2013 (11) TMI 862 - Commissioner - Indian Laws

Refusal to provide documents under RTI application - Ten rupee Indian Postal Order No. 11F067916, dated 23-4-2013 attached with the said RTI application, has not been made payable to anyone - Appellant requested Copies of all note sheets relating to the RTI application No. 3281 dated 14-4-2011 and note sheets regarding hearing dated 21-3-2012 of Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2011/002042 by CIC - Held that - As to the contention of the Appellant that the postal order could have been completed/filled in by the CPIO with regards to the details of the Public Authority, the First Appellate Authority held that keeping in view the spirit of the RTI Act, I agree with the suggestion and the CPIO is advised to take note of this for future - order passed by the CPIO is incorrect and against the spirit of Right to Information Act, 2005 and liable to be set aside - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Rejection of RTI application due to non-payment of fee
- Contention regarding confusion in payment instructions
- Allegation of delaying tactics by CPIO
- Failure to provide information sought under RTI Act

Analysis:
The case involved the rejection of an RTI application due to non-payment of the required fee. The appellant sought information related to note sheets but was informed that the postal order submitted was not payable to anyone, leading to the rejection of the application. The appellant argued that the postal order was valid and that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) should have filled in the payee's name as requested. Additionally, confusion arose regarding the correct payee name as per RTI Rules, with differing instructions provided by the CIC and the CPIO.

The appellant further alleged that the CPIO deliberately delayed processing the application beyond the stipulated time frame, violating the RTI Act's provisions. The appellant emphasized the social welfare aspect of the RTI Act, highlighting the CPIO's obligation to assist applicants in fulfilling requirements like fee payment. The appellant also contended that the information requested was not voluminous and should have been provided promptly.

During the hearing, the appellant did not appear but requested a decision based on the available record. The Appellate Authority reviewed the case, noting the CPIO's rejection based on fee non-payment. The Authority found the CPIO's decision incorrect, especially considering the CIC's previous advice to fill in postal orders for clarity. The Authority set aside the CPIO's order, directing the CPIO to provide the requested information within thirty days upon receipt of the order. The appellant was instructed to resubmit the returned postal order for processing.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to RTI fee payment procedures, the obligation to assist applicants, and the need for timely provision of information under the RTI Act. The decision aimed to rectify the CPIO's error and ensure the appellant's right to access the requested information was upheld.