2013 (1) TMI 196 - Commission - Indian Laws

RTI - Appellant had sought information on seven points - Appellant sent postal order of Rs. 20/- instead of Rs. 18/- and stated that excess amount of Rupees 2/- is waived in his favour - It was informed to appellant that CPIO of the Commission cannot accept anything less or anything more than what is admissible as per the Rules - Held that - looking into the practicality the request of the appellant be accepted and directed to provide information to the appellant within 5 working days of the receipt of payment by the appellant. In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of RTI Act regarding payment of photocopying charges.
2. Legality of CPIO's decision to reject the payment tendered through postal order.
3. Practicality of payment methods under RTI Fee and Cost Rules.

Interpretation of RTI Act regarding payment of photocopying charges:
The appellant filed an appeal against the response of the CPIO regarding an RTI application seeking information on seven points. The CPIO informed the appellant that the statement on institution and disposal of cases in each registry runs into 9 pages and requested payment of Rs. 18 at Rs. 2 per page as photocopying charges. The appellant sent a postal order of Rs. 20, stating that the excess amount of Rs. 2 was waived in his favor. However, the CPIO returned the postal order, stating that only the exact amount as per the Rules is acceptable. The appellant argued that the RTI Act should be interpreted in a manner that promotes the dissemination of information and that the CPIO's decision was incorrect and illegal.

Legality of CPIO's decision to reject the payment tendered through postal order:
The appellant contended that the CPIO erred in taking a technical view by rejecting the payment tendered through the postal order. The appellant highlighted that returning the postal order had incurred additional postal expenditure for the exchequer. The appellant argued that the RTI Act is a social welfare legislation and should be interpreted to facilitate the sharing of information. The appellant emphasized that the CPIO's decision was incorrect, illegal, and should be set aside.

Practicality of payment methods under RTI Fee and Cost Rules:
During the hearing, the nodal CPIO argued that the appellant had other payment modes available to make the exact payment of Rs. 18. The RTI Fee and Cost Rules specify Rs. 2 per page, requiring the exact amount without any deviation. The appellant defended the use of a postal order, stating it was a practical and cost-efficient method. The CPIO maintained that the payment must be exact as per the rules. After considering the arguments, the Commission directed the CPIO to provide the information to the appellant within 5 working days upon receipt of the payment by the appellant, accepting the postal order of Rs. 20.

This judgment resolved the issues by interpreting the RTI Act to promote the dissemination of information, addressing the legality of the CPIO's decision to reject the payment tendered through a postal order, and considering the practicality of payment methods under the RTI Fee and Cost Rules.