The Gujarat Information Commission (GIC) has imposed a penalty of ₹5,000 on the Public Information Officer (Talati-cum-Minister) of Sarigam Gram Panchayat in Valsad district for denying information to an RTI applicant by misinterpreting an earlier order of the Commission.
The Commission has also recommended disciplinary action against the Taluka Development Officer of Umargam, who acted as the First Appellate Authority, for negligence of duty.
The case pertains to a petition filed by applicant Pankaj Kamalashankar Rai regarding RTI queries submitted on documents related to house number allotment and construction permits involving R. Aggarwal Industries. The PIO rejected the request, claiming that the petitioner had submitted more than 12 RTI applications, allegedly exceeding a permissible limit. The First Appellate Authority upheld the denial on the same grounds.
However, at a hearing held on 14 November 2025, the Commission clarified that its earlier February 2025 order—issued in Appeal Nos. A-2178-2024 and A-2739-2024—restricting specific applicants from filing more than 12 applications was applicable only to those particular applicants and not to the general public.
The Commission observed that officers across the state had begun demanding “confirmation forms” from RTI applicants and rejecting requests on the grounds of exceeding 12 applications, leading to widespread harassment and unnecessary appeals.
While penalising the PIO, the Commission noted that both the PIO and First Appellate Authority denied information without proper examination and by deliberately misinterpreting the order. It called the conduct a failure of duty and recommended action under the Discipline and Appeal Rules.
However, the Commission ultimately rejected the applicant’s requested information since it pertained to third-party records protected under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which covers personal details such as name, address, property transfer and construction permissions. The Commission found no demonstrated larger public interest to justify disclosure.
Social activists hope that the ruling will put an end to incorrect interpretation of the “12 RTI applications” order and provide relief to citizens facing arbitrary rejection of information requests.
Comments