SHORTAGE OF STAFF IS NO GROUND TO DENY INFORMATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

[Mr. M. GOVINDARAJAN]

In 'Dy. Commissioner of Archives & Historical Research V. State CIC' - 2010 (254) ELT 390 (Mad) the High Court held that shortage of staff is no ground to deny the information under Right to Information Act.

In this case the third respondent, a Managing Partner of a Real Estate firm, asking for certain information from the office of the petitioner, relating to old maps, settlement records and title deeds and also the details of court of wards. On receipt of the requisition the petitioner informed the Central Land Survey Office, Chepauk that they should send two staff for one month period to take over the records from the archives. They have also stated that they should provide District, Taluk and village numbers and complete records, for which records are required. A letter was also sent to the Land Reforms Department, Chepauk with reference to providing settlement records, title deeds and court of wards index. They have sought permission from the department to provide such information.

The Commission held that Archives cannot refuse to furnish any information unless it is covered by Section 8 and 9 of the Right to Information Act. The petitioner's claim was that they are only custodian of records in terms of Madras Secretariat Office Manual as well as Archival Policy Resolution adopted by the State Government and approved by G.O.Ms. No.1, Education (W1 Department, dated 2.1.1990 and hence they are not bound to provide any information to any one. The policy resolution provides that all non confidential public records, over 30 years old transferred to the State Archives will be open to bona fide Research Scholars, subject to such exceptions and restrictions as may be found necessary by the Departments concerned in consultation with the Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Archives and Historical Research. This view has been overruled by the CIC that Section 22 of the Right to Information Act has an overriding effect. This section provides that the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any other law other than this Act.

Further the CIC held that the petitioner cannot contend that the documents cannot be furnished without the concerned department's consent. It further stated that in order to ascertain the concerned Department's objection the petitioner Archives must notify to those departments. In case any objection is raised by any department such department should submit the objection within 10 days in the normal circumstances. In this case the documents are more than 20 years old. Section 8(3) de-classifies those documents. It provides that subject to the provisions of clauses (a) (c) and (i) of sub section (1) any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be provided to any person making a request under that section. The CIC held that by virtue of Section 8(3) there is no difficulty for the Archives to provide those documents even without consulting the concerned department.

Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed this writ petition before the Court. The contentions raised by the petitioner are-

* The petitioner is not the owner of the documents;

* It is a very small department and cannot handle if such requests are made to them as they are maintaining approximately 65 lakhs records;

* Section 6(3) of the Act provides a transfer of request of any applicant to the concerned Department can be made;

* They cannot act as a Public Information Officer for over 45 departments of the Government;

* Only the parent department will know the details of the documents sought for;

* They are short of human resources.

The High Court held as follows:

* The Commission under Section 8 is entitled to overrule any objection if larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information, the question of taking umbrage under the exemption clause will not arise;

* Any objection will have to be raised before the Commission by the Department of Archives or on notice by the archives the concerned department;

* The Commission can decide disclosure of such information was required in public interest;

* The petitioner Tamil Nadu Archives is a 'public authority' within a meaning of Section 2(h) of RTI Act;

* Since the petitioners are empowered to retain records, subject to provisions of Sections 8 and 11, they cannot object to the disclosure of such information;

* The petitioner is maintaining a large number of documents and they are short of human resources cannot be raised to whittle down the citizens' right to seek information;

* It is for the petitioner to write to the Government to provide for additional staff depending upon the volume of requests that may be forthcoming pursuant to RTI Act;

* It is purely an internal matter between the petitioner and the State Government;

* The right to information having been guaranteed by the law of Parliament, the administrative difficulties in providing information cannot be raised;

* Such please will defeat the very right of citizens to have access to information. Hence the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court.

* The writ petition stands dismissed.