Central Information Commission
Mrraghbir Singh vs Gnctd on 12 December, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
File No.CIC/SA/C/2014/000038
Complainant : Sh. Raghubir Singh
Respondent : Directorate of Education
(Headquarters), GNCTD
Date of hearing : 27112014
Date of decision : 12122014
Information Commissioner : Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu
(Madabhushi Sridhar)
Referred Sections : Sections 18 of the RTI Act
Result : Complaint allowed/
Disposed of
Summary:
The Commission strongly recommends Department of Personnel and Training to adopt
the one year old proposal of the Department of Posts, which is very userfriendly and
avail the opportunity of giving New Year Gift to the citizen by permitting and publicising
the use of ordinary Postal Stamps for payment of RTI fee, as this would go a long way in
setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to
information. Accepting postal stamps for RTI fee would resolve many difficulties in
payment, besides preventing wastage of public money in returning or rejecting the IPOs
or spending much larger amounts than Rs 10, for realizing Rs 10, and avoidable
litigation. The Commission directs all the PIOs of Directorate of Education all other
officers concerned, to accept the IPO without raising technical objections and follow all
the directions issued in the abover referred full bench order of CIC. They should not
CIC/SA/C/2014/000038 Page 1
spend any amount instead of encashing the IPO for Rs.10 as prescribedfee.
The Complainant has requested for audio conference on telephone No.23363510. The
Public Authority is represented by Mrs. Archana Vishwadeep, DEO, Ms. Neha Shankar,
OS(RTI), Ms. Jagdish Prasad, Principal, Mrs. Kamlesh Chauhan, DDE, Smt. Vidya Devi,
Mr. Manoj Kumar, OS(RTI) along with 7 other officers from the Directorate of Education,
GNCTD, Delhi.
FACTS:
2. The Complainant through his RTI application dated 25.09.2013 had sought for information on 2 Points Viz i) Which of the Government Secondary Schools in Delhi under the Directorate of Education, have introduced Punjabi teaching as a third language for the first time afresh in class VI in the academic year 20102014; ii) the number of such students enrolled in Class VI, Schoolwise. The RTI application of the Complainant was returned to him stating that the IPO was not in Order. Claiming nonfurnishing of the information sought, the Complainant has approached the Commission U/S 18 of RTI Act. DECISION
3. Both the parties made their submissions. The Complainant, Shri Raghubir Singh is a senior citizen of 75years old and a law teacher who is associated with the making of the RTI Act before its enactment by the Government. The Commission heard him on the telephone as desired by him. He complained that the Directorate of Education has harassed him by raising meaningless technical issues. They returned the Indian Postal Order of Rs.10/ saying that it is not properly drawn, when he claims to have rightly drawn in favour of CIC/SA/C/2014/000038 Page 2 the Accounts Officer. The Complainant objected to the returning of the Postal Order by PIO by speed post, for which he had to spend more than Rs.25/. He complained that the Directorate has not updated its website and appropriate address against whom the Postal Order should be drawn or fee to be paid was not given.
4. The Commission in its earlier decision in S.C. Aggarwal vs. Ministry of Home Affairs [CIC/BS/C/2013/000149/LS, CIC/BS/C/2013/000072/LS, CIC/LS/C/2010/000108/LS] dated 27.8.2013, issued following directions, about the name of drawee written on the IPO:
11. It needs to be underlined that preamble of the RTI Act provides for setting out the practical regime of right to information for the citizenry in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. This word connotes a pragmatic approach on the part of all concerned in implementing the provisions of this law. The Commission is aware that difficulties are being experienced by the information seekers in depositing the fee and copying charges and consequential delay in provisioning of information. On a thoughtful consideration of the matter, the Commission makes the following recommendations to the Ministries/Departments/Public Authorities of the Central Government u/s 25 (5) of the RTI Act:
(i) All public authorities shall direct the officers under their command to accept demand drafts or banker cheques or IPOs payable to their Accounts Officers of the public authority.
This is in line with clause (b) of Rule 6 of the RTI Rules, 2012. In other words, no instrument shall be returned by any officer of the public authority on the ground that it has not been drawn in the name of a particular officer. So long as the instrument has been drawn in favour of the Accounts Officer, it shall be accepted in all circumstances.
(ii) All public authorities are required to direct the concerned officers to accept IPOs of the denomination of higher values visàvis the fee / copying charges when the senders do not ask for refund of the excess amount. To illustrate, if fee of Rs. 18/ is payable by the information seeker and if he sends IPO of Rs. 20/, this should be accepted by the concerned officer rather than returning the same, for practical reasons. The entire amount will be treated as RTI fee.
(iii) All public authorities shall direct the CPIOs and ACPIOs under their command to accept application fee and copying charges in cash from the information seekers in line with Rule 06 CIC/SA/C/2014/000038 Page 3
(a) of the RTI Rules. It is made clear that the CPIOs and APIOs will not direct the information seekers to deposit the fee with the officers located in other buildings / offices.
(iv) DoPT shall direct all the CPIOs / APIOs / Accounts Officers to accept money orders towards the deposition of fee / copying charges. This is in line with the order dated 19.9.2007 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission in B. V. Gautma vs. Dy. Commissioner of Stamps & Registration, Bangalore. (KIC 2038 CoM 2007).
(v) The Department of Posts has issued a detailed Circular No. 103 1/2007RTI dated 12.10.2007 for streamlining the procedure of handling applications by various CAPIOs which, interalia contains the following directions: "(1) Display of the signboard "RTI APPLICATIONS ARE ACCEPTED HERE" should be made on the notice board / prominent place in the post office. In addition, the names / addresses of the CPIO and appropriate authorities of the Post office should also be displayed.
(9) The fee alongwith application should be accepted at the same counter and in no case the applicant should be made to visit another counter for depositing the requisite fee." The Department of Posts is required to ensure that the above directions are complied with by all concerned.
(vi) As noted herein above, as of now, the RTI applications and the requisite fee are being accepted by the designated Post Offices, numbering above 4700. Considering the size of the country and the number of RTI applicants/applications, the number of designated Post Offices appears to be too small. It has been brought to the notice of the Commission that there are 25,464 Departmental Post Offices and 1,29,402 Extra Departmental Branch Post Offices. The Commission, therefore, advises the Secretary, Department of Posts, to consider designating all 25,464 Departmental Post Offices to accept RTI applications and the requisite fee.
(vii) The best solution to the fee related problems appears to be to issue RTI stamps of the denomination of Rs. 10/ by the Deptt. of Posts. It would be a time and cost effective step.
CIC/SA/C/2014/000038 Page 4 The Commission would urge Department of Posts/DoPT to consider the viability of this suggestion with utmost dispatch.
5. The Commission observes that most of the above directions are mandatory and non compliance of which should lead to penalty proceedings. Returning the IPO to the appellant involves writing a letter on a white paper, covering in an envelop, spending public office's time which could have been used for some other productive work besides spending Rs 25 or Rs 30 for speed post. In all the public authority will be spending approximately Rs 35 to Rs
50. It will also cause unnecessary expenditure for the appellant, who has already spend Rs 20 to get a postal order for Rs 10. For returning and taking a different IPO he has to spend again the same amount. Spending Rs 50 to reject the IPO worth Rs 10 on silly grounds would amount to wastage of Rs 50 plus Rs 10= Rs 60.
By accepting to deposit the postal order of Rs 10, they would be preventing expenditure of Rs 60 and use Rs 10.
6. The Commission finds it is a misuse of the power of PIO to reject to receive RTI application and the fee amounting to harassment of the applicant. It is also a kind of denial of information. Any kind of delay in furnishing of information on such grounds, violates the letter and spirit of RTI Act on several counts.
7. Meanwhile, in another second appeal by Mr R K Jain before Hon'ble Commissioner Mr Basant Seth, (CIC/BS/A/2014/000336/6505, decided on 5th December 2014) the CPIO of Department of Posts told the Commission that their department has given a proposal to DoPT vide letter dated 31.1.2014 suggesting that ordinary postal stamps could be used for payment of RTI fee. The letter F.No.1016/2013RTI dated 31st January 2014 from Department of Posts (RTI Desk) to the DoPT, the Department of Posts wrote that as Experts Committee was set up to study this aspect, which recommended the need of CIC/SA/C/2014/000038 Page 5 simplifying the mode of payment of fee for RTI application. The said Experts Committee observed:
"(i)Use of definitive series of postage stamps would be easy to handle and reduce the cost to the government over IPO cost and the applicants will benefit by not charging of the commission which is presently charged on the IPO.
(ii)Problems mentioned in Para 3 will not exist if the definitive series of stamps will be allowed by the Government for payment of fee under the RTI Act.
(iii)Presently the RTI fee and other allied fees such as fee for photocopying documents are credited in the accounts of respective Departments/Ministries where the RTI applicants are preferred to it may, however, be not administratively feasible for the Department of Posts to apportion the RTI fee to each Department/Ministry in case definitive postage stamps are used for this purpose."
After the proposals were approved by the Secretary (Posts), the Committee recommended:
"a) Use of the definitive series of postage stamps which are ubiquitously available in the Post Offices across the Courtry in different denominations instead of an exclusive RTI stamp which would need to be printed supplied in all post offices and inform people to use RTI stamps.
b) The RTI applicants would also need to affix the said stamp(s) on the RTI application. The RTI applicant(s) by putting his signature or thumb impression shall cancel the said postage stamp(s) to prevent it from misuse or reuse.
4. The use of the definitive series of postage stamps and cancellation of used stamp/s would require amendment in the Right to Information (Reglation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005. It is, therefore, requested to take action on the approved recommendations given in para 3.a&b of this letter as DOP&T is the nodal authority to administrator the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005."
As suggested by Appellant Mr R K Jain in the above case, the Hon'ble Commissioner, Mr Basant Seth recommended the consideration of the proposal, which is on line with the decision of Government of Tamilnadu allowing payment of RTI fee by affixing court fee stamps.
CIC/SA/C/2014/000038 Page 6
8. The Commission strongly recommends Department of Personnel and Training to adopt the one year old proposal of the Department of Posts, which is very userfriendly and avail the opportunity of giving New Year Gift to the citizen by permitting and publicising the use of ordinary Postal Stamps for payment of RTI fee, as this would go a long way in setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information. Accepting postal stamps for RTI fee would resolve many difficulties in payment, besides preventing wastage of public money in returning or rejecting the IPOs or spending much larger amounts than Rs 10, for realizing Rs 10, and avoidable litigation.
9. Coming to this case, the Commission directs the PIOs to check up whether every school has properly replied to the RTI application, if not fulfil the deficiencies. The Commisison also directs them to contact the Complainant on the telephone number 01123363510, given by him, and provide the complete information within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
10. The Commission directs the respondents, their PIOs and incharge officers to immediately update their official website as desired by the Complainant and compliance report be sent to the Commission, with a copy to the Complainant, within ten days from the date of receipt of this order.
11. The Commission directs all the PIOs of Directorate of Education all other officers concerned, to accept the IPO without raising technical objections and follow all the directions issued in the abover referred full bench order of CIC. They should not spend any amount instead of encashing the IPO for Rs.10 as prescribedfee.
CIC/SA/C/2014/000038 Page 7
12. The Commission directs all the PIOs of Public Authority to submit separate reports to this Commission explaining how many IPOs they have rejected so far and what are the grounds of rejection, from January 2014 to December 10, 2014, within 15 days from the date of reciept of this order.
13. The Commission issues a show cause notice to PIO who refused and returned the IPO of appellant, why maximum penalty cannot be imposed against him for acting against the spirit of RTI and harassing the applicant and for not updating the official website.
14. The Complaint is concluded and the penalty proceedings will continue.
Sd/ (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Directorate of Education (Headquarters) RTI Cell, Room No.220, Delhi Secretariat DELHI110054 CIC/SA/C/2014/000038 Page 8
2. Shri Raghubir Singh 45, Hargobind Enclave Delhi110092
3. The Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Directorate of Education, OLD SECRETARIAT, DELHI110054 Copy of the order is also forwarded to:
1. The Secretary to Government of India Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi110001
2. The Secretary to Government of India CIC/SA/C/2014/000038 Page 9 Department of Posts, Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi110001
3. The Chief Secretary to Government of NCT of Delhi Delhi Sachivalaya, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi110002 CIC/SA/C/2014/000038 Page 10