Apka Adhikar

These are some of the cases in courts.

Mujibur Rehman

He filed an RTI application seeking a copy of rules relying upon which a subordinate was given an out of turn promotion. However, rules were not given and the petitioner was transferred from his postings as a penalty for filing RTI application. After the CIC matter was decided, he received three different promotion rules from different parts of the same organization. CIC in its order stated that they cannot do anything if the petitioner is not satisfied with information. He has approached Delhi High Court on the same issue and also imposition of penalty on the erring Public Information Officers. (CW-3845-2007)

Treesa Irish

CIC denied access to photocopies of her own valued answer sheets in departmental examination to the petitioner. The refusal was base on exemption S. 8(1)(e) [information available in fiduciary relationship] and S. 8(1)(j) [personal information having no relation with public activity]. Treesa filed writ to reverse CIC decision.

Anoop Kumar

He had filed three RTI applications on different issues. CIC clubbed all three appeals in one petition and passed single order for all of them. Two appeals were not dealt with at all. Hence he filed petition before High Court.

Vimal Kishore

He has been an employee of NABARD since 18.05.1983. However, when he asked for certain information regarding his own disciplinary proceedings, CPIO and first appellate authority did not respond at all. Before CIC he was informed by that certain files are with Central Vigilance Commission and he was given 9 letters that were set apart by many months and were not of any use to the petitioner. CIC in its earlier order imposed penalty and later reviewed it. CIC also issued direction to CVC to give information to the petitioner, however, despite strict order of CIC no information was given to petitioner. CVC had filed comments before CIC which were also not given to petitioner hence he had to approach High Court for his grievance.

Sadhana

Petitioner asked Delhi Police for files, under RTI, about her complaints that she was beaten up. Police refused to release the files. She appealed to the CIC. The CIC ruled in her favour and asked Police to release the files, or the destruction certificate if the files were destroyed. The destruction certificate was given to the petitioner. The date on destruction certificate was later then the date of the CIC decision in this case. This shows that Police destroyed the files after they were ordered to release the files to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a writ in the Delhi High Court.

Kusum Devi

Kusum Devi asked Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for files on public schools, that were not providing free education to poor children. PIO of DDA was negligent in answering the request. Petitioner appealed to CIC. CIC imposed Rs 500/ fine and asked DDA to release the documents. In spite of this DDA did not pay fine, and released only partial records. Petitioner filed writ in Delhi High Court to force DDA to pay the fine and to cancel the leases of those public schools that are not providing free education to poor children.

Neelam Rajput

Ms. Rajput asked PA for details on promotion under RTI. When her request was denied she appealed to CIC. The CIC ordered PA to provide the information within 15, and refused to impose penalty. When PA again refused to provide the information, she complained to CIC. CIC has not taken any action. Therefore Ms. Rajput filed writ in Delhi High Court.