9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1070 - Commission - GSTRTI - GSTN Network - Information regarding the name of the officers with designations who were responsible for making the voluntary disclosure u/s 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 from 01.09.2009, till the date of providing information - It was articulated by the Respondent that they had observed the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 and that necessary disclosures were made on their website - Held that - The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. Keeping in view the supervisory powers of the Commission u/s 25(4) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission advises the Respondent to suo motu disclose the information sought by the Complainant in compliance with Section-4 of the RTI Act, 2005 to ensure transparency, objectivity and accountability in the functioning of the Public Authority. Thus, it is evident that a sketchy information as available on its website had been furnished by the Respondent. However, it is appalling to learn that an important, significant and critical area concerning the implementation of GST Network still required streamlining and consolidation which needs to be attended to forthwith in the larger public interest. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
1. RTI application seeking information on certified copies of note sheets, responsible officers for voluntary disclosure, action taken against them, and related files. 2. Dissatisfaction with CPIO's reply leading to First Appeal rejection. 3. Compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding proactive disclosure. 4. Application of legal precedents regarding information disclosure obligations on public authorities. 5. Supervisory powers of the Commission under Section 25 of the RTI Act, 2005. Issue 1: The Appellant sought information through an RTI application on various points related to note sheets, officers responsible for voluntary disclosure, actions taken against them, and related files. The CPIO provided a point-wise reply, which the Appellant found unsatisfactory, leading to a First Appeal that was rejected by the FAA. Issue 2: During the hearing, the Appellant highlighted deficiencies in the information provided, particularly concerning the GST Network. The Respondent acknowledged the challenges in streamlining processes but assured efforts to improve. Legal references were made to emphasize that public authorities are not obligated to collect or collate non-available information for RTI requests. Issue 3: The Commission stressed the importance of proactive disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, citing legal judgments and guidelines. It was noted that voluntary disclosure should be the norm, reducing the need for RTI requests. Public authorities were urged to provide information regularly through various means, including the internet. Issue 4: Legal precedents from various courts were cited to underscore the significance of transparency and accountability in public authorities' functioning. Guidelines from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) regarding suo motu disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005 were referenced to emphasize compliance. Issue 5: Referring to its supervisory powers under Section 25 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission advised the Respondent to proactively disclose the information sought by the Appellant to ensure transparency, objectivity, and accountability. The decision highlighted the need for improved information dissemination and consolidation in critical areas like the GST Network. In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of, emphasizing the importance of providing comprehensive and timely information in critical areas to serve the larger public interest effectively.
|
