CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2008/00459 dated 1.5.2008
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Appellant - Shri Hemant Goswami
Respondent - Department of Personnel & Training.(DoPT)
Decision announced: 29.9.2009
Facts
:
By an application of 11.3.08 Shri Hemant Goswami of Hotel Shivalik View,
Chandigarh made an application to the CPIO Shri Ravinder Kumar, Under
Secretary, SM-II, DOPT seeking the following information:
“1. Provide reasons as to why it was decided that Rs. 10/- must
be charged as fee for submitting an RTI application and why
cost of the material under the “Right to Information
(Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rules, 2005 was kept much
higher than the actual cost.2. Provide reasons for justification of charging Rs. 2/- as per
copy charges under the RTI Act whereas the actual
photocopying cost is less than 40 paise per copy.3. Provide reasons for the decision to charge and keep a high
cost of obtaining documents / undertaking inspection /
obtaining electronic information under the RTI (Regulation of
Fee & Costs_ Rules, 2005 (with subsequent amendment) at
the following at the rates:h. Reasons for keeping Rs. 2/- as the charges for
obtaining copy of each document as mentioned in
Rule 4(a) and 5(b)
i. The reasons for deciding that charging Rs. 5/- for
each hour after the first hour is a reasonable fee.
j. The reason for keeping Rs. 50/- as the fee for
obtaining information in a Diskette in the form of a
CD/DVD/Floppy as mentioned in Rule 5(a).”Part 2:
1. Provide a copy of all documents / notings / records /
communication at the time of drafting of the Rules and at the
time of enactment of the RTI Act (and for all period
proceeding it) which in any way justifies charging of an
application fee of Rs. 10/- as the RTI application fee.1
Provide the complete calculation arrived at for justifying Rs.
10/- as the application fee for obtaining information under the
RTI Act.2. Provide a copy of all documents / calculations /
correspondence / advise / notes / records which in any way
justifies / provides for / wherein calculations are made for
charging of:a) Rs. 2/- as the charges for obtaining copy of each
document as mentioned in Rule 4(a) and 5(b)b) Charging Rs. 5/- for each hour after the first hour is a
reasonable fee.c) Rs. 50/- as the fee for obtaining information in a
Diskette in the form of a CD/DVD/Floppy as
mentioned in Rule 5(a).d) Any other charges which are levied under the
provisions of the RTI Act.3. Provide a certified copy of all documents generated by and
the complete report of “Parliamentary Standing Committee
on Public Grievances and Personnel” headed by Dr. E. M.
Sundaresan Natchiappan.4. Provide information if there is a proposal to scrap the RTI fee
of Rs. 10/- altogether5. Provide information if there is a proposal to charge or reduce
the copying charges:a) Provide information on all proposals to reduce the
copying charges to actual charges which may be 50
paise or Rs. One or less than it, for obtaining a copy
of a document.b) Provide certified copy of all documents wherein any
change in RTI fee and / or any other charges for
obtaining documents / information under it is
proposed.6. Provide information what fee for seeking any documents is
payable when the information sought is exclusively in
electronic format by way of reply through Emails and
additional documents are sought as electronic attachment
only through an official e-mail address (RTI Act provides
under Sec. 6(1) that the information may be sought in
electronic form and further Sec.7 (9) provides that the reply
may be given in the same form in which it is sought.)7. Provide a certified copy of complete report of all and any
committee constituted for the purpose of effective
implementation of the RTI Act.2
8. Provide a certified copy of all and any recommendation by
any official / authority / person for the purpose of amending
the RTI Act in any way.9. Provide a list of all documents of the department available in
the manner as prescribed in Sec. 4(1) (a) and Sec. 4(4) of
the RTI Act. Please provide the complete location on the
internet from where the said information can be culled down.10. The undersigned would, at his discretion, also like to inspect
all the records (both electronic and paper records),
documents / letters, communication, notes, books of
accounts, voucher, etc. which pertains to the enactment of
the RTI Act, the promulgation of rules made under it, all
recommendations and concerns and all other documents /
information / record relied by your department and / or on the
basis of which the information to the above-mentioned
request is supplied / to be provided. Kindly provide the
working hours of your office and the name, contact details
and exact location of the record officer / other officials in
whose custody the said records are available and can be
inspected:a) The undersigned requests you to provide extracts,
copy of documents and vouchers, certified copies,
electronic documents, e-mail and relevant portion /
noting of any and all the documents required by the
applicant after the inspection by the applicant (and /
or his representative) or otherwise. During the
inspection, the applicant may be allowed to take notes
from the documents and seek copies of all or any of
the documents available in paper or electronic
format.”To this Shri Hemant Goswami received a reply from Shri Ravinder Kumar
dated 14.3.08 informing Shri Goswami “that the subject matter of your letter
pertains to Ms. Zoya C.B., Under Secretary and Central Public information
Officer, Department of Personnel & Training. Accordingly in terms of para 6(3) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005, your application is being transferred to Ms.
Zoya C.B., Under Secretary and Central Public Information Officer, Department
of Personnel & Training for further necessary action.” Against this Shri Goswami
has moved a complaint before us with the following plea:I. Direct the Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
to provide complete information as requested in the3
accompanying annexed RTI application immediately
without any delay.II. Instruct respondent 1 and 2 to follow the provisions of
Section 4 (1) (a), 4 (1) (c), 4 (2), 4 (3) and 4 (4) of the
Right to Information Act and comply with all provisions
in a time bound manner. A compliance report be sought
from them.III. Since the records of the Departments of Personnel and
Training, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and
Pensions, are not available online and/ or maintained as
provided under section 4 (1) (a)/ and the facts/ reason
for taking all the important decisions are not provided
under section 4 (1) (c) & (d) of the RTI Act so the Home
Department be asked to directed to do so in a time
bound manner.IV. Take suitable action against the responsible officials/
persons who have failed to provide information and who
failed to comply with the provisions of section 4 of the
RTI Act.V. Penalty and fine be imposed on the CPIO of respondent
no 1 and 2 and the public authorities involved for falling
to provide the requested information and for creating
unnecessary barriers in the implementation of the RTI
Act due to which the applicant/ complainant could not
get information.VI. That suitable directions be given to the departmental
heads for taking note of the facts and mention the same
in the records of the said officials besides initiating
departmental inquiry.VII. That the complainant be compensated for being put to
inconvenience, for causing damages and injury for
wrongful loss, mental agony cost of this complaint and
the cost of pursuing it. The complainant at this stage
assesses the same to be Rs. 3, 00,000 (Three lakh), as
on date, leaving aside the other damages.’Upon this we had issued a complaint notice dated 25.8.09. However, in
the meantime in response to our orders dated 24.8.09 in appeal No.
CIC/WB/A/2009/00807 Shri Hemant Goswami vs. DOPT, Ms. Anuradha
Chagti, Appellate Authority and Dy. Secy., RTI DoPT has provided appellant Shri
Hemant Goswami the following information:“2. The applicant was provided the following information vide CPIO’s
letter of even number dated 31.3.2008:-4
Provision of Section 4 (1) (c) & (d)
I Proviso under section 7 (5) of the RTI Act mandates that fee
prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 6 and sub-sections (1)
and (5) of section 7 shall be reasonable and no such fee shall
charged from the persons who are below poverty line as may be
determined by the appropriate Government. The fee of Rs. 10/- for
RTI application as prescribed under the Right to Information
(Regulation of Fee and Cost) rules, 2005 has been prescribed
keeping the above provisions in the Act in view.
II Charges prescribed for photocopy are also nominal, reasonable
and include cost of paper. These charges have been decided on
the basis of provisions contained in various such rules pertaining to
other states.III The charges prescribed for inspection and taking copies of the
document under the RTI Act are reasonable and have been
decided keeping in view the provisions contained in such rules
pertaining to other states. No fee is being charged for the persons
below poverty line.Provisions of section 6 of the RTI Act.
1. The information is contained in 94 pages (correspondence/
enclosures in file) and can be obtained after depositing Rs.
188/- by way of DD, Banker’s Cheque or IPO in favour of AO,
DOPT or cash at the information Facilitation Counter of this
Ministry. The view of the DOPT, as reflected on the website, is
that ‘file noting’ does not form the part of information under the
RTI Act and that it is not to be disclosed. However, the CIC in
several cases has held that the ‘file noting’ is an integral part of
a file and should be disclosed. The DOPT is in the process of
examining the matter. Decision in the matter has not been
taken so far.2. Reply has been given in para I and II above.
3. You are welcome to inspect the file relating to subject matter, as
also desired by you. The documents as stated at para 1 above
can be given on payment of requisite fee.4. The report contained in 67 pages and a fee of Rs. 134/- is
required to be deposited for purpose.5. There is no proposal to scrap the Right to Information
(Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rules, 2005.6. At present there is no proposal to change or reduce the
copying charges.7. Section 7 (9) of the Act provides that an information shall
ordinarily be provided in the form in which hit is sought
unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the5
public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or
preservation of the record in question. The fee charged is as
prescribed and through modes of payments viz IPO,
Demand Draft or Cash (in person) under the Right to
Information (Regulation of FEE & Cost) Rules, 2005.8. There is a no such committee formed.
9. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission in its
report has made recommends with regard to RTI Act. The
report contained in 120 pages and copy of the same can be
given on payment of RS. 240/- @ Rs. 2/- per page.
Alternatively, the report is available on the website of this
ministry i.e. www.permin.nic and can be downloaded from
the website under Department of Administrative Reforms
and Public Grievances.10. Proactive disclosure is available on the website of this
Ministry as cited above.11. You are welcome to have inspection of records available in
this section and permissible under the RTI Act, 2005 in any
day with prior intimation to the undersigned at the following
address during working hours i.e. 9.00 am to 5.30 pm:-
D. C. Sharma, Section Officer (IR), R. No. 215-A-II, North
Block, New Delhi. Tele: 23093022.The copies of the documents/ extracts can be given in the form
required on demand and payment of requisite fee under the
prescribed rules.3. This division did not receive the appeal dated 22.5.2009
from Shri Hemant Goswami. CIC vide its decision dated
24.8.2009 in appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2009/000807 dated
20.8.2009 in the complaint filed by Shri Hemant Goswami
has remanded the appeal dated 22.5.2008 of the compliant
to the undersigned for disposal of the same within ten
working days from the date of receipt the decision (date of
receipt is 31.8.2009). CIC has also rejected the pleas of the
complainant for delay in submission of reply by the CPIO.4. The following information is given with reference to the
issues raised in the appeal dated 22.5.2009 of complainant;-
Part I to III- Certified copies of the file notings from the file No.
34012/8(S)/2005-Estt(B) in which the Right to Information
(Regulation of Fee & Cost) Rules, 2005 have been framed
are enclosed. The same contain the basis of framing of
rules under the Act.1 to 4: CIC has accepted that the CPIO has provided information
within the stipulated time. You are aware of the provisions of
the RTI (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 and CPIO6
has already intimated the charges indicating the number of
pages vis-à-vis total cost of information.6. CPIO has already provided the information with reference to
your query. The issue raised in your appeal is not related
with the query made.7. CPIO has already provided information. However, it may be
mentioned that under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005,
information as available in the form as defined under section
2 (f) of the Act is to be provided. The issue has been
clarified vide this Department’s O. M. No. 11/2/2008-IR
dated 10th July 2009. Copy of the OM is enclosed.
Therefore, the charges for number of pages even if sent
through e-mail should be the same as has been prescribed
under fee rules referred above.8. Information has already been provided by the CPIO. The
query in the appeal is out of context of the information
sought in the application.9. Information has already been provided.
10. Information is available on the website of this Ministry i.e.
https://persmin.nic.in.5. Copies of the documents indicated in the letter dated
31.3.2009 of the CPIO are enclosed. The appeal is
disposed of accordingly.”CPIO Shri R. K. Girdhar Under Secretary RTI in his letter of the same
date, responding specifically to our complaint notice, has referred to the above
orders of Appellate Authority of 1.9.09 as disposal of the present complaint. He
does not, however, address the principal issue in the present complaint, which is
as follows:“That there is no provision to transfer the application under section
6(3) of the RTI Act within the same department. The provisions of
Section 5(5) of the RTI Act would apply in this case. The CPIO has
in this case wrongly forwarded the RTI application within the same
Department.”DECISION NOTICE
We find that the issues raised by appellant in his original RTI application of
11.3.08 stand responded to in the order of 1.9.09 of First Appellate Authority Ms.
Anuradha Chagti. If not satisfied with the information now provided, it will be
open to appellant Shri Hemant Goswami to move a second appeal afresh before7
us under sub sec. 3 of Sec. 19 of the RTI Act. However, on the specific
complaint before us in the present case, the CPIO has taken no stand. .Sec. 6(3)
of the RTI Act reads as follows:6(3)
Where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an
information,–(I) which is held by another public authority; or
(ii) the subject matter of which is more closely connected with
the functions of another public authority, the public authority,
to which such application is made, shall transfer the
application or such part of it as may be appropriate to that
other public authority and inform the applicant immediately
about such transfer:Provided that the transfer of an application pursuant to this sub-
section shall be made as soon as practicable but in no case later
than five days from the date of receipt of the application. ”
Under sub sec. (1) of Sec. 6, the RTI Act has already mandated that an
application make application before the CPIO of “the concerned public authority”.
In this case, sec. 6(3) can only be operative in case the information sought is not
held by that public authority. Clearly, in the present case, and as admitted by
CPIO Shri Ravinder Kumar in his response of 14.3.08, the information sought is
indeed held by the DOPT, which is the public authority in question. In this
Commission’s Decision in Appeal No. 10/1/2005-CIC Er Sarbajit Roy vs. DDA
announced 22.2.’06, we have held that
The DDA is a single public authority. Since this is a matter
concerning adjustments within the same public authority Sec 6 (3)
cannot apply. Accordingly the CPIO Ms. Neemo Dhar, who had
received the request from the complainant, was, as per section 7(1)
of the Act, under obligation to seek information from her colleague
and provide it to the complainant. Her colleague, who was to
provide the information as per Section 5(5) of the RTI ACT, would
become deemed CPIO and expected to provide Ms. Dhar the
information sought by the Complainant.
The plea of complainant Shri Hemant Goswami that the clause to be
operative in the present case was sub sec. (4) of Sec. 5 which has not been
8
done leading to the plea for compensation by complainant. The complaint is
valid and, therefore upheld.
The question, however, arises as to what are the implications of this
misjudgment on the part of CPIO Shri Ravinder Kumar. Does it amount to
afflicting ‘loss’ or ‘detriment’ calling for compensation? Under sub sec. (1) of sec.
7 of the RTI Act, on receipt of a request u/s 6 a CPIO is expected to provide a
response within 30 days of receipt of the request. However, sub sec. 3 of Sec. 6
allows for a further 5 days in transferring an application, thus allowing a period of
35 days instead of 30 in responding to such an application. In this case,
however, as borne out by the order of 1.9.’09 of Appellate Authority Ms.
Anuradha Chagti, the applicant was provided information vide CPIO’s letter of
31.3.08, which should make it a response even within the limited 30 days allowed
for a response u/s 7(1). For this reason, appellant’s plea for penalty against then
CPIO Shri Ravinder Kumar cannot be maintained nor can the demand for
compensation. While the complaint in the present case is, therefore, allowed, the
substance of the original application having been addressed, there is no further
action required in this matter including cost.
Announced in the open chamber on this 29th day of September, 2009.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
29.9.2009
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 Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
29.9.2009
9