The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points in respect of promotion considered under the protection clause - from Scale I to Scale V for the promotional Exercise of 2015-16 & 2016-17 - G.O No. dated 29.01.2004 and OM No. dated 07.06.2013 regarding the number of SC/ST officers promoted under Protection Clause in different scales (as mentioned in the application) and their names on an all India basis for the promotion exercises of 2015-16 & 2016-17 and names of OBC/OC officers not considered for promotion due to implementation of Protection Clause for the last two promotional exercises.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 11.12.2017 provided a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 08.03.2018 stated that the Appellant had not received the information provided by the CPIO and therefore, advised him to re-examine the RTI application in context of Appeal. Furthermore, it was stated that as submitted by the CPIO after confirmation from HRM Department, the information provided at the application stage was reiterated.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points inter alia regarding the copy of the cover page and other pages of the payment voucher paid to him for the period from 01.08.1990 to 31.03.1991 and from 01.04.1991 to 19.06.1991 and the copy of the office attendance register in which the Appellant was made to sign while working in the office as bilingual typist and assistant from 01.08.1990 to 31.03.1991.

The CPIO vide its letter dated 16.06.2017, stated that since the copy of the documents sought was not available and therefore the same could not be provided. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 01.01.2018 concurred with the response of the CPIO.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the present rates of conveyance allowance admissible to doctors working in hospital for paying hospital visits outside duty hours and performing other official duties and a copy of relevant orders, if any.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 28.02.2018 stated that the matter had not reached its finality and hence, the information sought could not be provided at this juncture. It was further stated that there had been delay in providing the requisite information due to inadvertent communication gap and the same was deeply regretted. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The First Appeal was transferred vide letter dated 23.03.2018 to the concerned FAA. The Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points in respect of Shri Rakesh Kumar Sahu, whether he was an income taxpayer or not, if yes, the details of income tax deposited by him and other issues related thereto.

Dissatisfied due to non receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/Order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record on the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent;

Respondent: Mr. Atesham Ansari, JCIT and Mr. Subroto Gupta, ITO through VC;

Page 1 of 5

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent informed the Commission that since the information pertained to four different CPIOs, the same was replied by them vide their letter dated 21.12.2017/04.01.2018/24.01.2018/21.12.2017 respectively. Thereafter, the FAA, vide its order dated 06.02.2018 decided all the four Appeals informing thereby that the matter referred to by the Appellant was a Third Party information not fit for disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information pertaining to suspension of Sh. J. S. Sandhu, SE(P),WZ-II, CPWD office order no. dated 18.01.2016, the copy of note sheets/documents on which case of placing the officer in question was processed from December 2015, till today with minutes of review meetings, placing under dismissal etc. Page 1 of 6 The CPIO, vide its letter dated 05.04.2018 forwarded the application to the concerned CPIO. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points inter alia regarding the number of charge-sheets (Memorandum) issued to the employees for last seven years under Procedure for imposing major penalties of National Insurance (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) and how many of them were awarded major penalty after enquiry, number of employees who filed appeal against the penalty order and number of cases in which instead of deciding on their appeal the penalty was enhanced; time taken to decide the aforementioned appeals by the competent authority.

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding his complaint dated 16.05.2017 and desired to initiate action against the same.

Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

Page 1 of 4

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar;

Respondent: Mr. P. Bhogendro Singh, ITO;

The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that he had filed a TEP and that the status of the same was not being intimated to him. In its reply, the Respondent informed that consistent correspondence had been dealt with within the Department a copy of which had been endorsed to the Appellant as well. The said TEP had been categorized as category "C" and the orders received on 06.09.2017 and further action is being initiated as per extant guidelines. The case will be assessed as per ongoing investigation / enquiry. A written submission was presented to the Commission on 20.12.2019 a copy of which was hand delivered to the Appellant.

The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information regarding the reasons and grounds for the non-payment of the dues of her father after joining as an Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Durgapur for the period mentioned in the RTI application.

The CPIO vide letter dated 16.01.2018 replied with the remark 'NIL'. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 22.02.18, while upholding the response of the CPIO stated that the Appellant had already received the information from the CPIO and DC, CGST, Durgapur-I Division vide letter dated 07.02.2018.

Page 1 of 4

The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 30 points regarding the details of the different formations of CGST & CX Executive and Audit Commissionerate housed at Central Revenue Building (in a desired format as mentioned in the RTI application), the details of adjacent structures/spaces exist within the said premises; the total area of the premises enclosed by the boundary wall and other issues related thereto.

The CPIO & Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Audit Commissionerate, Durgapur, vide its letter dated 20.09.2018 transferred the RTI application informing for points 01 to 05 that the same may be partly available with the CPIO, CGST, Durgapur-I Division under Bolpur Commissionerate. Accordingly, the application was transferred to the concerned CPIO who in turn vide its letter dated 08.10.2018 further transferred the application to the CPIO, O/o the Commissioner, Bolpur as the same could be available with them. A copy of the Order dated 19.07.2017 issued by Assistant Commissioner (P&V), Bolpur Commissionerate and Order dated 31.08.2017 issued by Deputy Commissioner, Durgapur I Division regarding allocation of office space to Durgapur Sub-Commissionerate CGST & Audit Commissionerate at Durgapur as available with them was enclosed. Subsequently, the CPIO & Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Audit Commissionerate, Durgapur, vide its letter dated 12.10.2018, provided a point-wise response to the Complainant. Dissatisfied with the response, the Complainant approached the Commission.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on details of ITR with Financials and all schedules of M/S Aditya Developers for the Years 2009-10 to 2017-18.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 19.02.2018 denied disclosure of information on the ground that it pertained to a Third party. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide order dated 02.04.2018 concurred with the CPIO's response and denied the said information u/s 8(1) (j) & 8(1) (c) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Page 1 of 5

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent;

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the Income Tax Returns of the Appellant's wife named Priyanka Guvindsingh Pardesi for the years 2012-2017.

The CPIO vide its response dated 23.03.2018, denied the information sought under Section 8(1)(j) and 11(1), while stating that the third party about whom the information was sought had objected to disclose the same. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 24.04.2018, took into consideration the decisions of the Commission No.37774/IC(A)/2009, F. No. CIC/MA/A/2009/000102 dated 18.03.2009, No. CIC/RM/A/2012/000038/LS dated 03.06.2013 and no. 1816/IC(A)/2008 and F. No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00583 dated 10.01.2008 and directed the CPIO to furnish the information regarding total taxable income of Smt Priyanka Guvindsingh Pardesi to the Appellant within 15 Page 1 of 4 days from the date of receipt of the order. In compliance with the order of the FAA, the CPIO vide letter dated 25.04.2018 provided a response to the Appellant.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the details on the investigations of Panama Paper leaks and Paradise Paper Leaks accused; the details of the committee or team investigating the case of both the paper leaks; details of FIRs registered; details of preliminary inquiries initiated, etc. The CPIO, vide its reply dated 03.05.2018 stated that their Organization was exempted from the purview of the RTI Act, 2005 as per Section 24 r/w the Second Schedule of the Act. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 29.05.2018 while concurring with the CPIO's response, informed that the Directorate was mandated to investigate cases for suspected contravention of provision of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. Further, the Directorate also investigated the cases under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 when other Law Enforcement Agencies i.e. Police, CBI, etc. had registered a case for the offences appearing under the Schedule of PMLA, 2002. It was evident from the application dated 07.03.2018 and subsequent Appeal dated 22.05.2018 against the order of PIO that there was no corruption or human rights issue involved as the Appellant had merely sought investigation related information. In order to bring the allegation within the ambit and scope of corruption need to be specific not vague and should be related to functioning of the Organization.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the certified copy of his statement of superannuation fund for the F.Y 2009-2010 up to Financial Year 2017-2018 comprising of each Financial Years Opening Balance, Contribution received, Transfer Received (if any), Rate of Interest, etc. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 19.03.2018 stated that as the superannuation claim of the Applicant stands already settled on 16.01.2018, extraction of fund statement was not possible. However, calculation sheet for claim settlement was being attached for the Appellant's reference. Furthermore, fund statement for all the financial years' stands provided to the trust after closure of financial year. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 05.05.2018, concurred with the CPIO's response.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the names of the officers promoted from Scale IV to Scale V under the Protection Clause for Promotion Exercise 2012-13 to 2015-16, etc. The CPIO, vide its email dated 06.10.2017 denied disclosure of information u/s 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 01.11.2017 disagreed with the CPIO's response and directed him to take up the matter with the concerned information holder and provide the information sought by the RTI Applicant.

Page 1 of 3

HEARING:

Both parties are present during the hearing. Appellant has stated that his case arose when he complained to the respondent about some cracks in the wall of the property adjacent to his own. It is his allegation that the owner of the said property being known to the respondent, the respondents wanted to shield him and did not take any action on the complaint. However, as a retaliation to the complaint, portion of his property was demolished on 30.07.2015 and he has been subjected to harassment by the respondent ever since then.The dispute with respondents has resulted in litigations which are currently pending in the Courts.

Respondent is unable to provide any reasonable or cogent reply for not complying with the FAA's specific directions in all of the three appeals which deal with a common subject matter. Some communications dated March 2019 have been sent by the PIO, through the AE, purportedly as reply to the RTI applications.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the alleged fake institution in the name & style the Indian School of Fire and Safety Engineering, whether the institution was registered under the PAN directory or not.

Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO (not on record), the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 12.10.2017, stated that the Appellant had been provided with the Page 1 of 8 information vide letter dated 06.09.2017 and rejected the Appeal stating the same to be devoid of any merit and thus not maintainable. In the detailed decision of the FAA it has been noted that the Indian School of Fire and Safety Engineering is a private partnership firm registered with IGR, Odisha. It was emphasized that the said institution is a firm and not an individual. Furthermore, it was stated that in case of the said institution, the owner has been booked by Shaheed Nagar Police under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 IPC and is now facing trial in the Court of SDJM, Bhubaneswar. The Hon'ble High Court of Odisha has permitted the collection of evidence and their deposition with the investigating officer in the case. That the said applicant also filed repeated RTI applications dated 15.09.2017, 22.09.2017 and 27.09.2017 seeking similar information repeatedly. It was held that the applicant was seeking answers to questions which was not covered under RTI Act, 2005 (Saidur Rehman vs. CIC) decision No. CIC/AA/A/2006/00032 and 00034 dated 22.06.2007. A reference was also made to the definition of information under Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Another reference was made to decision dated 20.05.2016, in case of Mrs. Nalini Singhal vs. Air India CIC/YA/A/2015/000738-BJ. The FAA also made a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commission & ors. SLP(C) No. 27734 of 2012 dated 03/10/2012; 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors); the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Shailesh Gandhi v. CIC and Ors WP 8753 of 2013 dated 06.05.2015; the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Shail Sahni vs Sanjeev Kumar and Ors (WP (C) 845/2014); Madras HC in P. Jayasankar vs Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and Gunaseelan IPS (WP Nos 3776 and 3778/ 2013); Karnataka High Court in WP No. 10663/2006 (AIR 2009 Karnataka 8) and the decision of the Commission in Om Prakash Goel vs IA & AD, Shimla in CIC/AT/A/2008/597. Subsequently, vide letter dated 20.10.2017, the CPIO and ITO (Exemption) stated that the institution named "Indian School of Fire and Safety Engineering" was not under the territorial jurisdiction of ITO (Exemption), Cuttack and no registration u/s 12AA of the IT Act had ever been granted to the above institution. Further on verification of the system on PAN query it showed that no PAN had been allotted to the said institution. On the second part of the application it was stated that all the queries were not part of information since it related to giving answers or opinions to queries which were not contemplated under the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the information could not be furnished.

The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 16 points pertaining to D/o Expenditure O.M. no. 2/1/2105-E.-III(A) dated 16.10.2015 & C&AG'S circular no. 22-staff (Entt -I) 2011 No. 480-Entt-I/133-2011 dtd. 13.6.2011; the diary no. and date of receipt of above mentioned O.M dated 16.10.2015 in O/o DGA(CR) from C&AG office, date of action taken in the above O.M in O/o DGA(CR), posts in O/o DGA(CR) to which the benefit of the aforesaid mentioned O.M. was applicable, etc. The CPIO, vide letters dated 27.06.2018 & 10.07.2018 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide order dated 23.08.2018 concurred with the CPIO's response.

The Appellant vide her RTI application sought information on 07 points pertaining to requests/representation of Shri Atul Bhagat, Sr. Audit Officer posted in RAIT Wing in office of DGA(CR) for fixation of pay in terms of D/o Expenditure O.M dated 16.10.15; dates of receipt of requests/ applications dated 07.06.2016, 14.07.2016, 19.07.2016, 09.03.2017 and 25.10.2017 in GE Section O/o DGA (CR) alongwith their Diary Numbers; dates on which action was initiated on the above representations in GE Section, DGA(CR), time limit prescribed for taking action on representation for pay fixation, etc. The CPIO, vide letter dated 17.01.2018 denied information on Points 02, 05, 06 and 07 u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide order dated 05.03.2018 concurred with the CPIO's response.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points pertaining to the penalty order dated 31/05/2016 against which an appeal was filed on 29/08/2016 with letter reference no. HO:PERS:CDA:RKR dtd. 08/09/2017 to Disciplinary authority to review the penalty order; copy of the aforementioned letter dated 08/09/2017 and copies of documents on which action was taken on the letter to issue a revised order.

The CPIO and Chief Manager, HO, Kolkata and CPIO and Dy. Manager, DRO-III, Delhi vide their letters dated 22.03.2018 & 05.04.2018 respectively stated that the information was purely internal in nature and involve certain amount of confidentiality and therefore could not be parted Page 1 of 7 with. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 5 points pertaining to insurance related queries for commercial vehicle nos. UP77-N-9448 and UP77-N-5835; insurance forms, insurance number, registered claims and claims settled for the years 2012-13 to 2017-18, etc. Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

Page 1 of 5

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Amit Jain through VC;

Respondent: Mr. Rajendra Kumar, CPIO and Mr. Dinesh Kumar, CPIO through VC;