CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000015 dated 4.2.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri Mahesh Yadav
Respondent - Central Information Commission
Decision announced: 8.3.2010
Facts
:
By an application of 23.4.05 Shri Mahesh Yadav of Panipat, Haryana,
applied to the CPIO, Central Information Commission seeking the following
information:
“1. Whether the Right to Information Act, 2005 is applicable all
over India. If not, names the States where it is not
applicable.
2. If this is applicable in a State, whether the State can charge
higher/lower fee for providing information under the RTI Act,
2005?
3. While providing information under the above Act, Offices of
the Haryana Government charge Rs. 50/- for information and
Rs. 10/- per page for supplying photo copy of the
information, whereas under the RTI Act 2005, it is Rs. 10/-
for seeking information and Rs. 2/- per page for supply of
photo copy. Moreover, those below poverty line are provided
these free of charge.
Please intimate whether under RTI Act 2005 State Govt. can
charge fee at its own discretion. If not, please intimate the
reasons why Haryana Govt. is charging so high fee. Is it to
deny the citizens in providing information?
4. Whether charging such a high fees by Haryana Govt. is
covered under the yardstick laid down by the Commission.
5. Whether Central Information Commission can impress upon
State Govt. to charge lower fee or not. If not, please clarify
the reasons in detail.”
In his pointwise reply of 22.5.08, CPIO Shri Tarun Kumar, Jt. Secretary
informed appellant Shri Mahesh Yadav, as follows:
1. As per Right to Information Act, 2005, this
Act is applicable in whole of India except
the State of Jammu & Kashmir.
2. Under Sec. 6(1) of this Act, you can seek
information from different State Govts. If so
desired, you can also seek legal opinion on
this subject.
3. This information can be sought from
Haryana Govt. under Sec. 6(1) of Right to
Information Act.
4. This information can be sought from
Haryana Govt. under Sec. 6(1) of Right to
Information Act.
5. It is the responsibility of the appropriate
Government to ensure applicability of Right
to Information Act, 2005 in toto. However,
Central Information Commission can
forward the appeal/complaint received by it
to the concerned Govt. u/s 25(5).”
Not satisfied, however, Shri Mahesh Yadav moved an appeal on 28.5.08
before the First Appellate Authority, Central Information Commission, pleading as
follows:
“With regard to information sought by appellant, a reply has been
received from the Central Public Information Officer dated 22.5.08.
Instead of providing information, the CPIO has advised to approach
Haryana Government for the same. When Central Information
Commission is a Central Agency to implement the Right to
Information Act, 2005, then the CIC is competent to direct the State
Govt. to implement the same.
It is, therefore prayed that information sought vide letter dated
23.4.08 may kindly be provided.”
Upon this Shri Mohammed Haleem Khan, Secretary, CIC in his order of
23.6.08 directed as follows:
“1) As the CIC has no authority over the State Government, it
cannot handle complaints against State matters.
2) Since the appellant’s case relates to the State Government,
the Central Information Commission cannot intervene in the
matter.
3) There is no rule making power under the RTI Act with the
Centre in respect of State Government.
Appellate Authority Shri Haleem Khan also appreciated Shri Yadav’s effort
in participating in the first appeal and informed him that in case he is not satisfied
with the decision, he has the legal right under Sec. 19(3) of the RTI Act to file
second appeal before the CIC. This has brought Shri Mahesh Yadav in his
second appeal before us with the following prayer:
“1. Action under relevant rules be taken against the CPIO
for providing incomplete information.
2. I may be provided information asked by me immediately
and simultaneously action be taken against Haryana
Govt. u/s 25(5) for charging excess fee.”
The appeal was heard by videoconference on 8.3.2010. The following are
present:
Appellant at NIC Studio, Panipat
Shri Mahesh Yadav
Respondents at CIC Studio, New Delhi.
Smt. Anita Gupta, Addl. Secy. / Appellate Authority
Appellant Shri Yadav submitted that whereas the CPIO has in response to
Q. No. 5 acknowledged that the Commission may take suitable action u/s 25(5),
no such action actually has been taken despite subsequent applications to the
DOPT, to the Governor of Haryana and to the State Government of Haryana.
DECISION NOTICE
We find that we have already announced a Decision on 15.1.’10. in
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01205 dated 10-7-2008, which is in fact a duplicate
of the present. The Decision of 15.1.’10 was as follows
“Appellant Shri Mahesh Yadav is, therefore, advised to apply to the
PIO of the Public Authority from whom he seeks the information
sought and on failure to receive the same, follow the procedure laid
down in Section 19 of the Act. On the question of fees, however,
the attention of appellant Shri Mahesh Yadav is invited to Section
27 (1) of the RTI Act which empowers the appropriate Government,
in his case as described above the Government of Haryana to
make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act which includes,
under sub Section (2) of Section 27, the following:
(a) the cost of the medium or print cost price of the
materials to be disseminated under sub-section (4) of
section 4);
(b) the fee payable under sub-section (1) of section 6;
(c) the fee payable under sub-sections (1) and (5) of
section 7;
(d) the salaries and allowances payable to and the terms
and conditions of service of the officers and other
employees under sub-section (6) of section 13 and
sub-section (6) of section 16;
(e) the procedure to be adopted by the Central
Information Commission or State Information
Commission, as the case may be, in deciding the
appeals under sub-section (10) of section 19; and
(f) any other matter which is required to be, or may be,
prescribed.
On the basis of the above information appellant Shri Yadav is free
to approach the appropriate public authority for obtaining the
information he seeks. The present appeal is however, without
substance and is hereby dismissed.
Besides the above, for the information of appellant, Sec. 25(5) of the RTI
Act, 2005 reads as follows:
Sec. 25(5)
If it appears to the Central Information Commission or State
Information Commission, as the case may be, that the practice of a
public authority in relation to the exercise of its functions under this
Act does not conform with the provisions or spirit of this Act, it may
give to the authority a recommendation specifying the steps which
ought in its opinion to be taken for promoting such conformityIt has infact appeared to this Commission for sometime that although the
Act provides u/s 27(1) & (2) (a), (b) & (c) for the fee payable, the fact that
different State Govts. have been charging different fees, which is the matter that
has engaged the concern of appellant Shri Mahesh Yadav, is indeed in
conformity with the provisions of the Act. However, the fact that these
differences in fees charged by different organizations, which could be functioning
in the same town in a State, because these may be functioning under the control
of the State Government or the Central Government, can lead to considerable
confusion, since it is not only the amount of fees but method of payment, which is
in many cases varied. For this reason, such a practice could under certain
circumstances be deemed in violation of the spirit of the Act and it is for this
reason that we recommend to both appropriate Governments in the present case
i.e. the Central Government through the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
& Pensions, Govt. of India, New Delhi and the Chief Secretary, Government of
Haryana, Chandigarh that the issue of bringing uniformity in levy of fees and
costs may be considered so that these are uniform throughout the country. This
will be of particular relevance to the State Govt. of Haryana, which adjoins the
Union territory of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and, therefore, shares a
number of Central Government Offices, branches of which are located in the
towns of Gurgaon and Faridabad, which serve as adjunct to this National Capital
Territory.
On the question of information to be provided, however, we find that the
appeal being a duplicate stands already dismissed and the present file will follow
suit. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
8.3.2010
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
8.3.2010