In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001752
Date of Hearing : September 26, 2011
Date of Decision : September 26, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Sanjay Chiripal
N1, Riviere Apartments
45, Mall Road
Delhi - 110054.
(Heard through Audio Conferencing)
Respondent(s)
O/o District JudgeII (North)
Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi.
Represented by : Ms. Harbhajan Kaur, PIO
Mr.Dinesh Kumar, LDC
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001752
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 4.5.11 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
seeking the complete Service Record of Shri Ashok Kumar presently working as Steno in Tis Hazari
Court. The PIO replied on 7.5.11 denying the information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The
Applicant then filed his first appeal on 11.5.11. The Appellate Authority vide his order dated 2.6.11
directed the PIO to provide the information to the Appellant after severing if required under section
10(1) of the RTI Act any information that may be considered as personal and is exempted from
disclosure. In compliance with the Appellate Authority’s order the PIO provided the information to
the Appellant on 17.6.11. The Appellant however, still not satisfied, filed second appeal before the
Commission.
Decision.
2 . During the hearing the Appellant admitted to having received the information in compliance with the
Appellate Authority’s order. He however, complained that the information was provided to him after
he paid Rs 28/ for 14 and that this information ought to have been provided to him free of cost since
it was supposed to be given within one month of filing the RTI application..
3. After hearing the Appellant, the Commission draws the attention of the Appellant towards section 7
(3) of the RTI Act wherein it is clearly stated that “Where a decision is taken to provide the
information on payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing the information, the
Central Public Information Officer or state Public Information Officer as the case may be shall send
an intimation to the person making the request, giving the details of further fees representing the
cost of providing the information as determined by him, together with the calculations made to arrive
at the amount in accordance with fee prescribed under subsection (1) requesting him to deposit that
fees, and the period intervening between the dispatch of the said intimation and payment of fees
shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days referred to in that sub
section.”
The significant operative words in the above paragraph are ‘Where a decision is taken to provide
the information” . Since the decision to provide the information has been taken by the AA at his
level, the time period of thirty days will be with reference to the date on which the decision has been
taken by the AA, Hence the Commission finds the Appellate Authority’s decision to charge the
Appellant for the pages, in order.
4. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of and the case directed to be closed.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
1. Shri sanjay Chiripal
N1, Riviere Apartments
45, Mall Road
Delhi – 110054.
2. The Public Information Officer
O/o District JudgeII (North)
Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority
O/o District JudgeII (North)
Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi.
4. Officer Incharge, NIC