CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.3096/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBC/2007/00479
November 24, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18
[Hearing on 07.11.2008 through Video Conferencing between
New Delhi-Puducherry-Yanam]
Appellant: Mr. P. Veerappan
Public authority: Law Department
Mr. A. Ravav, Deputy Secretary & CPIO
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. A. Ragav, DS (Law)
For Appellant:
Mr. P.Veerappan, Appellant
FACTS
:
The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by his letter dated
19.7.2007 addressed to PIO/the PS to Lt. Governor, LG’s Secretariat,
Pondicherry requesting various information regarding supply of manuals
published by the Law Department, files referred to Law Department for
opinion/advice etc. and list of cases filed by the individual government servants
against the Government orders in various forums etc. the PIO/PS to LG has
forwarded this application to the DS to Government (Law), Chief Secretariat u/s
6(3) of RTI Act. The DS(Law) by his letter dated 29.5.2007 has given his reply to
the appellant. However, the appellant through his letter dated 8.6.2007 has
requested the PIO to give the information free of cost since the time-limit has
been exceeded. Alleging he did not get any reply thereafter he has filed this
complaint before the Commission on 19.11.2007. Comments were called for
from the public authority on 09.01.2008, which has been received from the Law
Department by letter dated 1.2.2008. The appellant has submitted his rejoinder
on 5.2.2008. This case was taken up for hearing on 7.11.2008 through Video
Conferencing, which was attended by the appellant from Yanam and the PIO’s
representative from Puducherry.
DECISION:
2. I have gone through the RTI application and other replies received in the
matter. The matter was also deliberated in detail during the hearing. During the
hearing the PIO explained that they have asked him to pay Rs.32/- towards
1
information which he has not remitted and instead of approaching the first AA he
has come directly before the Commission. However, after Commission’s
reference, he stated that they have already furnished the information free of cost.
It has been pointed out that the PIO is responsible for not adhering to the time-
frame. If the information is given free of cost then it is given at the cost of
Government exchequer, which is not very fair on the part of the PIO. Whenever
the PIO feels the collection of information would take time, he should give an
interim reply. If a reply goes after the prescribed period, the PIO would be held
responsible. This should be followed very strictly in future. Otherwise, the matter
will be taken very seriously under section 20(1) of RTI Act. During the hearing
the PIO has explained the delay and the delay is condoned as a special case. In
these lines, the appeal is disposed of.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and PIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Mr. A. Ragav, Deputy Secretary & CPIO, Law Department, Govt. of
Puducherry, Puducherry.
2. Mr. P. Veerappan, No. 6, 132/11, K.V. Sub Station Quarters, Mettacur,
Yanam-533464.
2