Cabinet papers and documents on which the Cabinet relies once the decision is implemented - exemption under sub-section 1(i) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act - effect of a judicial stay in another case on disclosure ordersCabinet papers and documents on which the Cabinet relies once the decision is implemented - exemption under sub-section 1(i) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act - Disclosure of file notings (Cabinet papers) relating to an appointment after the decision has been implemented. - HELD THAT: - The RTI provision in sub-section 1(i) of Section 8 requires disclosure of Cabinet papers and the documents on which the Cabinet relies once the Cabinet decision has been implemented and is complete. In the context of an individual appointment, the act of appointment is complete once the appointment order is issued and the person joins office. As the appointment order in the present case has been issued, the ACC decision is complete and the related Cabinet papers (including file notings) fall to be placed in the public domain. The CPIO had already furnished part of the Cabinet papers (the correspondence); there is no reason to withhold the remaining file notings. The Commission therefore directs disclosure of the file notings. [Paras 4, 6]CPIO directed to provide copies of the file notings from the relevant file within 10 working days.Effect of a judicial stay in another case on disclosure orders - Whether a Division Bench stay in a different but similar matter precludes disclosure in the present case. - HELD THAT: - A stay granted by a Division Bench in one case does not automatically operate against the Commission's orders in other cases. Although it may be imprudent, in the public interest, to order disclosure knowing of a stay in a different matter because the public authority may seek a stay against the Commission's order, that possibility does not legally preclude the Commission from deciding the present appeal on its merits. Having found disclosure appropriate on merits, the existence of a stay in another case did not prevent the Commission from directing disclosure here. [Paras 5, 6]Existence of a stay in another case is not an automatic bar to disclosure; the Commission may order disclosure on merits notwithstanding such a stay.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed: the CPIO is directed to furnish the file notings (Cabinet papers) relating to the appointment within 10 working days; the appeal is disposed of and copies of the order are to be provided free of cost.

Right to information - duty of CPIO to locate records and facilitate inspection - inspection of records and provision of photocopies free of charge - balance between right to information and conduct of government business - CPIO's duty to recall files pending unreasonably long - routine submissions to higher authorities not warranting recall for inspectionRight to information - duty of CPIO to locate records and facilitate inspection - inspection of records and provision of photocopies free of charge - Extent of CPIO's obligation to supply statistical information about vacancies and to permit inspection of relevant files. - HELD THAT: - The information sought was primarily statistical - vacancy position of Information Commissioners as on specified dates and sanctioned staff strength and vacancies on specified dates. The CPIO was obliged to identify and state the number of vacancies as on the reference dates and to locate the exact files that deal only with those subjects and dates. Inspection is limited to files strictly relevant to the information requested. It is the duty of the CPIO both to place those identified files before the information seeker for inspection and, after inspection, to provide photocopies of documents the seeker chooses, free of charge. Inspection time must be reasonable and dependent on volume and content of files; however, where files remain uninspected, they must be shown to the requester. [Paras 6, 8]CPIO to invite the appellant within 15 working days to inspect the remaining files strictly relevant to the requested information and to provide, after inspection, photocopies free of charge.Balance between right to information and conduct of government business - CPIO's duty to recall files pending unreasonably long - routine submissions to higher authorities not warranting recall for inspection - Whether delay in allowing inspection because files were under submission to higher authorities warranted fixing liability of the CPIO and the guiding principle when files are pending with higher authorities. - HELD THAT: - A balance must be struck between a citizen's right to access information and uninterrupted government decision-making. If relevant files are pending before higher authorities for an unreasonably long period, the CPIO should recall them on a particular date to make them available for inspection. By contrast, routine submissions to higher authorities that temporarily remove files from the section do not necessarily justify recalling them solely for inspection as that would impair administrative functioning. Applying this principle, the Court found no deliberate avoidance by the CPIO and declined to proceed with fixing liability for delay. [Paras 9]No penalty or liability imposed on the CPIO; guidance issued that files pending unreasonably long before higher authorities should be recalled for inspection, while routine submissions need not be recalled.Final Conclusion: Appeal disposed: CPIO directed to permit inspection of remaining files strictly relevant to the requested statistical information within 15 working days and to provide photocopies after inspection free of charge; no penalty awarded against the CPIO but guidance issued on recalling files pending unreasonably long before higher authorities.

Obligation to publish rules and regulations under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act - suo motu disclosure through website under Section 4(2) of the RTI Act - information held by or under the control of a public authority - documents published by third parties not deemed to be held by the public authority - Service Tax Audit Manual as departmental guideline - HSN published by the World Customs OrganizationObligation to publish rules and regulations under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act - Service Tax Audit Manual as departmental guideline - suo motu disclosure through website under Section 4(2) of the RTI Act - Service Tax Audit Manual, 2011 to be uploaded on the respondent's website - HELD THAT: - The Commission held that the Service Tax Audit Manual, 2011, being a document in the nature of rules/guidelines used by departmental officers, falls within the class of records required to be published by a public authority. Section 4(1)(b) (and the obligation reflected in the Act to publish rules and regulations and make information available suo motu) mandates publication of such documents. There is no reason why the Manual cannot be placed on the respondent's website; accordingly the respondent is directed to put the Service Tax Audit Manual, 2011 on its website. [Paras 3]Directed respondent to upload the Service Tax Audit Manual, 2011 on its website.Information held by or under the control of a public authority - documents published by third parties not deemed to be held by the public authority - HSN published by the World Customs Organization - No obligation to upload the HSN document published by the World Customs Organization - HELD THAT: - The Commission accepted the respondent's position that the HSN document is published by the World Customs Organization and therefore is not a document 'held' by the public authority. The obligation in Section 4 to publish information applies to records held by or under the control of the public authority; it does not extend to all externally published materials or require the authority to upload every external document it may refer to in officers' work. Requiring upload of such third party publications would impose an endless obligation on public authorities. Accordingly there is no duty to place the HSN on the respondent's website. [Paras 3]Refused direction to upload the HSN document; no obligation on the public authority to put it on its website.Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeds in part: the Commission directs the respondent to upload the Service Tax Audit Manual, 2011 on its website, and holds there is no obligation to upload the HSN document published by the World Customs Organization.

Duty to appoint Central Public Information Officer - Obligation to furnish information - Transfer of RTI application under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Provision of relevant public authority guidelines on requestDuty to appoint Central Public Information Officer - Obligation to furnish information - Ministry of Finance must have a designated CPIO and the Department of Economic Affairs was directed to secure appointment or nomination of a CPIO for the Ministry. - HELD THAT: - The Commission observed that the Ministry of Finance exists as a public authority with a Finance Secretary and therefore must have a CPIO. It is inappropriate for the Ministry to return RTI applications on the basis that it lacks a CPIO. The CPIO of the Department of Economic Affairs was directed to place this order before the Finance Secretary who shall, within one month, appoint a CPIO for the Ministry of Finance or nominate one of the existing CPIOs to act as the CPIO for the Ministry. This direction is given to ensure that the Ministry, as a public authority, complies with its statutory duty to receive and respond to RTI applications. [Paras 5]Order to place this direction before the Finance Secretary and ensure appointment/nomination of a CPIO for the Ministry within one month.Provision of relevant public authority guidelines on request - Obligation to furnish information - The CPIO was directed to forward to the appellant a copy of the RBI press note/guideline referred to in the CPIO's reply. - HELD THAT: - The Commission noted that some of the appellant's queries related to the legality or irregularity of presenting a garland of currency notes and the possible action by government agencies. Although not all queries yielded identifiable records, the matter attracted public attention and warranted a more categorical response. Accordingly, the CPIO was directed to supply, within ten working days of receipt of this order, a copy of the RBI press note or guideline referenced in the CPIO's reply to the appellant. [Paras 5]Direction to the CPIO to forward the RBI press note/guideline to the appellant within ten working days.Transfer of RTI application under Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - The Commission did not fault the CPIO for suggesting other public authorities and observed that, given the lack of clarity as to the appropriate public authority, the CPIO's recommendation to approach the Department of Revenue and the Ministry of Home Affairs was not blameworthy. - HELD THAT: - Having considered the RTI application and the responses, the Commission found it unclear which public authority was concerned with certain queries. In that context, the CPIO's advice that some queries pertained to the Department of Revenue and the Ministry of Home Affairs was understandable, even though the Commission expressed the view that those authorities were likely not the correct ones. The Appellate Authority's endorsement that a CPIO is not obliged to transfer an RTI application under Section 6(3) was noted in the record of earlier proceedings; the Commission's present finding was limited to not censuring the CPIO for suggesting alternative authorities. [Paras 6]No adverse view taken against the CPIO for suggesting other public authorities as possibly concerned; the CPIO's conduct in that regard was not blamed.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed of: the Department of Economic Affairs' CPIO must ensure the Finance Ministry appoints or nominates a CPIO within one month and must furnish the RBI press note/guideline to the appellant within ten working days; no fault is found with the CPIO for suggesting other public authorities in respect of unclear queries.

Right to Information - Obligation to supply information under the RTI regime - Scope of the Central Information Commission - Grievance redressal not being a remedy under the RTI ActObligation to supply information under the RTI regime - Right to Information - Whether the public authority had furnished the information available in response to the RTI application and whether the Commission was satisfied with the information provided. - HELD THAT: - The respondents stated that the information available with the public authority was provided to the appellant and offered to re-verify the appellant's grievance. The Commission examined the record and accepted the respondents' submission that complete information, as available, had been supplied to the appellant. The Commission therefore confined its role to determining whether information responsive to the RTI request had been furnished and found that obligation discharged. [Paras 7, 11]The Commission is satisfied that complete information available in response to the RTI application has been provided to the appellant.Scope of the Central Information Commission - Grievance redressal not being a remedy under the RTI Act - Whether the Commission can redress the appellant's grievance regarding foreclosure of his health policy under the RTI Act. - HELD THAT: - The appellant sought redressal of his grievance about foreclosure of his policy. The Commission held that adjudication or redressal of such grievances does not fall within the remedial scope of the RTI Act. It directed the appellant to pursue the appropriate grievance redressal mechanism provided by the public authority rather than seek relief under the RTI forum. This restricts the Commission's remit to ensuring provision of information, not to deciding underlying service or contractual disputes. [Paras 9, 10]The Commission has no jurisdiction to redress the grievance concerning policy foreclosure under the RTI Act and the appellant must approach the public authority's grievance redressal forum.Final Conclusion: Having found that the information responsive to the RTI request was provided and that grievance redressal of the policy foreclosure is not within the Commission's jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed and the case is closed.

Delay in furnishing information under the Right to Information Act - obligation of the Central Public Information Officer under Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act - penalty for failure to discharge duties under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act - requirement to provide specific point-wise information with indexed photocopies - recovery of penalty from salaryDelay in furnishing information under the Right to Information Act - requirement to provide specific point-wise information with indexed photocopies - The adequacy and timeliness of the information provided to the appellant and directions to the current CPIO for compliance with the RTI application. - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that there was delay in providing information and that the information initially furnished was non specific and did not satisfy the appellant. The Commission emphasised that merely supplying a sheaf of papers and asking the appellant to extract relevant material does not meet the statutory obligation. The current CPIO was directed to furnish specific point wise answers to the appellant's queries, provide photocopies with corresponding page numbers indicating where each point is answered, and to file an affidavit with the Commission (with copy to the appellant) stating that no further information is held relating to the RTI request. A time limit of four weeks was fixed for compliance.Current CPIO to provide specific point wise information with indexed photocopies and an affidavit within four weeks.Obligation of the Central Public Information Officer under Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act - penalty for failure to discharge duties under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act - recovery of penalty from salary - Whether penalty should be imposed on the former CPIO for not discharging his obligations under the RTI Act and the manner of recovery of such penalty. - HELD THAT: - The Commission concluded that the former CPIO did not fulfil the duties cast upon him by Section 7(1) of the Act. His reply indicated a casual and disinterested disposal of the request and he improperly invited the appellant to inspect files instead of providing the requested information in the prescribed manner. Having found no credible reason for non compliance, the Commission imposed the maximum penalty under Section 20(1). It directed recovery of the penalty amount from the salary of the former CPIO through deductions at a specified monthly rate and instructed the I.G. Police, UT Chandigarh to remit the recovered amount by demand draft or banker's cheque to the Commission's designated Pay & Accounts Officer by specified dates.Maximum penalty imposed on the former CPIO for failure to perform RTI duties; directed recovery from his salary in instalments and remittance to the Commission.Final Conclusion: The Commission found delay and inadequacy in the information provided, directed the current CPIO to supply specific point wise indexed information and an affidavit within four weeks, and imposed the maximum penalty under Section 20(1) on the former CPIO for dereliction of duty, directing recovery from his salary and remittance to the Commission.

Right to information - disproportionate diversion of resources - availability of information in centralised computerised records - obligation to furnish centrally available information free of chargeRight to information - disproportionate diversion of resources - availability of information in centralised computerised records - Extent to which the CPIO could refuse to furnish information on CBI cases from 1980 onwards on the ground that retrieval would disproportionately divert resources, and what information must be provided instead. - HELD THAT: - The CPIO had refused the RTI requests for details of all cases registered since 1980 and related sanctions sought, observing that compiling such information for a period of nearly 30 years would disproportionately divert the CBI's resources. The Commission accepted the practical constraint that records maintained prior to computerisation are not centrally retrievable without examination of each file, and that compilation for the entire period sought would be burdensome. However, the respondent also stated that information which is centrally maintained in the CBI's computer database is available and can be provided. Balancing the appellant's entitlement to information with the practical burden on the public authority, the Commission directed disclosure of all information that is centrally available across CBI offices in the computerised records concerning disproportionate assets cases, sanctions sought for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and cases registered under that Act, while implicitly recognising that non-centralised, pre-computerisation records need not be compiled by searching individual files. [Paras 3, 4, 5]CPIO directed to provide, within 10 working days, all available information centrally maintained in the CBI computer database on disproportionate assets cases, sanctions sought under the Prevention of Corruption Act and cases registered under that Act, and to supply the same free of charge.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed to the extent that the CPIO must furnish all information centrally available in the CBI's computerised records on the specified subjects within 10 working days and free of charge; the practical inability to compile pre-computerisation records from individual files was acknowledged but did not excuse disclosure of centrally maintained data.

Right to information - payment of fees under RTI - acceptance of postal order/IPO as fee - practical construction of RTI Act as social welfare legislationPayment of fees under RTI - acceptance of postal order/IPO as fee - practical construction of RTI Act as social welfare legislation - Whether the CPIO was justified in returning the appellant's IPO of Rs. 20/- instead of accepting it as fee for providing information requiring Rs. 18/- and thereby refusing to supply the information. - HELD THAT: - The Commission rejected the CPIO's strictly technical approach and accepted the appellant's contention that, in view of the practicalities and the social welfare object of the RTI Act, the IPO tendered by the appellant should have been accepted even though it exceeded the exact fee by Rs. 2/-. Noting that alternative modes of exact payment were available to the appellant but also recognising the practicality and cost-efficiency of payment by IPO and the appellant's explicit waiver of the excess amount, the Commission directed the CPIO to accept the IPO of Rs. 20/- and supply the information within five working days of receipt of payment. The appeal was disposed accordingly. [Paras 6, 7]CPIO directed to accept the IPO of Rs. 20/- and provide the information within five working days; appeal disposed of.Final Conclusion: The Commission allowed the appeal, held that the CPIO's refusal to accept the appellant's IPO was unduly technical, directed acceptance of the IPO and supply of the information within five working days, and disposed of the appeal.

Information in the custody of a public authority - official record as "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - binding effect of FAA directions on the CPIO - exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act - penalty under Section 20 of the RTI ActOfficial record as "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - information in the custody of a public authority - Whether the inquiry report that was considered and rejected by the President, CESTAT constitutes "information" held by the public authority and falls within the ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. - HELD THAT: - The Commission held that the inquiry report, although not accepted by the President, forms part of the official records maintained by CESTAT and therefore constitutes "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Administrative non-acceptance or non-adoption of the report by the President is an exercise of administrative discretion but does not result in erasure of the document from official custody; consequently the report continues to be information in the control of the public authority and cannot be treated as nonexistent merely because a fresh inquiry has been ordered. [Paras 11, 12, 13]The inquiry report is "information" under Section 2(f) and remains in custody of CESTAT.Binding effect of FAA directions on the CPIO - Whether the CPIO was bound to comply with the FAA's Order No. 15 of 2011 directing production of the earlier inquiry report to the complainant. - HELD THAT: - The Commission reiterated the hierarchical appellate scheme under the RTI Act whereby orders of the FAA are binding on the CPIO. Judicial propriety required the CPIO to give effect to the FAA's direction to obtain the report from the Registrar and furnish it to the complainant within the time specified. Given that the FAA had ascertained that the reason for refusal no longer subsisted, the CPIO ought to have complied with Order No. 15 of 2011. [Paras 16, 17]The CPIO is bound to comply with the FAA's order and must provide the report as directed.Exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act - Whether disclosure of the earlier inquiry report would be exempt under Section 8(1)(h) because it would impede the process of the fresh inquiry ordered by the President. - HELD THAT: - The respondent did not demonstrate how disclosure of the earlier report would impede the ongoing fresh inquiry. The Commission observed that mere institution of a fresh inquiry does not automatically render earlier reports exempt under Section 8(1)(h); the public authority must show a specific connection between disclosure and likely impediment to investigation. No such showing was made. [Paras 15]Section 8(1)(h) exemption is not attracted on the material supplied by the respondent.Penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act - Whether penalty proceedings under Section 20 should be initiated against the CPIO and the Registrar for non-compliance and alleged mala fide withholding. - HELD THAT: - Having examined the circumstances, the Commission found no mala fide intent or ulterior motive on the part of the CPIO and Registrar but rather a mistake of law arising from conflicting administrative directions by the President. Given these peculiar circumstances and absence of malicious conduct, the Commission declined to impose penalty but cautioned and warned the officials to adhere to their statutory duties. [Paras 18]No penalty under Section 20; officials warned to be careful in future.Final Conclusion: The Commission directed the CPIO, CESTAT to comply with FAA Order No. 15 of 2011 and furnish a copy of the earlier inquiry report to the complainant within 15 days; held that the earlier report is "information" under Section 2(f), that Section 8(1)(h) does not bar disclosure on the present material, and declined to impose penalty under Section 20 while issuing a warning to the officials.

Right to information - obligation of CPIO to furnish records - access to enquiry report - no remedy under RTI for grievance redressalRight to information - obligation of CPIO to furnish records - access to enquiry report - Copy of the police enquiry report requested under the RTI application was to be furnished to the appellant. - HELD THAT: - The appellant sought information about action taken on complaints. The CPIO had informed that the complaints were under enquiry and the FAA upheld that response. The enquiry report had been provided to the appellant's advocate but not to the appellant. The Commission examined the file and directed that a copy of the enquiry report be provided to the appellant within seven days of receipt of the order, thereby giving effect to the appellant's entitlement to information under the RTI Act. [Paras 4]CPIO directed to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the appellant within seven days.Right to information - no remedy under RTI for grievance redressal - Whether the RTI Act provides a forum for redressal of grievances regarding the adequacy of the police enquiry. - HELD THAT: - The Commission observed that allegations about the adequacy or propriety of the police enquiry do not fall within the remedial scope of the RTI Act. While the Act entitles requesters to information, it does not provide redressal of grievances concerning the conduct or sufficiency of enquiries. The Commission noted that if the appellant is dissatisfied with the manner in which the enquiry was conducted, he may pursue the matter with the competent authority outside the RTI forum. [Paras 4]RTI Act does not furnish a remedy for grievances about the conduct of the enquiry; appellant may approach the competent authority if dissatisfied.Final Conclusion: The Commission directed disclosure of the enquiry report to the appellant and held that dissatisfaction with the conduct or adequacy of the police enquiry cannot be remedied under the RTI Act; the appellant may seek redress from the competent authority.

Creation of information - disproportionate diversion of resources - denial of information under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act as amounting to disproportionate diversion of resources - extraction of stored electronic data (SQL query) is retrieval, not creation - volume of information is not a ground for denial under the RTI Act - provision of information in electronic form (CD/DVD) - staggered/batched supply to avoid excessive server loadExtraction of stored electronic data (SQL query) is retrieval, not creation - creation of information - Whether selectively extracting specified data fields from an existing Oracle database would amount to creation of new information under the RTI Act. - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that the information sought by the appellant was held and maintained by the respondent in an Oracle database and that running an SQL algorithm to retrieve the specified seven data fields is the usual method to obtain such information. Because the requested data already exists within the respondent's records, selectively picking that portion is a retrieval of existing information and does not amount to creation of fresh information under the RTI Act. The Commission accepted the technical assistance of Scientist-D, NIC, that an SQL query would suffice to obtain the requested fields and accordingly treated the request as one for extraction of stored data rather than for creation of new material. [Paras 5]Selective retrieval of specified fields from the existing database is retrieval of information and not creation of new information; the request must be treated as for existing information.Denial of information under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act as amounting to disproportionate diversion of resources - disproportionate diversion of resources - volume of information is not a ground for denial under the RTI Act - Whether the respondent could refuse the RTI request on the ground that supplying the requested data would disproportionately divert its resources or that the volume of information justified denial under Section 7(9). - HELD THAT: - The Commission examined the respondent's reliance on Section 7(9) and the contention that extracting the specified fields from thousands of assessee returns would disproportionately divert resources or overload servers. It held that volume of information, by itself, is not a valid ground to deny access under the RTI Act. Given that the information exists in electronic form and can be extracted by an SQL query, Section 7(9) did not apply to justify refusal. The Commission acknowledged the respondent's concern about potential server load but treated that as an operational issue that could be managed without denying the request on substantive RTI grounds. [Paras 2, 3, 5, 6]Refusal under Section 7(9) on the basis of disproportionate diversion of resources or volume of information is not justified; Section 7(9) does not apply in the present case.Provision of information in electronic form (CD/DVD) - staggered/batched supply to avoid excessive server load - If the respondent's operational concerns about server load are justified, whether the obligation to supply the information can be met by providing it in batches and in electronic form. - HELD THAT: - While accepting that running large extraction queries could affect server performance, the Commission held that this operational concern does not warrant denial of the RTI request. Instead, it directed a practical remedy: the respondent was to supply the requested data in electronic format (CD/DVD) and, if necessary to protect server efficiency, to provide the information in installments over a specified period so as to mitigate excessive load. The Commission thereby balanced the respondent's operational constraints with the appellant's right of access to information. [Paras 6, 7, 8]Respondent must supply the information in electronic form and may provide it in staggered batches to avoid excessive server load; the Commission prescribed a three-stage schedule for delivery.Final Conclusion: The Commission allowed the appeal, holding that the requested database fields are existing information retrievable by query and not 'creation' of new information; refusal under Section 7(9) on grounds of disproportionate diversion or volume was not sustainable; the respondent was directed to furnish the information on CD/DVD in three prescribed batches over three months.

Definition of 'information' under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - scope of duties and jurisdiction of the Central Public Information Officer under the RTI Act - requests for opinion, interpretation or direction are not actionable under the RTI Act - obligation to supply records in existence as information - provision for supply of information free of cost under Section 7(6) of the RTI ActDefinition of 'information' under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - scope of duties and jurisdiction of the Central Public Information Officer under the RTI Act - requests for opinion, interpretation or direction are not actionable under the RTI Act - Whether the queries made by the appellant constituted 'information' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and whether the CPIO was obliged to interpret court orders, fix liability of third party officers or direct action by other authorities. - HELD THAT: - The appellant sought to know what action was contemplated by the Supreme Court and whether liability could be fixed on government officers, together with assurances or checks that orders would be complied with. The CPIO replied that a certified copy of the Court's order had been forwarded to the concerned department and that no further information was available; the CPIO also stated that interpreting judgments, fixing liability or directing action by other authorities falls beyond the jurisdiction and duties of the CPIO under the RTI Act. The FAA accepted that the CPIO had not withheld any record and correctly held that the PIO cannot be required under RTI to give opinions, interpret judicial orders, or direct actions by other authorities. The Commission observed that information under the Act must exist as a record and that speculative, advisory or direction seeking requests do not fall within Section 2(f). On that basis the Commission dismissed the appeal, holding the requests were not information as defined under the Act. The Commission also directed that notice of its decision be given free of cost and that any information supplied in compliance with the order be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6).Appeal dismissed; the queries do not constitute 'information' under Section 2(f) and the CPIO was not obliged to interpret orders, fix liability or direct action; notices and compliance information to be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6).Final Conclusion: The Commission dismissed the second appeal, holding that the appellant's requests sought opinion, interpretation or directions rather than existing recorded information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and that the CPIO had no duty under the Act to interpret judgments or direct action by other authorities; procedural directions as to free supply of notices and any compliant information were given.

Disclosure of plain factual information under the RTI Act - fiduciary duty and exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act - availability of records maintained by Court Masters - public interest in dissemination of court performance data - disclosure of administrative reports to RTI applicants - limited temporal scope for disclosure where compliance is burdensomeDisclosure of plain factual information under the RTI Act - fiduciary duty and exemption under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act - public interest in dissemination of court performance data - Whether the number of cases in which orders were reserved but not passed after two months is exempt from disclosure as fiduciary information and therefore nondisclosable under the RTI Act - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that the information sought - the number of cases reserved for orders in which no order has been passed even after two months - is plain factual information. The respondent's contention that such information is not maintained, and that reports furnished to the Chief Justice in a sealed cover held in a fiduciary capacity are exempt, was rejected. The order records that Court Masters compile such lists monthly to be furnished to the Chief Justice, and consequently the information should be available with Court Masters and in the office of the Chief Justice. Disclosure of these factual lists was held to serve a larger public interest by informing the litigating public about the time taken by the High Court in disposing of cases. Accordingly, the fiduciary exemption was not held to justify withholding the requested factual reports in the circumstances of this case. [Paras 4]The information is not exempt as fiduciary information and must be disclosed.Availability of records maintained by Court Masters - disclosure of administrative reports to RTI applicants - limited temporal scope for disclosure where compliance is burdensome - What records are to be located and supplied, and the temporal scope and manner of disclosure required of the CPIO - HELD THAT: - The Commission directed the CPIO to locate the relevant records, specifically reports furnished by Court Masters to the Chief Justice through the Registrar, and to provide photocopies of those reports containing lists of cases relevant to the RTI request. Recognising the practical burden of compiling historical data for a judge who has served for a long period, the Commission limited the disclosure to reports for the two years preceding the date of the RTI application. As an alternative, if a cumulative list of pending reserved orders is compiled anywhere in the High Court (including the office of the Chief Justice), providing that single cumulative list was held to suffice. The CPIO was ordered to furnish the photocopies within 15 working days from receipt of the order. [Paras 5]CPIO to provide photocopies of Court Masters' reports (or a cumulative list if available) for the two years preceding the RTI application within 15 working days.Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of by directing disclosure of the requested factual reports compiled by Court Masters (or a cumulative High Court list, if available), limited to the two years preceding the RTI application, with the CPIO to supply photocopies within 15 working days; the claimed fiduciary exemption was rejected in the circumstances.

Personal information - larger public interest - balancing test between privacy and public interest - disclosure of income-tax returns - proper forum to seek income-tax returns (Chief Commissioner or Court)Personal information - larger public interest - disclosure of income-tax returns - balancing test between privacy and public interest - proper forum to seek income-tax returns (Chief Commissioner or Court) - Whether the net taxable income shown in the income-tax returns of the assessee (father-in-law) for the period year 2000 till 15-9-2009 is disclosable under the RTI Act despite being personal information and whether disclosure should be directed to the appellant. - HELD THAT: - The Act distinguishes public information from personal information and, under the provision disallowing disclosure of personal information, requires satisfaction that a larger public interest justifies disclosure. Section 6(2) precludes inquiry into the applicant's motive; what matters is whether disclosure is permissible under the statutory test. Authorities and precedents require a balancing test between privacy and public interest, weighing whether non-disclosure would frustrate the administration of justice or whether disclosure would injure public interest. The Income-tax regime recognises that returns are not routinely disclosed to third parties, and the correct fora for seeking such returns are the Chief Commissioner, Income-tax, or a court in a sub-judice matter; nevertheless there is no absolute immunity against disclosure. Applying these principles and distinguishing earlier CIC precedents that did not address disclosure of net taxable income in the context of a larger public interest, the Commission found that the balance in this case favours disclosure of the net taxable income for the period year 2000 till 15-9-2009. Accordingly, directed disclosure of that information to the appellant while observing that the statutory route via the Chief Commissioner or the concerned court remains the proper channel generally. [Paras 12, 14, 15, 17, 18]The CPIO is directed to furnish the information pertaining to the net taxable income of Shri Munna Lal Saini for the period of year 2000 till 15-9-2009 to the appellant within 10 days; appeal disposed.Final Conclusion: The Commission applied the statutory requirement of a larger public interest under the RTI Act and, after balancing privacy against the administration of justice, directed disclosure of the net taxable income shown in the assessee's returns for year 2000 till 15-9-2009 to the appellant; ordinarily such returns are sought from the Chief Commissioner or by court order, but no absolute bar to disclosure exists.

Disclosure of information relating to appointment process - exemption under Section 8(1)(i) of the Right to Information Act - public interest in disclosure after completion of administrative actionDisclosure of information relating to appointment process - exemption under Section 8(1)(i) of the Right to Information Act - public interest in disclosure after completion of administrative action - Whether the CPIO was justified in withholding information about movement of the proposal/file for appointment to the post of President of the CESTAT under the claimed exemption. - HELD THAT: - The Commission considered the CPIO's refusal to disclose four items of information concerning the movement of the proposal/file for the appointment following a resignation, the refusal being made under Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act. On hearing submissions from both parties and noting that the appointment to the post has since been made, the Commission found that the basis for withholding the information no longer warranted non-disclosure. In view of the completion of the appointment process, the public interest in disclosure prevailed and the exemption relied upon could not be sustained to deny the requested information. The CPIO was directed to furnish the information to the appellant within ten working days from receipt of the order.Information regarding the movement of the proposal/file for the appointment is to be disclosed; CPIO directed to provide the information within ten working days.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed; the CPIO is directed to supply the requested information about the appointment process of the President of the CESTAT within ten working days, and the appeal is disposed of.

Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders - prosecution of offenders - process of investigation - information under the control of the Trial Court - Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders - prosecution of offenders - process of investigation - Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Whether the documents and letters sought relating to sanction for investigation under Section 6A of the DSPE Act, 1946 are exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as their disclosure would impede investigation or prosecution in a sub-judice matter. - HELD THAT: - The Bench construed the phrase "prosecution of offenders" as extending until final judgment and held that the words "impede" must be read in the context of both "investigation" and "prosecution". It adopted authority that information which is evidence or related to evidence in an ongoing prosecution falls under the control of the Trial Court and that disclosure under the RTI Act could interfere with the Court's discretion and thereby impede prosecution. Even where investigation is complete, material forming part of the investigative process may remain exempt if disclosure at that stage would impede prosecution. Given that the matter is sub-judice and prosecution proceedings have not concluded, furnishing the requested documents (other than RC numbers) would make the appellant privy to confidential material intended for prosecution and thus attract exemption under Section 8(1)(h). The appropriate channel for access to such material is an application to the competent court, which alone has the discretion to order production. [Paras 7, 8, 10, 11]The request for documents and letters sanctioning investigation was rightly refused under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act; disclosure (other than RC numbers) would impede the investigation/prosecution and is exempt.Information under the control of the Trial Court - process of investigation - Whether the FAA's direction that the CPIO provide the RC numbers to the appellant was permissible and whether the FAA's order should be upheld. - HELD THAT: - The FAA had directed the CPIO to provide details of RC numbers to the appellant even though the original RTI request did not seek them. The Commission observed that, while the substantive disclosure of investigative material is barred, the FAA's action in supplying RC numbers (information of limited character) did not conflict with the exemption applied to the other requested records. The Commission therefore upheld the FAA's order insofar as it provided some information (RC numbers) and modified the CPIO's order consistent with its findings on exemption for the remaining material. [Paras 4, 11, 12]The FAA's direction to furnish RC numbers is sustained; the FAA's refusal to direct disclosure of other investigative materials is upheld.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed. The Central Information Commission upholds the First Appellate Authority's refusal to disclose the requested investigative documents under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, but affirms the provision of RC numbers as directed by the FAA; the appellant must seek any further access to investigative material from the competent Trial Court.

Personal information exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - disclosure of disciplinary records of government employees - right to inspect records - inspection and supply of copies free of costPersonal information exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act - disclosure of disciplinary records of government employees - right to inspect records - inspection and supply of copies free of cost - Whether records held by the UPSC relating to a proposed disciplinary action and/or imposition of penalty against a government officer are exempt as 'personal information' under Section 8(1)(j) and can be withheld from inspection under the RTI Act. - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that the UPSC receives references from Ministries and Departments in disciplinary matters and offers comments and recommendations to the Government; records in its possession relating to such consultation cannot be classified as personal information merely because they concern a particular officer. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench ruling of the High Court of Kerala (WA No. 2781/2009) to the effect that information sought by an employee from his employer about domestic enquiry and confidential reports of colleagues does not fall within the personal information exemption. Applying that principle, the CPIO was not justified in denying inspection of the UPSC records under Section 8(1)(j). The Commission therefore directed that the appellant be permitted to inspect the relevant records in the possession of the UPSC within a specified period, and that photocopies of any inspected records chosen by the appellant be supplied free of cost. [Paras 4, 5]UPSC records relating to the disciplinary reference and the UPSC's comments are not exempt personal information under Section 8(1)(j) and must be shown to the appellant for inspection; photocopies requested after inspection shall be provided free of cost.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed: the CPIO is directed to permit inspection of the relevant UPSC records within 15 working days and to supply photocopies free of cost; the appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Right to Information - interest on GPF - transparency and timelines for disbursement of terminal benefits - administrative duty to maintain and disclose dispatch/processing records - powers under Section 25 of the RTI Act - penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act for delayed responseRight to Information - interest on GPF - administrative duty to maintain and disclose dispatch/processing records - Whether the information sought by the appellant concerning the GPF payment, interest entitlement and reasons for delay had been disclosed and whether any further relief was exigible. - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that the public authority (P&AO, CBEC) had provided responses and documentary particulars regarding dispatch of the GPF payment authority, the sequence of internal actions and the basis for non-payment of interest for September 2009 (authority issued before the 15th). The Commission noted the appellant's anguish at the delays but observed that the requested information had been furnished and explanations for delays were given. Having received the information and explanations, the Commission concluded there was no further relief to be granted in the RTI second-appeal on merits. [Paras 16, 17]Information as requested was disclosed and nothing more remains to be adjudicated in the second appeal; appeal closed.Powers under Section 25 of the RTI Act - transparency and timelines for disbursement of terminal benefits - administrative duty to maintain and disclose dispatch/processing records - Whether the Commission should direct systemic administrative measures to prevent recurrence of delays in processing terminal benefits for retirees. - HELD THAT: - Invoking supervisory powers under Section 25 of the RTI Act, the Commission emphasised the need for systemic improvement to prevent retirees suffering from delayed payouts. It recommended that the Pay & Accounts Office devise and implement a computer-based system displaying up-to-date names, dates of retirement, timelines for actions connected with terminal benefits and the status of adherence to those timelines, observing that such a system would promote transparency and efficiency and allay suspicion about handling of cases. The Commission recommended that this be put in place, if not already done, within three months and intimated to the Commission, and directed communication of this portion of the order to the head of the public authority. [Paras 12, 13, 14, 15]Public authority advised to implement a computer-based transparency system for retirees' terminal benefits within three months and inform the Commission; copy of recommendation to be sent to the head of the public authority.Right to Information - penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act for delayed response - Whether complaint proceedings for delayed reply by the CPIO should be pursued and whether a notice should issue for imposition of penalty under Section 20. - HELD THAT: - The Commission recorded that the appellant received the CPIO's reply after two months despite an earlier application date, and directed that a notice may issue to the CPIO and the holder of information to show cause why penalty under Section 20 should not be imposed for the delay. The matter was directed to be returnable in two weeks and complaint proceedings were ordered to continue. [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21]Notice to issue to CPIO and holder of information to show cause in respect of delayed response; complaint proceedings to continue and returnable in two weeks.Final Conclusion: The Commission held that the requested information regarding the GPF payment and reasons for delay had been disclosed and closed the second appeal; it recommended that the Pay & Accounts Office implement a computerised transparency system for timely processing and monitoring of retirees' terminal benefits within three months, and directed continuation of complaint proceedings with issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 20 for the delayed response by the CPIO.

Application of Section 8(1)(e) - fiduciary relationship exemption - severability of exempt and non exempt information - effect of sub judice/stay on disclosure under the Right to Information ActApplication of Section 8(1)(e) - fiduciary relationship exemption - fiduciary relationship - tests and scope - Whether the internal correspondence between officers concerning the appellant's reward claim is exempt under Section 8(1)(e) as information held in a fiduciary relationship. - HELD THAT: - The Commission applied the established tests for a fiduciary relationship and concluded that the correspondence sought does not fall within the ambit of Section 8(1)(e). Reliance on authoritative exposition of fiduciary duty shows such a relationship arises only where one party places trust and entrusts affairs to another in a manner creating the superior/subordinate duties characteristic of fiduciary obligations. The Commission found that the internal hierarchical correspondence relating to action on the appellant's complaint does not, on the materials before it, attract the fiduciary exemption. Consequently, the PIO failed to demonstrate that denial was justified under Section 8(1)(e). [Paras 14, 15]Section 8(1)(e) does not exempt the internal correspondence sought and the appeal is allowed to that extent.Effect of sub judice/stay on disclosure under the Right to Information Act - limits of reliance on pending writ petitions to deny information - Whether the pendency of writ petitions before the High Court (and interim stays) prevents disclosure of the internal correspondence sought by the appellant. - HELD THAT: - The Commission examined the respondent's reliance on pending writ petitions and interim orders staying the operation of an earlier CIC order. It distinguished the subject matter of those writ petitions (which related to inspection/disclosure of assessment records of specific parties) from the narrower request in the present appeal for internal correspondence about the appellant's reward claim. The Commission held that the existence of writ petitions and interim orders in respect of other information did not by itself justify withholding the internal correspondence sought in this case. [Paras 4, 11, 13]Pendency of writ petitions or interim stay orders in respect of other records does not automatically bar disclosure of the internal correspondence sought here.Severability of exempt and non exempt information - direction to disclose remaining information subject to exclusion of assessment records - Whether any part of the requested information must be withheld because it pertains to assessment records subject to the writ petitions, and what disclosure directions should follow. - HELD THAT: - Applying the principle of severability, the Commission directed that documents which pertain to records concerning tax assessments of the parties who have obtained stay orders before the High Court should not be made part of disclosure. All other requested documents and records, i.e., those not relating to the assessments or the subject matter of the pending writ petitions, are not exempt and must be supplied. The Commission therefore ordered supply of the remaining information within a specified timeframe. [Paras 15]Documents relating to the tax assessments that are the subject of the writ petitions shall be excluded from disclosure; the remaining information must be supplied to the appellant within fifteen working days.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in part: the internal correspondence concerning the appellant's reward claim is not exempt under Section 8(1)(e) and must be disclosed, subject to exclusion of documents that pertain to the tax assessments already the subject of writ petitions before the High Court; the respondent is directed to supply the remaining information within fifteen working days.

Right to information - Review powers of the Central Information Commission - Maintenance of records and record management - Grounds for refusal: burden of work, volume of information and insufficiency of staff - Exemption based on sensitivity of investigation-related material and public interest - Third-party consultation for disclosureReview powers of the Central Information Commission - Right to information - Whether the Commission could entertain a review/reconsideration of its earlier order dated 26-3-2010 - HELD THAT: - The RTI Act does not ordinarily vest a power of review in the Commission. Notwithstanding that, the Commission as the highest appellate authority under the Act may, in exceptional circumstances, entertain reconsideration if it is shown that refusal to do so would cause a substantial miscarriage of justice. The review-petitioners have not shown any such overwhelming evidence or circumstance that would justify revisiting the earlier order. The late invocation of purported defects in the earlier hearing and absence of a counter-statement does not establish a miscarriage of justice warranting review. The Commission therefore declines to review or reconsider its order dated 26-3-2010. [Paras 17, 20]Review/reconsideration declined; earlier order of 26-3-2010 standsMaintenance of records and record management - Grounds for refusal: burden of work, volume of information and insufficiency of staff - Right to information - Whether the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange's pleas of understaffing, large volume of records and difficulty of collation justify non-disclosure - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal's late reliance on paucity of staff, volume of records and the onerous nature of collation are characterised as afterthoughts; no such contentions were pressed at the earlier hearing. Administrative inconvenience, internal flaws in record management or understaffing cannot be allowed to defeat a citizen's statutory right to information. The Tribunal offered no satisfactory explanation for its failure to maintain accessible records of orders, and cannot fend off disclosure obligations by invoking workload or resource constraints. [Paras 16, 18, 19]Pleas of insufficiency of staff and volume of records rejected as a ground for withholding informationExemption based on sensitivity of investigation-related material and public interest - Third-party consultation for disclosure - Right to information - Whether claimed sensitivity of documents (investigative material) and third-party aspects justify withholding the requested orders and related records - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal pointed to involvement of investigative agencies and third-party interests, asserting potential exemptions and practical difficulty in securing third-party consent. The Commission found these contentions unpersuasive in the circumstances and not sufficient to displace the earlier direction for disclosure. No specific substantial evidence was produced to demonstrate that the material sought was prima facie exempt or that disclosure would cause the kind of prejudice envisaged by the exemption provisions relied upon; nor was the practical impossibility of third-party consultation established to the satisfaction of the Commission. [Paras 6, 7, 21]Claims of sensitivity and third-party difficulty do not justify non-disclosure; disclosure directedRight to information - Maintenance of records and record management - Whether and how the information ordered earlier should be furnished to the appellant - HELD THAT: - The Commission reaffirms its earlier direction that the deemed CPIO shall provide the information that was ordered to be disclosed by the Commission's order dated 26-3-2010. Recognising operational realities, the Commission permits the respondents to approach it within one week if they require additional time to comply, but otherwise directs immediate disclosure of the outstanding information pursuant to the earlier order. [Paras 21, 22, 23]Deemed CPIO directed to disclose the information as earlier ordered; limited extension may be sought within one weekFinal Conclusion: Review petition by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange rejected; the Commission declines to reopen its order of 26-3-2010, rejects the Tribunal's pleas of understaffing, volume and sensitivity as grounds for non-disclosure, and directs disclosure of the information previously ordered, subject to any short extension formally sought within one week.