9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1046X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the restriction under Section 7(9). If the records pertaining to areas exempted from disclosure are separated and the public records are kept accessible to citizens, it would serve the purpose. During the inspection the appellant should be facilitated to sit and take notes from the files and if he seeks copies of any documents which are permissible, they shall be given then and there at prescribed cost. The Commission makes following recommendations: a) the appellant to have inspection and seek copies of papers, if he thinks necessary, if not furnished earlier. b) the appellant not to consider it as suppression of records, which the officers were fearing about, c) with regard to his earlier RTI applications also the Commission would like the appellant to rationalize and minimize requirement of copies of documents strictly relevant to the aspect of public interest so that the officers would not worry about the stress and time needed to collect huge amount of information d) the respondents consider possibility of facilitating inspection before invoking Section 7(9) of RTI Act. e) both the respondents and appellant to have a coordinated approach in securing reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of computers and other equipments installed at the office of Attorney General of India, details of laptops provided to him, payments made for AMC etc, action taken on his letters referred etc, details about appointment of an advocate as representative of Union in a particular case, first page of his appeal referred, detail of implementation of some guidelines of DoPT, RTI applications received by various CPIOs and CAPIOS of department of Legal Affairs till now, etc. The officers from Respondent Authority represented that it was just impossible or difficult to provide the responses to the RTI questions, which would be quite voluminous, as files sought pertain to several years, running into hundreds or thousands of pages. They said they were tense and very apprehensive of consequences for any of their responses and thought inspection would serve the purpose and whatever papers he wanted could be given copies thereof. Whereas the appellant sought copies first and then he would like to have inspection with the copies in his hand. 6. It appears that CPIO and other officers were confused with his earlier RTI applications and present RTI application asking details of responses about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing was not given by the First Appellate Authority in spite of his request. Without sending any hearing notice to him, the FAA has heard and concluded the first appeal, upholding the decision of the CPIO under the above section. In this connection, he quoted para4 of the CIC order CIC/SM/A/2013/000312 dated 1872012, which is as under: 4. During the hearing, among other submissions, the Appellant specifically wanted us to take note of the fact that the Appellate Authority had not given him any opportunity of hearing even after he expressly requested for that. He also, with the help of some information he had obtained through RTI from the CVC, submitted that the Appellate Authority in the CVC had not given any personal hearing to anyone except in three cases since the Right to Information Act came into being. Although the Right to Information (RTI) Act or the rules made thereunder do not prescribe in detail the procedure to be followed by the Appellate Authority in dealing with first appeals, by convention, the Appellate Authority should give an opportunity of hearing to any Appellant if the Appellant expressly wants to be heard. Therefore, we would like the Appellate Authority t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollected from different Sections. Meanwhile, the RTI cell of the Department of Legal Affairs was shifted 3 times which caused dislocation of various files. 14. The Commission observes: Passing orders in first appeal without hearing or sending hearing notice is illegal and will render the order invalid. The Commission sets aside the order of First Appellate Authority for violating RTI Act and breach of natural justice by denying the appellant a chance of presenting his case and by raising entirely a new defence which was never claimed. Commission finds it deserves action though the concerned officer retired from service and recommends Public Authority to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned FAO for acting totally against the RTI Act in this case. 15. In a very positive step towards accountability and implementation of Right to Information Act, the DOPT, the nodal agency for RTI, notified its Office Memorandum No. 1/1/2013 dated 21.10.2014 directing the Public Authorities to proactively disclose RTI applications and appeals received by them along with responses on their websites. Relevant portion of the memorandum is: 1. Public Authorities have an obligatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both parties. The public authority should create a specific and convenient place for facilitating inspection taking enough care for security of records. If someone wants copy of entire record of the office, it may not be possible or reasonable besides attracting the restriction under Section 7(9). If the records pertaining to areas exempted from disclosure are separated and the public records are kept accessible to citizens, it would serve the purpose. During the inspection the appellant should be facilitated to sit and take notes from the files and if he seeks copies of any documents which are permissible, they shall be given then and there at prescribed cost. 18. Finally, in this appeal the Commission directs the respondent authority to furnish certified copies of information sought by appellant in response to his RTI application dt.19102013 within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. 19. The Commission makes following recommendations: a) the appellant to have inspection and seek copies of papers, if he thinks necessary, if not furnished earlier. b) the appellant not to consider it as suppression of records, which the officers were fearing about, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
