RTI Judgement Series: Display, update information on website as mandated under Section 4
Moneylife Digital Team 04 June 2013

The PIO of the Revenue Department at the Delhi government gave a vague reply when asked about publishing information under Section 4. The CIC then directed the PIO to publish and update information on the department's portal. This is the 106th in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application

The Central Information Commission (CIC), while allowing an appeal, directed the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Revenue Department at the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), to display information on its website as mandated under Section 4 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.


While giving this judgement on 29 June 2011, Shailesh Gandhi, the then Central Information Commissioner said, “The PIO has given slightly vague replies because there does not appear to be a systematic effort to ensure that Section 4 is complied with. The PIO is directed to ensure that information as directed above is displayed on the website and updated as per the directions.”


New Delhi resident Rambir Singh, on 1 November 2010 sought information regarding implementation of Section 4, from the PIO of the Revenues Department. Here is the information he sought under the RTI Act and the reply provided by the PIO...


1. Whether any action has been initiated/ proposed to be taken against officers/ Public Authority for not initializing action as per Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b), 4(2), 4(3)& 4(4) of the RTI, Act within 120 days from the enactment of the Act    

PIO's Reply: If it is found that no action has been initiated within 120 days of enactment of the Act under Sections 4(1)(a), 4(1)(b), 4(2), 4(3)& 4(4) then action shall be taken


2. Information regarding the status/action taken under Section 4 of the RTI Act        

PIO's Reply: The Question is not clear


3. Information regarding the proposed time to be taken in obeying the directions under Section 4 of the RTI Act       

PIO's Reply: The information Under Section 4 of the act is available with the PIO of this district and the same can be obtained


Singh, citing the information provided by the PIO as unsatisfying and vague filed his first appeal. In his order on 28 January 2011, the First Appellate Authority (FAA) said, “The appellant is required to provide/comply with the provision of section 4 of the RTI Act. Let the PIO/ ADM (South West) give a factual reply in details on the issue i.e. Section 4 of the RTI Act about Dist. South West. The appeal was thereafter disposed of.”


Singh then approached the CIC. In his second appeal, he stated that “(the) PIO has not provided true and complete information as per direction of the FAA. Neither the PIO nor the FAA mentioned the address of the second appellate authority in their reply which, appellant claims, amounts to denial of information.”


During the hearing before the Commission, Mr Gandhi noted that the PIO had given slightly vague replies due to lack of systematic efforts for complying with Section 4 of the RTI Act.


After discussing the matter with both Singh and the PIO, the CIC directed the PIO to ensure that the following information regarding the public authority is displayed on the website of the department:

1 Information every month on the number defaults in meeting the SLA (Service Level Agreements) and amount of penalty recovered form officers for default.

2 Orders passed under Section 81 of Delhi Land Reform Act 1954. 


While allowing the appeal, Mr Gandhi said, “The order is being given by the Commission under its powers under Section 19(8) (a) of the RTI Act. This is a requirement of Section 4 of the RTI Act. It would ensure that both the above information is updated every month before the 10th of the following month.”


He also directed the PIO to send a compliance report along with the URL address (web address) where the information has been uploaded to Singh and the Commission before 25 July 2011.




Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001225/13156


Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001225


Appellant                                            : Rambir Singh,    

                                                            New Delhi - 110037


Respondent                                        : BS Jaglan

                                                            PIO & ADM (SW)

                                                            Revenue Department, GNCTD

                                                            Old Terminal Tax Building,

                                                            Kapashera, New Delhi - 110037

Free Helpline
Legal Credit