai (Division Bench Decision) (335.8 KiB, 10,766 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 24.06.2016 on Appeal filed by Ex Nb Sub U.S. Maurya, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Records Signals (92.3 KiB, 10,350 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 24.06.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Banarasi Rai, Madya Pradesh Vs. CPIO, CBI, Madhya Pradesh (338.0 KiB, 10,247 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 15.06.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Chayan Ghosh Chowdhury, Lucknow Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi (211.9 KiB, 8,487 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 09.06.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Arun Kumar Agarwal, Bangalore Vs. Security & Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Mumbai (Full Bench Decision) (171.2 KiB, 8,726 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 06.06.2016 on Appeal filed by Ms. Monika Singh Vs. Family Welfare Deptt., Govt. of NCT of Delhi (291.4 KiB, 10,711 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 06.06.2016 on Appeal filed by Mr. Onkar Nath, Allahabad Vs. CPIO, Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkata (86.3 KiB, 11,034 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 26.05.2016 on Appeal/Complaint filed by Shri Gurmeet Singh, Delhi Vs. Safdarjang Hospital & VMMC, New Delhi (85.1 KiB, 10,771 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 13.05.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Gaurav Sethi Vs. University Grants Commission (256.5 KiB, 10,901 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 06.05.2016 on Complaint filed by Shri S.C. Agrawal Vs. Constitution Club of India (Full Bench Decision) (252.0 KiB, 10,483 hits)

  सीआईसी निर्णय दिनाकित 23.03.2016 - श्री अशोक कुमार, नन्द नगरी, दिल्ली Vs सी जी एच एस, लक्ष्मी नगर, दिल्ली (156.5 KiB, 11,346 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 22.03.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Rameshwar Das Bhankhar Vs. Kendrya Vidyalaya Sansthan, N. Delhi (293.6 KiB, 10,783 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 12.03.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Hemant Dhage Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi (656.2 KiB, 11,523 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 10.03.2016 on Appeal filed by Nirmal Kanta Vs. Laxmi Bai College, Delhi University (300.9 KiB, 8,021 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 08.03.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Bipin Kumar Vs. Bhakra Beas Management Board, Nangal (213.5 KiB, 8,760 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 07.03.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri P. Muruesan, Turicorin Vs. Tuticorin Port Trust (58.4 KiB, 5,616 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 24.02.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri Anil Sood Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate (Election), Govt. of NCT of Delhi (368.4 KiB, 11,052 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 23.02.2016 on Complaint/Appeal filed by Shri Dinesh Chandra Vs. Medical Council of India, New Delhi (44.9 KiB, 10,921 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 08.02.2016 on Appeal filed by Mr. Hemant Kumar Agarwal, Sarguja, Chhattisgarh Vs. CPIO & Supdt. of Post Office, Raigad (55.0 KiB, 11,151 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 08.02.2016 on Appeal filed by Shri S. Poovendran, Salem Distt. Vs. CPIO, Southern Railway, Chennai (315.1 KiB, 7,854 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 15.01.2016 - Abne Ingty vs. CPIO, Delhi University, New Delhi (809.4 KiB, 11,453 hits)

(b) CIC Decisions (From 01.01.2015 To 31.12.2015)

  CIC Decision dated 16.12.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Maniram Sharma, Distt. Churu, Rajasthan Vs. Min. of Communication & IT, NIC, New Delhi (Full Bench Decision) (534.3 KiB, 11,224 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 11.12.2015 on Appeal from Smt. Mukesh Devi, Distt. Alwar Vs. CPIO, Office of DG, CISF Camp, New Delhi (296.6 KiB, 11,534 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 09.12.2015 on Appeal from Dr. A.L. Agarwal Vs. Delhi University (280.1 KiB, 11,743 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 30.11.2015 on Appeal from Dr. D. Dhaya Devadas & Shri V. Sundaram Vs. CPIO, Indian Bureau of Mines, Chennai (Full Bench Decision) (648.9 KiB, 9,627 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 27.11.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Nirmal Kumar Agarwal, Kheri (UP) Vs. CPIO, Department of Posts, Kheri (48.3 KiB, 9,448 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 27.11.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Kunjan Tripathi, Distt. Kanpur (Dehat) Vs. CPIO, Department of Posts, Kanpur (55.2 KiB, 9,562 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 09.11.2015 on Appeal from Shri R.K. Jain Vs. Delhi University (250.2 KiB, 9,498 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 09.11.2015 on Appeal from Mr. A. Bidyadhar, S.P.M. Sumandala, Ganjam (Odisha) Vs. Department of Posts, Berhampur-760001 (46.1 KiB, 6,104 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 21.10.2015 on Appeal from Mr. David George Thomas Vs. Ministry of Environment & Forests (264.7 KiB, 9,324 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 15.10.2015 on Appeal from Shri Durga Prasad Kushwaha, Katni Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jabalpur (84.4 KiB, 9,800 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 23.09.2015 on Appeal from Indian Technomac Company Ltd., New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Bank of India, Janpath, New Delhi (402.8 KiB, 9,515 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 11.09.2015 on Appeal from Shri Biswamber Nayak Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre, New Delhi (519.8 KiB, 8,863 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 07.09.2015 on Appeal from Shri Sultan Singh Vs. PIO, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi (473.1 KiB, 9,005 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 13.08.2015 on Appeal from Shri Sunhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. PIO, Min. of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, New Delhi (259.0 KiB, 10,058 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 10.08.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Chandratan, Ahmedabad Vs. CPIO, Office of Commissioner, Income Tax Department, Surat (89.1 KiB, 10,384 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 03.08.2015 - Ms. Poonam Kumari, Ghaziabad Vs. CPIO, Staff Selection Commssion, New Delhi (441.6 KiB, 9,745 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 15.06.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. CPIO & Dy.DG, Deptt. of Posts, New Delhi (56.6 KiB, 8,141 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 03.06.2015 on Appeal filed by Rakhee Marwah Vs. PIO, SDM (Saket), New Delhi (256.3 KiB, 13,154 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 29.05.2015 on Appeal filed by Shri H.K. Sehgal Vs. Delhi Jal Board (247.6 KiB, 7,532 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 30.04.2015 on Appeal from Surender Vishwakarma Vs. Department of Justice, GOI, New Delhi (248.6 KiB, 12,901 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 28.04.2015 on Appeal from Mohit Hasija Vs. PIO, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology (253.7 KiB, 821 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 13.04.2015 on Appeal from Ms. Jyoti Arora Vs. Pusa Polytechnic, Delhi (249.7 KiB, 12,726 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 10.04.2015 on Appeal from Ms. Jyoti Jeena Vs. Institue of Human Behaviour & Allied Sciences, Delhi (525.4 KiB, 13,772 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 31.03.2015 on Appeal from Shri Shantaram Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai (136.5 KiB, 12,876 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 19.03.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Dharampal, Gurgaon Vs. CPIO & Supdt. of Post Offices, Gurgaon (44.1 KiB, 12,676 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 19.03.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Ram Kumar, Jaipur Vs. Controller of Communication Acts, Deptt. of Telecommunications, Shimla (44.9 KiB, 12,795 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 04.03.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Jitendra Anandrao Chauhan, Kolhapur Central Prison Vs. Department of Posts, New Delhi (47.6 KiB, 12,351 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 03.03.2015 on Appeal from Mr. Baladevan Rangaraju Vs. PIO, Delhi Commission for Women, GNCTD, New Delhi (212.9 KiB, 14,228 hits)

  Decision dated 02.03.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Amal Kumar Bhattacharya, Vadodara Vs. Medical Council of India, New Delhi (53.5 KiB, 14,399 hits)

  Decision dated 26.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri Anbuvendhan, Chennai Vs. the CPIO, National Commission for Scheduled Castes, New Delhi (128.6 KiB, 14,144 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 20.02.2015 on Appeal from Suresh Chander Gupta Vs. Ministry of Environment & Forests, New Delhi (491.9 KiB, 12,958 hits)

  Decision dated 18.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri Shyam Mohan Parashar, Faridabad Vs. Dte. of Training and Technical Education, Delhi (258.2 KiB, 14,176 hits)

  Decision dated 05.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Pradeep Sharma Vs. Social Welfare Officer (respondent) (350.5 KiB, 14,282 hits)

  Decision dated 03.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Roshan Lal Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi (253.0 KiB, 14,291 hits)

  Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Complaint from Shri Roshan Lal Vs. Deptt. of Health & Family Welfare, GNCTD, Delhi (352.1 KiB, 12,072 hits)

  Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Appeal from Shri SKT Sherman Vs. RCS, GNCTD, New Delhi (352.4 KiB, 14,545 hits)

  Decision dated 02.02.2015 on Appeal from Dr. Satya Prakash, Delhi Vs. Lalit Kala Akademi, New Delhi (207.4 KiB, 14,356 hits)

  Decision dated 30.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri N.B. Deshmukh, Thane Vs. CPIO Air India Ltd., Mumbai (42.1 KiB, 14,274 hits)

  Decision dated 27.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri Harsh Vardhan Nayyar, New Delhi Vs. NDMC, New Delhi (54.2 KiB, 14,289 hits)

  Decision dated 27.01.2015 on Appeal from Mr. M. Mahadevappa Vs. CPIO & DGM (HR/Admn.), BSNL, Mysore (52.6 KiB, 11,172 hits)

  Decision dated 21.01.2015 on Appeal from Ms. Harpreet Kaur Vs. Delhi Subordinate Selection Board, Delhi (454.9 KiB, 14,672 hits)

  Decision dated 16.01.2015 on Appeal from Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Department for the Welfare of SC/ST/OBC, GNCTD, Delhi (469.0 KiB, 12,817 hits)

  Decision dated 15.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri Gurmeet Singh, Kanpur Vs. CGHS, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (122.8 KiB, 772 hits)

  Decision dated 14.01.2015 on Complaint from Sh. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. National Green Tribunal (365.9 KiB, 14,292 hits)

  Decision dated 08.01.2015 on Complaint from Ms. Sakshi Jain Vs. GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi (351.0 KiB, 12,635 hits)

  Decision dated 07.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri S.N. Shukla, Lucknow Vs. Department of Justice, Govt. of India, New Delhi (474.1 KiB, 14,346 hits)

  Decision dated 02.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal Vs. PIO, Dy. Land & Development Officer, Min. of Urban Development, New Delhi (45.4 KiB, 715 hits)

  Decision dated 01.01.2015 on Appeal from Shri Rohit Sabharwal, President, Coucil of RTI Activists, Ludhiana Vs. CPIO, DGM, BSNL, Ludhiana (73.9 KiB, 994 hits)

(c) CIC Decisions (From 01.10.2014 To 31.12.2014)

  Decision dated 31.12.2014 on complaint from Shri Ashutosh Nagar Vs. National Green Tribunal (474.6 KiB, 1,125 hits)

  Decision dated 19.12.2014 - Shri Jai Prakash Deep Vs. CPIO, India Oil Corporation Ltd., Bhopal (331.9 KiB, 912 hits)

  Decision dated 17.12.2014 - Mr. Francis Assis Fernandes, Indore Vs. CPIO & Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Ujjain (52.4 KiB, 14,496 hits)

  Decision dated 12.12.2014 - Shri Ram Naresh Vs. Dte. of Education Hqrs., GNCTD, Delhi (351.1 KiB, 780 hits)

  Decision dated 12.12.2014 - Shri O.P. Nahar Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, New Delhi (352.7 KiB, 864 hits)

  Decision dated 11.12.2014 - Shri Satinder Nath Sood Vs. CPIO, United Bank of India Regional Office, New Delhi (209.0 KiB, 774 hits)

  Decision dated 11.12.2014 - Shri Ashwini Vs. DTC, New Delhi (252.0 KiB, 832 hits)

  Decision dated 01.12.2014 - Attar Singh Kaushik Vs. Education Deptt., GNCTD, Delhi (258.6 KiB, 14,184 hits)

  Decision dated 26.11.2014 - Shri Rohit Sabharwal Vs. Delhi Fire Service, GNCTD, Delhi (334.1 KiB, 946 hits)

  Decision dated 25.11.2014 - Shri V.K. Jha Vs. Tis Hazari Court, Delhi (317.5 KiB, 1,024 hits)

  Decision dated 25.11.2014 - Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi (265.2 KiB, 14,167 hits)

  Decision dated 25.11.2014 - Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi (271.0 KiB, 979 hits)

  Decision dated 12.11.2014 - Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi (433.5 KiB, 8,865 hits)

  Decision dated 05.11.2014 - Sardar Ranjit Singh, Lucknow Vs. CPIO, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., NOIDA (309.5 KiB, 754 hits)

  Decision dated 03.11.2014 - Shri Chander Prakash Vs. AGM (HR), DGM (HR) & Ors., Airport Authority of India, Delhi (80.2 KiB, 1,081 hits)

  Decision dated 03.11.2014 - Mr. Inala Satyanarayana Murthy, Machilipatnam, A.P. Vs. CPIO & Supdt. of Post Offices, Machilipatnam (50.8 KiB, 841 hits)

  Decision dated 22.10.2014 - Shri Prem Raj Vs. Delhi Jal Board, GNCTD (310.6 KiB, 913 hits)

  Decision dated 17.10.2014 - Shri M.K. Gupta, Delhi Vs. PIO, Jt. Dir. (Gr.Cell), CGHS, New Delhi (44.9 KiB, 812 hits)

  Decision dated 10.10.2014 - Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Jal Board (208.1 KiB, 14,127 hits)

(d) CIC Decisions (From 01.01.2014 To 30.09.2014) 

  Decision dated 16.09.2014 - Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Delhi Vs. CPIO, Delhi & Distt. Cricket Association, Land & Development Officer, Min. of UD, New Delhi (Full Bench Decision) (86.4 KiB, 634 hits)

  Decision dated 20.08.2014 - Dr. Srinivas Vyas Vs. Ayurvedic and Unani Tibbia College & Hospital, GNCTD, New Delhi (387.7 KiB, 14,392 hits)

  Decision dated 17.07.2014 - Shri Ashutosh Pandey, Bhopal Vs. UPSC, New Delhi (74.4 KiB, 592 hits)

  Decision dated 17.07.2014 - Shri Sudhir Goyal, Dehradun Vs. PMO, New Delhi (129.0 KiB, 811 hits)

  Decision dated 25.06.2014 - Mr. R.C. Jain Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, GNCTD, Delhi (450.2 KiB, 12,684 hits)

  CIC Decision dated 19.06.2014 on the Appeal filed by Lt. Gen. S.S. Dahiya Vs. CPIO, Appellate Authority, Air Hqrs., New Delhi (233.9 KiB, 7,817 hits)

  Decision dated 09.06.2014 - Smt. Walia Nasreen, Lucknow Vs. CPIO, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi (295.2 KiB, 710 hits)

  Decision dated 05.06.2014 - Mr. S.P. Dogra, Ambala Cantt. Vs. CPIO & Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices, Deptt. of Posts, Ambala (67.5 KiB, 806 hits)

  Decision dated 23.05.2014 - Ms. Meenu Kumari Vs. Delhi State Service Selection Board, Delhi (256.9 KiB, 819 hits)

  Decision dated 21.05.2014 - Mr. Patel Shankarlal Ambalal Vs. CPIO & Supdt. of Post Offices, Godhara (63.0 KiB, 8,090 hits)

  Decision dated 15.05.2014 - Shri K.P. Singh Vs. U.P.S.C., New Delhi (199.4 KiB, 829 hits)

  Decision dated 15.05.2014 - Shri Hardeep Singh Sawhney Vs. Rajya Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi (198.6 KiB, 7,812 hits)

  Decision dated 15.05.2014 - Shri Anil Kumar Khabya, Bhopal Vs. DCIT, Bhopal (13.4 KiB, 941 hits)

  Decision dated 12.05.2014 - Mr. Patel Hasmukhbai Maganbhai, Godhdra Vs. Supdt. of Post Offices, Godhra (64.5 KiB, 734 hits)

  Decision dated 05.05.2014 - Ch. Rama Krishna Rao Vs. Naval Shipyard, Port Blair (Full Bench Decision) (223.9 KiB, 1,334 hits)

  Decision dated 02.05.2014 - Shri Gaikwad Shahurao Vishwanthrao, Parbhani, Maharashtra Vs. CPIO, Maharashtra Gramin Bank, Nanded, Maharashtra (210.2 KiB, 877 hits)

  Decision dated 24.04.2014 - Shri Dipak J. Gandhi Vs. Supreme Court (52.2 KiB, 7,955 hits)

  Decision dated 24.04.2014 - Shri Rakesh Gupta Vs. Kendriya Bhandar (216.9 KiB, 917 hits)

  Decision dated 17.04.2014 - Ramesh Kumar Vs. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Delhi (214.0 KiB, 847 hits)

  Decision dated 16.04.2014 - Mrs. Usha Devi, Gandhinagar, Jammu Vs. CPIO, Deptt. of Posts, Office of PMG, Jammu (50.6 KiB, 893 hits)

  Decision dated 03.04.2014 - Sh. Arun Kumar Sinha, Kolkata Vs. CPIO, National Library, Govt. of India, Kolkata (310.4 KiB, 1,112 hits)

  Decision dated 03.04.2014 - Mr. S. Dhanabalan, Veppur, Perambalur District Vs. CPIO, Office of Postmaster General, Tiruchirapalli (47.9 KiB, 712 hits)

  Decision dated 12.03.2014 - Shri Omprakash Kashiram Vs. Prime Minister's Office (209.9 KiB, 971 hits)

  Decision dated 12.03.2014 - Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Rohini, Delhi-85 (13.4 KiB, 1,004 hits)

  Decision dated 10.03.2014 - Mr. R.K. Jain Vs. U.P.S.C. (69.6 KiB, 791 hits)

  Decision dated 10.03.2014 - Mr. Rajan Saluja Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (59.5 KiB, 1,046 hits)

  Decision dated 19.02.2014 - Mr. Anand Mohan Vs. Deptt. of Admn. Reforms & PG Grievances (64.1 KiB, 788 hits)

  Decision dated 18.02.2014 - Pramod Ganpat Sawant Vs. DOP&T, New Delhi (395.6 KiB, 1,037 hits)

  Decision dated 13.02.2014 - R.K. Prasad Vs. Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi (317.1 KiB, 905 hits)

  Decision dated 11.02.2014 - Mr. Ajay Kumar Vs. Central Excise, Guwahati (70.1 KiB, 954 hits)

  Decision dated 29.01.2014 - Shri Bhagwan Chand Saxena Vs. Export Inspection Council of India (213.0 KiB, 921 hits)

  Decision dated 27.01.2014 - Shri Girish Nautiyal Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., NOIDA (200.5 KiB, 1,260 hits)

  Decision dated 27.01.2014 - Mr. Kaushal Vs. Delhi Police, East District (71.0 KiB, 1,236 hits)

  Decision dated 16.01.2014 - Ms. Surekha K.J., Kolkata Vs. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (240.6 KiB, 885 hits)

  Decision dated 09.01.2014 - Smt. Geeta Ghai, Delhi Vs. Dte. General of Lighthouses & Lightships, NOIDA (197.5 KiB, 928 hits)

  Decision dated 07.01.2014 - Ms. Jyoti Seherawat Vs. Home (General) Department, Govt. of Delhi (322.2 KiB, 8,924 hits)

  Decision dated 07.01.2014 - Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Ministry of Coal (106.9 KiB, 2,512 hits)

(e) CIC Decisions (From 01.10.2013 To 31.12.2013)

  Decision dated 24.12.2013 - First Appellate Authority (RTI), PAO (Ors), BEG, Roorkee, Uttarakhand (103.9 KiB, 5,625 hits)

  Decision dated 23.12.2013 - Shri D. Selvaraj, Namakkal Vs. Income Tax Officer & DIT, Chennai (241.8 KiB, 653 hits)

  Decision dated 03.12.2013 - Shri Rajiv Kapur Vs. Delhi Police, South East District, Delhi (213.5 KiB, 1,067 hits)

  Decision dated 22.11.2013 - Shri Rambir Singh, New Delhi Vs. Office of Additional District Magisrate, GNCT, New Delhi (93.8 KiB, 755 hits)

  Decision dated 15.11.2013 - Shri Sanjiv Chaturvedi Vs. Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi (98.7 KiB, 1,030 hits)

  Decision dated 15.11.2013 - Harkrishan Das Nijhawan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (96.5 KiB, 924 hits)

  Decision dated 13.11.2013 - Shri Hariprasad Moon Vs. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Mumbai (96.3 KiB, 884 hits)

  Decision dated 13.11.2013 - Shri Chandran Nair, Ahmedabad Vs. DCIT (Vig.) & Addl. CIT, Ahmedabad (242.9 KiB, 942 hits)

  Decision dated 11.11.2013 - Dr. Rajiv Bhandari, Panchkula Vs. Office of the Director of Higher Education, UT, Chandigarh (93.4 KiB, 755 hits)

  Decision dated 07.11.2013 - Smt. Tapati Bhattacharjee Vs. Office of Dy. Conservator of Forests, Port Blair (95.2 KiB, 781 hits)

  Decision dated 23.10.2013 - Shri V.K. Pandey, Kolkata Vs. LIC of India, Kolkata (91.7 KiB, 1,064 hits)

  Decision dated 15.10.2013 - Shri Deepak Khullar, New Delhi Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation (91.3 KiB, 718 hits)

  Decision dated 14.10.2013 - Shri Rakesh Agarwal, New Delhi Vs. Transport Department (GNCT), Delhi (305.7 KiB, 6,296 hits)

  Decision dated 08.10.2013 - Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs (95.7 KiB, 906 hits)

(f) CIC Decisions (From 01.07.2013 To 30.09.2013) 

  Decision dated 27.09.2013 - Dr. Bijaya Kumar Samantaray Vs. Kolkata Port Trust, Kolkata (202.9 KiB, 1,216 hits)

  Decision dated 26.09.2013 - Shri Amit Bhargava Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs & Bureau of Immigration, IB (242.7 KiB, 1,204 hits)

  Decision dated 17.09.2013 - Shri Amanullah Khan, Pune Vs. Tax Recovery Officer & AO, Pune (240.1 KiB, 1,685 hits)

  Decision dated 04.09.2013 - Shri Paras Nath Singh Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs (217.6 KiB, 1,140 hits)

  Decision dated 27.08.2013 - Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs (Full Bench Decision) (63.1 KiB, 1,580 hits)

  Decision dated 26.08.2013 - Dr. P.K. Srivastava, Distt. Una, H.P. Vs. CPIO, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi (209.6 KiB, 1,100 hits)

  Decision dated 26.08.2013 - Shri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, Distt. Sultanpur (UP) Vs. US, Staff Selection Committee, New Delhi (210.6 KiB, 989 hits)

  Decision dated 14.08.2013 - Shri K. Madhavan, Chennai Vs. CPIO, Deptt. of Personnel & Training, New Delhi (205.9 KiB, 979 hits)

  Decision dated 12.08.2013 - Shri M.Yogeshwar Raj Vs. Air India (211.1 KiB, 855 hits)

  Decision dated 07.08.2013 - Shri Balbeer Krishan Arora, Farukhabad Vs. CPIO, Office of AG-I, Uttar Pradesh (207.8 KiB, 745 hits)

  Decision dated 05.08.2013 - Subhash Chandra Agrawal & Dr. M. Haroon Siddiqui Vs. IFFCO (Full Bench Decision) (403.9 KiB, 2,087 hits)

  Decision dated 05.08.2013 - Shri S. Joseph Balasundar, Chennai Vs. CPIO, UPSC, New Delhi (210.6 KiB, 1,062 hits)

  Decision dated 02.08.2013 - Dr. K. Padma Priya, Asstt. Professor, JNTU College of Engg., Pulivendula, A.P. Vs. FAA, AICTE, New Delhi (104.6 KiB, 884 hits)

  Decision dated 02.08.2013 - Shri Amit Agarwal, Delhi Vs. ITO, Ward 25(1), Range 37, New Delhi (85.1 KiB, 1,137 hits)

  Decision dated 31.07.2013 - Shri S.S. Upathyaya, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, The Ahoka Hotel, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi (211.5 KiB, 728 hits)

  Decision dated 31.07.2013 - Shri Kuldeep Yadav, Beri, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana Vs. CPIO, Institute of Hotel Management, Pusa, New Delhi (208.1 KiB, 727 hits)

  Decision dated 24.07.2013 - Shri S.A.A. Abbasi, Ghaziabad Vs. CPIO, Prasar Bharati, New Delhi (209.9 KiB, 700 hits)

  Decision dated 24.07.2013 - Shri Ashish Ranjan, Delhi Vs. CPIO, Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi (210.9 KiB, 908 hits)

  Decision dated 22.07.2013 - Shri Vishwas Bharmburkar, Ahmedabad Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi (208.8 KiB, 942 hits)

  Decision dated 19.07.2013 - Shri L.V. Raju Vs. Northern Coalfields Ltd. (215.4 KiB, 781 hits)

  Decision dated 18.07.2013 - Shri Ashok Kumar Joshi Vs. ITI Ltd., Gonda (201.7 KiB, 765 hits)

  Decision dated 17.07.2013 - Dr. S. Chellappa, Hyderabad Vs. CPIO, CBI, Hyderabad (209.9 KiB, 817 hits)

  Decision dated 11.07.2013 - Shri Ram Manohar Vs. Delhi Police (204.4 KiB, 1,019 hits)

  Decision dated 10.07.2013 - Mr. Perarivalan Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi (87.2 KiB, 1,862 hits)

  Decision dated 08.07.2013 - Shri Amarjit Sen, Kolkata Vs. CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi (209.9 KiB, 711 hits)

  Decision dated 08.07.2013 - Dr. Jitendra Nath Gupta, Delhi Vs. Coordinating Officer, Monitoring Committee, Supreme Court, New Delhi (13.4 KiB, 790 hits)

  Decision dated 05.07.2013 - Shri B.Bharathi, Puducherry Vs. PIO, Madras High Court, Chennai (306.4 KiB, 1,023 hits)

  Decision dated 05.07.2013 - Shri Jayant Rakshit, Kolkata Vs. CPIO, Prasar Bharati, Doordarshan Kendra, Kolkata (207.3 KiB, 826 hits)

  Decision dated 04.07.2013 - Lt. Col. (Retd.) R. Bansal Vs. Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) (Full Bench) (229.1 KiB, 1,979 hits)

(g) CIC Decisions (From 15.02.2013 To 30.06.2013) 

  Decision dated 26.06.2013 - Shri Manoj Arya, R.K. Puram, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Sectt., New Delhi (211.0 KiB, 1,026 hits)

  Decision dated 26.06.2013 - Shri Rednam Deepak, Visakhapatnam Vs. CPIO, Cabinet Sectt., New Delhi (212.1 KiB, 978 hits)

  Decision dated 26.06.2013 - Shri Satya Prakash Mishra, Lucknow Vs. CPIO, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow (207.2 KiB, 715 hits)

  Decision dated 14.06.2013 - Shri Shyam Sunder Singh Vs. National Human Rights Commission (198.7 KiB, 1,106 hits)

  Decision dated 14.06.2013 - Shri V.N. Mathur Vs. Delhi Police, South East District (213.0 KiB, 898 hits)

  Decision dated 13.06.2013 - Shri Kamal Sharma, Agra Vs. ACIT, Kanpur (64.6 KiB, 919 hits)

  Decision dated 03.06.2013 - Shri S.C. Aggarwal, Shri Anil Bailwal Vs. Parliament of India (Full Bench Decision) (257.0 KiB, 2,143 hits)

  Decision dated 29.05.2013 - Shri Pradip Shankar Choughule Vs. Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai (221.5 KiB, 912 hits)

  Decision dated 29.05.2013 - Shri Sanjay Badekar, Mumbai Vs. LIC of India, Mumbai (91.3 KiB, 815 hits)

  Decision dated 29.05.2013 - Mr. M. Vellaipandi, STQC IT Centre, Chennai Vs. CPOI & Director, STQC Dte. under Min. of Comm. & IT, New Delhi (53.8 KiB, 899 hits)

  Decision dated 20.05.2013 - Shri Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs. PMO / Deptt. of Revenue / Min. of Law (Full Bench Decision) (108.3 KiB, 847 hits)

  Decision dated 20.05.2013 - Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. Ministry of Mines, New Delhi (Full Bench Decision) (52.3 KiB, 765 hits)

  Decision dated 20.05.2013 - Shri Bhanu Pratap, Moradabad Vs. US & CPIO, SSC, New Delhi (210.7 KiB, 845 hits)

  Decision dated 10.05.2013 - Ms. Medha Rani, Chandigarh Vs. CPI, CBI, Chandigarh (208.2 KiB, 917 hits)

  Decision dated 09.05.2013 - Shri J.S. Singhal, ASW(E), AIR, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Prasar Bharati, New Delhi (207.6 KiB, 657 hits)

  Decision dated 08.05.2013 - Shri S. Kumar Minz, Ghaziabad Vs. CPIO, All India Radio, Patna (210.0 KiB, 949 hits)

  Decision dated 07.05.2013 - Shri P.S. Jadon, Lok Vihar Vs. CPIO, CVC, New Delhi (208.5 KiB, 904 hits)

  Decision dated 07.05.2013 - Shri Natraj Saha, Birbhum Vs. CPIO, CVC, New Delhi (210.1 KiB, 654 hits)

  Decision dated 01.05.2013 - Shri Pankaj Kumar Tiwari, Distt. Sultanpur, UP Vs. CPIO, SSC, Allahabad (304.1 KiB, 848 hits)

  Decision dated 01.05.2013 - Shri Saurabh Pandey, Chapra, Saran Bihar Vs. US, SSC, New Delhi (210.7 KiB, 928 hits)

  Decision dated 01.05.2013 - Shri Ajit Kumar, Patna Vs. Dy. Director, SSC, Allahabad (213.1 KiB, 847 hits)

  Decision dated 29.04.2013 - Shri Nitesh Kumar Tripathy, JNU, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, President' Sectt., New Delhi (212.2 KiB, 914 hits)

  Decision dated 26.04.2013 - Shri Jagjit Singh, Gurgaon Vs. CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi (212.2 KiB, 914 hits)

  Decision dated 12.04.2013 - Shri Rednam Deepak Vs. Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi (194.6 KiB, 890 hits)

  Decision dated 12.04.2013 - Shri Harishankar Tiwari Vs. Minsitry of Law & Justice, New Delhi (194.1 KiB, 987 hits)

  Decision dated 11.04.2013 - Shri R.P. Pandeya, New Delhi Vs. CBDT, New Delhi (68.5 KiB, 867 hits)

  Decision dated 21.03.2013 - Shri R. Govindarajan, Tirrupur Vs. CPIO, CVC, New Delhi (210.2 KiB, 972 hits)

  Decision dated 21.03.2013 - Shri R.A. Gupta, Sr. Manager, Bank of Baroda (208.4 KiB, 984 hits)

  Decision dated 15.03.2013 - Shri Ravinder Singh Negi Vs. New India Assurance Co. (90.4 KiB, 1,039 hits)

  Decision dated 20.02.2013 - Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Lok Sabha Sectt., New Delhi (Full Bench Decision) (123.9 KiB, 1,063 hits)

  Decision dated 19.02.2013 - Shri Rishipal Singh, Distt. Haridwar, Uttarakhand vs. ITO(Inv.)(HQ) & Addl. Director of IT (Inv.), Lucknow (74.3 KiB, 632 hits)

  Decision dated 19.02.2013 - Shri Rishipal Singh, Distt. Haridwar, Uttarakhand vs. ITO(Inv.)(HQ) & Addl. Director of IT (Inv.), Lucknow (74.3 KiB, 763 hits)

  Decision dated 15.02.2013 - Shri Ajay Pal, Bawal, Rewari, Haryana Vs. Under Secretary, SSC, New Delhi (303.8 KiB, 754 hits)

  Decision dated 15.02.2013 - Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, Indira Enclave, P.O. Mehubala, Dehradun Vs. CPIO, Office of the Principal AG (Audit), Uttarakhand, Dehradun (207.1 KiB, 760 hits)

(h) CIC DECISIONS (From 01.10.2012 To 15.10.2012) 

  Decision dated 10.10.2012 - Shri Manish Kumar, Varanasi Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (87.4 KiB, 791 hits)

  Decision dated 09.10.2012 - Shri Shankar Chandra Das Gupta, Kolkata Vs. IRDA, Hyderabad (443.5 KiB, 980 hits)

  Decision dated 08.10.2012 - Shri Madhav B. Karmakar Vs. Deptt. of Financial Services, New Delhi (87.7 KiB, 828 hits)

  Decision dated 05.10.2012 - Shri Partha Mandal, Delhi Vs. CPIO, UPSC, New Delhi (209.0 KiB, 786 hits)

(i) CIC DECISIONS (01.07.2012 To 30.09.2012) 

  Decision dated 28.09.2012 - Shri Shiv Shankar Tiwari, Faridabad Vs. DOPT, New Delhi (331.0 KiB, 844 hits)

  Decision dated 14.09.2012 - Shri Mohinder Singh Sidhu Vs. Dte. Gen. of Vigilance, Customs & Excise, New Delhi (195.6 KiB, 965 hits)

  Decision dated 12.09.2012 - Shri M. Shiva Shankar, Hyderabad Vs. LIC of India, Hyderabad (86.9 KiB, 764 hits)

  Decision dated 12.09.2012 - Shri Sunil Kumar, Ghaziabad Vs. CPIO, UPSC, New Delhi (207.4 KiB, 706 hits)

  Decision dated 31.08.2012 - Shri Ram Naresh Vs. Ministry of Law & Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, New Delhi (195.3 KiB, 877 hits)

  Decision dated 31.08.2012 - Shri Naresh Kumar, Gurgaon Vs. CPIO, Deptt. of Personnel & Training, New Delhi (207.7 KiB, 990 hits)

  Decision dated 31.08.2012 - Shri Ravi Malpani, Ratlam, M.P. Vs. SSC, New Delhi (204.9 KiB, 861 hits)

  Decision dated 21.08.2012 - Shri B.D. Gupta Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs (239.6 KiB, 791 hits)

  Decision dated 21.08.2012 - Shri Harendra Singh, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, SSC, New Delhi (208.5 KiB, 759 hits)

  Decision dated 14.08.2012 - Shri Syed Idramudin, Nizamabad Vs. Appellate Authority, Regional Passport Office, Secunderabad (331.0 KiB, 897 hits)

  Decision dated 31.07.2012 - Shri Prakash Singh, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, CBI (ACB), New Delhi (207.0 KiB, 972 hits)

  Decision dated 31.07.2012 - Shri K. Thankshinamurthy, Madurai Vs. CPIO, CBI, Chennai (206.7 KiB, 1,049 hits)

  Decision dated 31.07.2012 - Shri Jagdish Prasad, Ranchi Vs. CPIO, CBI, Ranchi (204.8 KiB, 945 hits)

  Decision dated 31.07.2012 - Shri K. Nagraj, IPS, Tripura Vs. CPIO, New Delhi (209.3 KiB, 707 hits)

  Decision dated 31.07.2012 - Ms. Manju, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, CBI, New Delhi (207.4 KiB, 879 hits)

  Decision dated 30.07.2012 - Shri Manish Kumar Singh, Ghaziabad Vs. CPIO, UPSC, New Delhi (306.3 KiB, 742 hits)

  Decision dated 30.07.2012 - Shri U.N.L. Das, Bihar Vs. CPIO, Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi (206.1 KiB, 831 hits)

  Decision dated 06.07.2012 - Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, Chhota Udepur, Distt. Vadodara Vs. PIO&CGM, RBI, Mumbai (95.6 KiB, 1,674 hits)

(j) CIC DECISIONS (01.04.2012 To 30.06.2012)

  Decision dated 15.06.2012 - Mr. Sanjay Mukund Thatte, Jalgaon Vs. CPIO, Allahabad Bank, Mumbai (52.2 KiB, 1,073 hits)

  Decision dated 15.06.2012 - Mr. A.K. Pandya, Ahmedabad Vs. CPIO & Dy. Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Ahmedabad (62.9 KiB, 1,043 hits)

  Decision dated 15.06.2012 - Dr. Kamal Saini Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi (195.8 KiB, 700 hits)

  Decision dated 15.06.2012 - Shri J.K. Sharma Vs. Delhi Police (199.5 KiB, 775 hits)

  Decision dated 15.06.2012 - Shri Gyanendra Vs. Delhi Police (195.6 KiB, 991 hits)

  Decision dated 01.06.2012 - Mr. Vipan Kumar Gupta, Ludhiana Vs. CPIO & DGM, Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Lucknow (58.0 KiB, 1,095 hits)

  Decision dated 01.06.2012 - Mr. S. Kandasamy, Manager, Pallavan Grama Bank, Irudhukottai, Tamilnadu Vs. PIO & GM, Pallavan Grama Bank, Salem, Tamilnadu (62.5 KiB, 924 hits)

  Decision dated 30.05.2012 - Mr. Tek Chand Kotwal, Rohini, Delhi Vs. PIO & RPO, Regional Passport Office, New Delhi (51.4 KiB, 702 hits)

  Decision dated 28.05.2012 - Shri Narinder Jain Vs. Delhi, EOW, Crime Branch (194.4 KiB, 1,032 hits)

  Decision dated 24.05.2012 - Mrs. Shakuntala Jayant, Pandav Nagar, Delhi Vs. PIO, MCD, New Delhi (51.5 KiB, 897 hits)

  Decision dated 24.05.2012 - Mr. Ramesh Sawant, Mumbai Vs. Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Mumbai (89.8 KiB, 766 hits)

  Decision dated 24.05.2012 - Mr. Dinbandhu Sarkar, National Library, Kolkata Vs. National Library, Kolkata (76.6 KiB, 797 hits)

  Decision dated 24.05.2012 - Mr. Harinder Dhingra, Gurgaon Vs. PIO & US, Min. of Environment & Forests, New Delhi (57.7 KiB, 730 hits)

  Decision dated 24.05.2012 - Mr. Amardeep Gulati, Shahdara, Delhi Vs. PIO, AIIMS, New Delhi (53.0 KiB, 702 hits)

  Decision dated 24.05.2012 - Shri Nitin Nayyar, Mohali Vs. CPIO, CBI, New Delhi (209.7 KiB, 835 hits)

  Decision dated 24.05.2012 - Shri D.P. Ojha, DGP (Retd.), Patna Vs. CPIO, CBI, Ranchi (207.6 KiB, 999 hits)

  Decision dated 15.05.2012 - Shri Vijay Gupta Vs. Delhi Police (216.0 KiB, 1,230 hits)

  Decision dated 30.04.2012 - Mr. Hassan Singh Mejie, Chandigarh Vs. PIO, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai (52.4 KiB, 821 hits)

  Decision dated 30.04.2012 - Ms. Sumaira Abdulali Vs. PIO & Addl. Director, Min. of Environment & Forests, New Delhi (63.7 KiB, 1,027 hits)

  Decision dated 04.04.2012 - Shri Prafulla Jojo Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, New Delhi (194.3 KiB, 1,270 hits)

  Decision dated 03.04.2012 - Shri Ram M. Apte, Balgaum Vs. CPIO, High Court of Karnakatak, Bangaluru (204.9 KiB, 1,144 hits)

  Decision dated 03.04.2012 - Shri Bindeshwar Shah, Sitamarhi, Bihar Vs. CPIO, High Court of Gujarat, Ahmedabad (207.2 KiB, 860 hits)

(k) CIC DECISIONS (01.01.2012 To 31.3.2012)

  Decision dated 09.03.2012 - Shri Abhi Ghosh, Kolkata Vs. Air India Ltd., New Delhi (207.7 KiB, 951 hits)

  Decision dated 09.03.2012 - Shri Ankur Mutreja, New Delhi Vs. Dte. of Census Operations, New Delhi (213.3 KiB, 812 hits)

  Decision dated 07.03.2012 - Shri Kamaldev Thakur, East Champaran, Bihar Vs. Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Motihari, Bihar (297.8 KiB, 791 hits)

  Decision dated 06.03.2012 - Shri N. Srinivas, Hyderabad Vs. CPIO, Staff Selection Commission, Chennai (298.2 KiB, 863 hits)

  Decision dated 22.02.2012 - Shri Gopal Singh, Distt. Sitamarhi, Bihar Vs. CPIO, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur (304.9 KiB, 912 hits)

  Decision dated 22.02.2012 - Shri Manoranjan S. Roy, Mumbai Vs CPIO, Mumbai DRT No.2, Mumbai (302.0 KiB, 865 hits)

  Decision dated 22.02.2012 - Shri S.P. Goyal Vs. Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai (195.4 KiB, 1,058 hits)

  Decision dated 21.02.2012 - Dr. Gyan Prakash Mishra, Distt. Balia, UP Vs. CPIO, Allahabad High Court, UP (303.3 KiB, 943 hits)

  Decision dated 21.02.2012 - Shri R.D. Batra, Secy. Citizen Rights Association II, Ghaziabad, UP Vs. CPIO, Allahabad High Court Court, UP (205.1 KiB, 870 hits)

  Decision dated 21.02.2012 - Shri Arup K. Ghosh Vs. Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai (237.6 KiB, 953 hits)

  Decision dated 07.02.2012 - Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, Srinagar Vs. PIO & Program Executive, Prasar Bharti, Srinagar (48.2 KiB, 786 hits)

  Decision dated 07.02.2012 - Shri Radhakrishnan B. Toshawara Vs. Office of Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat-II (179.4 KiB, 838 hits)

  Decision dated 07.02.2012 - Shri Rajendra Prasad Gupta Vs. Office of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow (187.1 KiB, 999 hits)

  Decision dated 30.01.2012 - Mr. Vinod K. Jose, New Delhi Vs. PIO & DS, Min. of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi (79.4 KiB, 1,257 hits)

  Decision dated 30.01.2012 - Mr. Akshay Pant, Port Blair Vs. PIO, A&N Administration, Port Blair (60.6 KiB, 1,004 hits)

  Decision dated 19.01.2012 - Mr. Tarun Nag, Kolkata Vs. PIO, Central Drugs Laboratory, Kolkata (56.4 KiB, 1,051 hits)

  Decision dated 19.01.2012 - Mr. A.L. Makhijani, President, Forum for Good Governance, Delhi Vs. CMO, CGHS, New Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi (47.3 KiB, 986 hits)

  Decision dated 12.01.2012 - Shri J.C. Kataria & Shri Mani Ram Sharma Vs. High Courts of AP, Gauhati, Gujarat, HP, Jharkhand, Rajasthan & other High Courts (427.5 KiB, 983 hits)

  Decision dated 12.01.2012 - Shri D.K. Aggarwal, Moradabad Vs. PIO, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai (55.1 KiB, 822 hits)

(l) CIC DECISIONS (01.10.2011 To 31.12.2011)

  Decision dated 29.12.2011 - Mr. S.D. Shastri, Jaipur Vs. PIO, Ministry of I&B, New Delhi (36.2 KiB, 901 hits)

  Decision dated 29.12.2011 - Mr. K. Karthirmathiyon, Secy., Coimbatore Consumer Cause, Coimbatore Vs. PIO & JS, Medical Council of India, New Delhi (44.4 KiB, 1,062 hits)

  Decision dated 29.12.2011 - Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, Delhi Vs. PIO & Director (RTI), Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi (53.4 KiB, 999 hits)

  Decision dated 23.12.2011 - Mr. S.P. Goyal, Mumbai Vs. PIO & DGM, Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai (49.1 KiB, 879 hits)

  Decision dated 23.12.2011 - Mr. Yadwinder Singh, Amritsar Vs. PIO, Punjab & Sind Bank, Amritsar (57.3 KiB, 987 hits)

  Decision dated 23.12.2011 - Mr. R.C. Gupta, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi Vs. PIO & HOD, Dr. RML Hospital, New Delhi (48.3 KiB, 851 hits)

  Decision dated 16.12.2011 - Smt. Jaylakshmi, Hubli Vs. PIO & AGM, Syndicate Bank HO, Manipal (49.9 KiB, 966 hits)

  Decision dated 16.12.2011 - Smt. Jaylakshmi, Hubli Vs. PIO & DGM, Corporation Bank HO, Mangalore (49.5 KiB, 1,142 hits)

  Decision dated 16.12.2011 - Mr. Lakhpat Tanwar, Lab Oncology Unit, AIIMS, New Delhi Vs. PIO & AO, AIIMS, New Delhi (55.4 KiB, 748 hits)

  Decision dated 16.12.2011 - Mr. Sukhjit Singh Walia, Patiala Vs. PIO & Dir. (RTI), Min. of External Affairs, New Delhi (47.5 KiB, 974 hits)

  Decision dated 30.11.2011 - Shri Murlidhar, Patna Vs. CPIO, Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi (286.2 KiB, 903 hits)

  Decision dated 30.11.2011 on Appeal from Shri Sarpal Singh Vs. National Commission for Cement & Building Materials, Ballabhgarh (192.4 KiB, 1,268 hits)

  Decision dated 28.11.2011 - Mr. Dharamveer Singh, New India Assurance, Aligarh Vs. National Commission for Scheduled Castes (140.0 KiB, 911 hits)

  Decision dated 24.11.2011 - Mr. Harinder Dhingra, Gurgaon Vs. Asstt. IG, Min. of Environment & Forest, New Delhi (90.6 KiB, 917 hits)

  Decision dated 24.11.2011 - Mr. Sanat Kumar, Vill.+Post Kerma, Distt. Muzaffarpur, Bihar Vs. PIO, United Bank of India, Kolkata (63.3 KiB, 1,036 hits)

  Decision dated 24.11.2011 - Mr. Ramesh Kumar Anand, Steno., PGIMER, Chandigarh Vs. CPIO, PGIMER, Chandigarh (44.6 KiB, 1,207 hits)

  Decision dated 11.11.2011 - Mr. Veer Sain, Jaipur Vs. PIO & GM, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai (70.2 KiB, 836 hits)

  Decision dated 09.11.2011 - Mr. Adishwar Jain Vs. Office of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (223.8 KiB, 773 hits)

  Decision dated 09.11.2011 - Mr. K.R. Basu, Tirunelveli-7 Vs. PIO & CGM, Indian Bank, Chennai (52.7 KiB, 1,047 hits)

  Decision dated 04.11.2011 - Mrs. Ambika Sudhakaran, Palakkad, Kerala Vs. PIO, Bank of India, New Delhi (35.5 KiB, 803 hits)

  Decision dated 04.11.2011 - Mr. Nemi Chand Jain, Jaipur Vs. PIO & DGM, United Bank of India, Guwahati (37.8 KiB, 918 hits)

  Decision dated 04.11.2011 - Mr. D.S. Jolly, Motia Khan, New Delhi Vs. PIO & Chief Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, Rajendra Place, New Delhi (59.1 KiB, 1,077 hits)

  Decision dated 04.11.2011 - Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Delhi Vs. PIO & AGM, Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal, Karnataka (62.0 KiB, 1,164 hits)

  Decision dated 04.11.2011 - Mr. G.B. Chandulal, Rajkot Vs. PIO & GM, Dena Bank, Mumbai (39.3 KiB, 1,002 hits)

  Decision dated 04.11.2011 - Mr. V.M. Shirvalkar, Thane Vs. PIO, Reserve Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai (96.5 KiB, 1,182 hits)

  Decision dated 03.11.2011 - Shri S. Mukherjee Vs. Eastern Coalfields, Dhanbad (455.6 KiB, 777 hits)

  Decision dated 02.11.2011 - Shri Suraj Prakash Bakshi, Delhi Vs. Public Grievances Commission, New Delhi (207.0 KiB, 653 hits)

  Decision dated 02.11.2011 - Shri Ved Prakash Singhal, Nangloi Vs. Office of Principal Judge, Family Courts, Dwarka, New Delhi (207.3 KiB, 942 hits)

  Decision dated 31.10.2011 - Mr. T. Arumugam, Alwarpet, Chennai Vs. PIO, Min. of Health & Family Welfare, RRIUM, Chennai (48.5 KiB, 968 hits)

  Decision dated 21.10.2011 - Mr. Nitin Bajaj, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Vs. CPIO & Asstt. Professor, AIIMS, New Delhi (48.8 KiB, 1,154 hits)

  Decision dated 21.10.2011 - Capt. P.K. Anchal, Bhiwani Vs. CPIO & Chief Manager, Dena Bank, Panchkula (65.4 KiB, 1,179 hits)

  Decision dated 21.10.2011 on Appeal from Mr. Ashokumar M Pandya, Ahmedabad Vs. PIO & Dy. General Manager, Bank of India, Ahmedabad (55.4 KiB, 1,111 hits)

  Decision dated 21.10.2011 on Appeal from Ms. Bimla Prakash, Delhi Vs. CPIO & DGM, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, Chennai (59.6 KiB, 1,241 hits)

  Decision dated 21.10.2011 - Sh. D.K. Pandey, Jamshedpur Vs. PIO, Passport Office, Ranchi (62.6 KiB, 1,023 hits)

  Decision dated 21.10.2011 - Sh. D.K. Bindra, New Delhi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi (13.4 KiB, 832 hits)

  Decision dated 12.10.2011 - Mr. Ashwini Kumar Avasthi, Aligarh Vs. PIO & DGM, Vijay Bank, Bangaluru (57.6 KiB, 1,244 hits)

  Decision dated 12.10.2011 - Mr. K.G. Krishnamoorthy, Mayiladuthari Vs. PIO, Indian Bank, Chennai (55.4 KiB, 819 hits)

  Decision dated 12.10.2011 - Mr. Veer Sain, Jaipur Vs. CPIO & General Manager, RBI, Mumbai (71.8 KiB, 1,031 hits)

  Decision dated 10.10.2011 - Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (BSE) Vs. Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) (Full Bench Decision) (70.8 KiB, 882 hits)

  Decision dated 05.10.2011 - Mr. L.S.R. Murthy, Hyderabad Vs. PIO&AGM, UCO Bank, Hyderabad (47.1 KiB, 981 hits)

  Decision dated 05.10.2011 - Mr. Chandrakant C. Anandpara, Chairman, Consumer Care Forum, Mumbai Vs. PIO, Bank of India, Walkeshwar Branch, Mumbai (48.1 KiB, 866 hits)

  Decision dated 05.10.2011 - Mr. Santosh Yadav, NOIDA Vs. Director & FAA, Min. of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi (37.8 KiB, 1,006 hits)

  Decision dated 05.10.2011 - Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Gupta, Unnao, UP Vs. PIO & US, Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi (163.2 KiB, 1,073 hits)

  Decision dated 05.10.2011 - Mr. Harinder Dhingra, Gurgaon Vs. CPIO & US and Secretary, Min. of Environment and Forests, New Delhi (194.6 KiB, 1,152 hits)

(m) Important Decisions of CIC Compiled by ISTM, New Delhi (July, 2010)

  Important Decisions of CIC Compiled by ISTM, New Delhi (July, 2010) (3.5 MiB, 742 hits)

II. CIC Decisions (Full Bench) IFFCO is not a Public Authority

  Decision dated 05.08.2013 - Subhash Chandra Agrawal & Dr. M. Haroon Siddiqui Vs. IFFCO (Full Bench Decision) (403.9 KiB, 2,087 hits)

AWHO is a Pubic Authority

  Decision dated 04.07.2013 - Lt. Col. (Retd.) R. Bansal Vs. Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) (Full Bench) (229.1 KiB, 1,979 hits)

Others

  Decision dated 03.06.2013 - Shri S.C. Aggarwal, Shri Anil Bailwal Vs. Parliament of India (Full Bench Decision) (257.0 KiB, 2,143 hits)

  Decision dated 20.05.2013 - Shri Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs. PMO / Deptt. of Revenue / Min. of Law (Full Bench Decision) (108.3 KiB, 847 hits)

  Decision dated 20.05.2013 - Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. Ministry of Mines, New Delhi (Full Bench Decision) (52.3 KiB, 765 hits)

  Decision dated 20.02.2013 - Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, Lok Sabha Sectt., New Delhi (Full Bench Decision) (123.9 KiB, 1,063 hits)

  Decision dated 10.10.2011 - Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd. (BSE) Vs. Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) (Full Bench Decision) (70.8 KiB, 882 hits)

  Decision dated 26.08.2011 - Mr. Manish Bhatnagar, Delhi Vs. SPIO & Addl. Director, Deptt of Woman & Child Development, NCT of Delhi (Full Bench Decision) (92.7 KiB, 1,221 hits)

  Decision dated 24.08.2011 - Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal, New Delhi Vs. CPIO, CBI, New Delhi (Full Bench Decision) (206.6 KiB, 769 hits)

  Decision dated 31.01.2011 - Shri Z.U. Alvi Vs. Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI (Full Bench Decision) (79.9 KiB, 701 hits)

  Decision dated 15.10.2010 - Shri Shanmuga Patro Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Foundation (Full Bench Decision) (73.2 KiB, 1,130 hits)

  Decision dated 29.09.2010 - Brig. (Retd.) Ujjal Dasgupta (Dr. B. Malhotra-Representative Appellant) Vs. CDAC; Advocate for RAW, Director & CPIO, Cab. Sectt. (Full Bench Decision) (184.1 KiB, 952 hits)

  Decision dated 28.09.2010 - Shri V.R. Chandran Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Full Bench Decision) (349.5 KiB, 738 hits)

  Decision dated 14.07.2010 - Ms. Bindu Khanna, New Delhi Vs. Dte. of Education, GNCT, New Delhi (Full Bench Decision) (76.9 KiB, 710 hits)

  Decision dated 10.06.2010 - Shri Manohar, Shri J.K. Routray & Shri Gurbax Singh Vs. AGs of Goa, Orisaa and Punjab (362.4 KiB, 1,152 hits)

Go to Decisions of Central Information Commission – Section-Wise RTI – Court judgements

Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info[at]dtf.in.

Check Also

Services News

SERVICES NEWS: Supreme Court Issues Guidelines To HCs On Summoning Govt Officials, Says Personal Presence Should Be Exceptional …

Supreme Court Issues Guidelines To HCs On Summoning Govt Officials, Says Personal Presence Should Be …