2010 (3) TMI 947 - Commission - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Disclosure of orders passed by ATFE during specific periods.
2. Provision of inspection of despatch registers of ATFE.
3. Request for a list of cases with reserved but not yet pronounced orders.
4. Access to Cause Lists of ATFE and after Court Cause List.
5. Complaint against deemed-CPIO for misleading information and obstruction in disclosure.

Analysis:
1. The appellant requested inspection of orders passed by ATFE during specific periods. The deemed-CPIO refused, citing the lack of public interest mentioned by the appellant. The Appellate Authority upheld this decision. However, the Central Information Commission found this refusal unjustified, emphasizing that such information should be accessible to any applicant. The Commission directed the disclosure of this information within a week, criticizing the CPIO and the Appellate Authority for their erroneous decision-making under the RTI Act.

2. The appellant sought inspection of despatch registers of ATFE, which he claimed to have already received. This issue did not require further action or intervention as the appellant acknowledged the provision of the requested information.

3. The appellant also requested a list of cases with reserved but unpronounced orders. The Commission deemed this information essential for public scrutiny, noting that details about case hearings and order pronouncements should be readily available. Consequently, the Commission directed the public authority to provide this information within three weeks, emphasizing the need for centralized records for public access.

4. Regarding the Cause Lists of ATFE, the appellant linked this request to the period specified for the disclosure of ATFE orders. The Commission directed the CPIO to provide this information for the same period mentioned in the RTI application, ensuring the appellant's access to the requested records for inspection and copying, with the option for certified copies under the Indian Evidence Act.

5. In addition to the RTI requests, the appellant lodged a complaint against the deemed-CPIO for allegedly providing misleading information and obstructing disclosure, invoking Sections 18 and 20 of the RTI Act. The Commission issued a notice to the deemed-CPIO, directing a response within two weeks. The complaint resolution was deferred pending the reply. The Commission ensured the parties were informed of these directions for transparency and compliance.