CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000296/SG/12458
Appeal No. CIC/SM/A/2011/000296/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant :. Mr. Shailendra Singh Tarkar, Reporter
At PO Sanhouli, Dist Kagaria,
Bihar 851205
Respondent : Mr. R. C. Chaudhary
CPIO & SP-CBI,
Office of the Supdt. of Police,
Animal Husbandry Department Branch
Deen Dayal Ngar, Police Station -Lalpur,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand
RTI application filed on : 08/05/2010
PIO replied : 10/06/2010
First appeal filed on : 26/06/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 26/07/2010
Second Appeal received on : 01/11/2010
Information sought by the appellant:
The appellant asked for the following information:
An attested copy of the report of the MSD Scam which has been sent to the Bihar Government, Health
Department by CBI, Patna.
Information provided by PIO:
Please refer to your application dated 08.05.2010, received in this office on 11.05.2010 , requesting
therein to provide copies of SP’s Report covering MSD Scam Cases under Right to Information Act,
2. In this context, it is requested to deposit Rs.1316/- towards the necessary fee for Xeroxing the
documents [@ Rs.2/- per copy] in accordance with the provision of Right to Information (Regulation
of fee and costs) Rules, 2005 at the earliest so that the desired documents may be provided to you
under RTI Act, 2005.
Grounds of the First Appeal:
The appellant had sent the RTI application on 8/5/2010 and received the reply of the PIO dated
10/6/2010 on 22/06/2010. Since the letter for additional fees is received after the mandated period of
30 days the information should be provided free of cost as per the provision of Section 7 (6) of the
Act.
Order of the FAA:
The appellant has requested information to provide copies of SPs Report alongwith covering letters of
MSD Scam Cases in his letter dated 8.5.2010. The CPIO vide his letter dated 10.6.2010 has furnished
reply to deposit Rs, 1316/- towards the necessary fee for photocopying the documents [@ Rs.2/- per
copy in accordance with the provision of Right to Information (Regulation. of fee and costs)
Rules,2005.
The appeal filed by the appellant under RTI Act, 2005 has been examined. The CPIO has informed
that application was received on 11.5.2010 and reply has been sent on 10.6.2010. Thus there is no
delay in disposal and it cannot be presumed that information has been denied.
Ground for the Second Appeal:
Letter demanding additional fee was received after 30 days, hence information should be provided free
of cost as per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Shailendra Singh Tarkar on video conference from NIC-Khagaria Studio;
Respondent: Mr. R. C. Chaudhary, CPIO & SP-CBI on video conference from NIC-Ranchi Studio;
The Appellant has paid Rs.1400/- to receive the additional information and the information has
been received by the Appellant. The Appellant states that he had sought a copy of the report in the
MSD Scam which was submitted to Bihar Government. He states that he has been given this report but
in another communication Bihar Government has informed him that they had not received the report
on MSD Scam from CBI. The PIO is directed to send a copy of the covering letter with which the
MSD Scam report was sent to the Bihar Government alongwith proof of dispatch of this report to eh
Bihar Government. If any acknowledgement has been received from Bihar Government about the
receipt of this report an attested photocopy of the same would also be sent to the A[appellant.
The then PIO had erred in demanding additional fees from the Appellant since the mandated period of
30 days was over. The FAA has also erred since after recording that the PIO had received the RTI
application on 11/05/2010 and that the demand or additional fees was sent on 10/06/2010 he has held
that the demand for additional fees was justified. Section 7(1) & 7(3) of the RTI Act are relevant and
are given below.
“7. (1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to sub.-section (3)
of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as
expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the
request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or
reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9:
(3) Where a decision is taken to provide the information on payment of any further fee
representing the cost of providing the information, 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-
(a) 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 sub-section (1), requesting him to
deposit that fees, and the period intervening between the despatch 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;”
In the instant case since the letter demanding additional fees was sent on the 31 st day the information
should have been sent free of cost as per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to send the information as directed above to the Appellant
before 05 June 2011. The PIO is also directed to refund the amount of Rs.1400/- paid
by the Appellant to him before 30 July 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 May 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)