2014 (11) TMI 1046 - Commission - Indian Laws

RTI application - name and designation of the CPIO dealt with it and inspection of all files, copies of related noting documents - Held that - Section 2(j) explains right to information includes inspection of work, documents, records; taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; taking certified samples of material. The Commission observes When huge information/record sought pertains to a larger period such as ten or more years, which does not attract Section 8 or 9, the best way of realization of right to information is to facilitate inspection. It will help the appellant to select the relevant documents and seek copy of only those documents found relevant instead of copying huge number of files unnecessarily involving huge expenditure and time for both parties. The public authority should create a specific and convenient place for facilitating inspection taking enough care for security of records. If someone wants copy of entire record of the office, it may not be possible or reasonable besides attracting the restriction under Section 7(9). If the records pertaining to areas exempted from disclosure are separated and the public records are kept accessible to citizens, it would serve the purpose. During the inspection the appellant should be facilitated to sit and take notes from the files and if he seeks copies of any documents which are permissible, they shall be given then and there at prescribed cost. The Commission makes following recommendations a) the appellant to have inspection and seek copies of papers, if he thinks necessary, if not furnished earlier. b) the appellant not to consider it as suppression of records, which the officers were fearing about, c) with regard to his earlier RTI applications also the Commission would like the appellant to rationalize and minimize requirement of copies of documents strictly relevant to the aspect of public interest so that the officers would not worry about the stress and time needed to collect huge amount of information d) the respondents consider possibility of facilitating inspection before invoking Section 7(9) of RTI Act. e) both the respondents and appellant to have a coordinated approach in securing reasonable and only information required in public interest.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the First Appellate Authority's (FAA) order.
2. Entitlement of the appellant to the information sought under the RTI Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the First Appellate Authority's (FAA) order:

The appellant filed an RTI application on 19.10.2013 seeking various documents and notings related to his previous RTI applications. The Public Information Officer (PIO) denied the information under Section 7(9) of the RTI Act on 21.11.2013, and the FAA upheld this decision on 26.12.2013 without providing the appellant an opportunity for a hearing.

The Commission noted that the FAA's order was passed without hearing the appellant, which is illegal and renders the order invalid. The Commission emphasized that the principles of natural justice require that an appellant be given an opportunity of hearing if expressly requested, as supported by previous CIC orders and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Civil Appeal No.9095/2012 Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra.

The Commission set aside the FAA's order for violating the RTI Act and recommended disciplinary action against the concerned FAA officer for acting against the RTI Act. The Commission also highlighted the DoPT's memorandum directing Public Authorities to proactively disclose RTI applications and appeals on their websites, reinforcing the appellant's right to information.

2. Entitlement of the appellant to the information sought under the RTI Act:

The appellant sought information regarding 14 previous RTI applications, which the PIO and other officers found voluminous and difficult to compile. The appellant argued that the PIO misinterpreted his request and that the information sought would not disproportionately divert resources, as it pertained to only 14 files.

The Commission observed that the PIO and officers were confused and apprehensive about providing the information due to its volume and potential consequences. However, the Commission concluded that there was no malafide denial of information and that facilitating inspection of records was a positive response rather than an intention to deny information.

The Commission directed the respondent authority to furnish certified copies of the information sought within 21 days and recommended that the appellant be allowed to inspect the records and seek copies of necessary documents. The Commission also advised the appellant to rationalize his requests to avoid overburdening the officers and recommended a coordinated approach between the respondents and the appellant to secure reasonable information required in the public interest.

Conclusion:

The Commission invalidated the FAA's order for procedural violations and directed the respondent authority to provide the requested information. It emphasized the importance of proactive disclosure and a balanced approach to handling voluminous RTI requests. The judgment underscores the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles and the RTI Act's provisions to ensure transparency and accountability.