Central Information Commission
Mrsubhash Chandra Agrawal vs Department Of Personnel & Training on 4 May, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Decision No. CIC/SB/A/2015/000199
Dated 04.05.2016
Appellant Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal,
1775, Kucha Lattushah.
Dariba, Chandni Chowk
Delhi110 006.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Department of Personnel & Training.
North Block
New Delhi.
Date of Hearing : 04.05.2016
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.06.2015
CPIO's reply : 29.06.2015
First Appeal : 04.07.2015
FAA's Order : 29.07.2015
Complaint filed on : 03.08.2015
ORDER
CIC/SB/A/2015/000199/SB Page 1
1. Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal filed an application dated 18.01.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT) seeking information on thirteen points relating to objections raised by Shri Ram Jethmalani and Shri Prashant Bhushan through letters addressed to the Prime Minister and the President of India including (1) are letters from Shri Ram Jethmalani and Shri Prashant Bhushan forwarded to DOPT by President's Secretariat and/or Prime Minister's Office and/or some other public authority and (ii) complete information together with related correspondence /file notings/documents on action taken on the letters from Shri Ram Jethmalani and Shri Prashant Bhushan by DOPT and/or others including President's Secretariat and/or PMO.
2. Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal filed a second appeal dated 03.08.2015 before the Commission on the ground that CPIO while withholding information on almost all of the points of his RTI application surprisingly demanded Rs. 182/ as copying charges without specifying the query relating to which the CPIO intended to provide photocopy of documents. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide pointwise information together with sought and related documents free of cost under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act and award compensation to him under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Subash Chandra Agrawal was present in person. The respondent was not present despite notice.
4. The appellant submitted that the respondent has not provided information on point nos. 2, 3, 7 and 13 of his RTI application. The appellant further submitted that though no copies were provided he was asked to deposit Rs. 182/ towards copying charges. Decision:
CIC/SB/A/2015/000199/SB Page 2
5. The Commission heard the submissions of the appellant and perused the records. A perusal of the records reveals that the respondent had intended to provide copies of documents relating to point nos. 2, 3 and 7 of the RTI application after following due procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act. However, since apparently no decision to provide copies of document was taken at the time of the reply to the RTI application, the respondent should not have asked the appellant to deposit Rs. 182/ toward photocopying charges. The Commission directs the respondent to provide information on point nos. 2 and 3 of the RTI application in case no objection from the third party concerned is received free of cost under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. The Commission also directs the respondent to provide information on point nos. 7 and 13 of the RTI application to the appellant. The directions of the Commission shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. The appeal is disposed of. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/SB/A/2015/000199/SB Page 3