2014 (1) TMI 1141 - Commission - Indian Laws

Request for information - Right to information - Request denied holding that queries raised did not fall in the ambit of the Section 2(f) - Partial documents provided - Held that - CPIO has not interpreted Section 2(f) in the right perspective. According to me, all the queries raised by the appellant fall in the ambit of Section 2(f) and should have been responded to by the CPIO. Hence, the order passed by the CPIO is set-aside and he is hereby directed to provide para-wise information to the appellant in 3 weeks - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act in response to queries raised in the RTI application.
2. Allegations of threats and misuse of authority against certain officers of the Department.
3. Victimisation for using the provisions of the RTI Act.

Interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act:
The appellant had sought information regarding transfer and postings of officers in a RTI application. The CPIO initially refused to entertain the application on a technical ground, but the First Appellate Authority directed him to pass an appropriate order. The CPIO later provided information on one query but rejected others stating they did not fall under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Commissioner disagreed, stating that all queries fell within the ambit of Section 2(f). The CPIO's order was set aside, and he was directed to provide information to the appellant within three weeks.

Allegations of Threats and Misuse of Authority:
During the hearing, the appellant alleged that certain officers threatened him for using the RTI Act at the behest of an Addl. Commissioner. The appellant claimed to have received a warning letter and accused officers of misusing authority. The Addl. Commissioner denied the allegations, stating the appellant was unhappy due to not receiving a posting of his choice. The Commission clarified it cannot intervene in departmental issues or personal relationships but emphasized that no officer should be victimized for using the RTI Act, condemning any malfeasance.

Victimisation for Using the RTI Act:
The Commission highlighted that no officer should face repercussions for utilizing the RTI Act and emphasized that such actions cannot be tolerated. While refraining from involvement in departmental matters, the Commission underscored the importance of upholding the rights granted by the RTI Act without fear of victimization. All parties were reminded of this mandate to ensure compliance and respect for the provisions of the RTI Act.