CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00383
Dated, the 30th July, 2008.
Appellant : Shri Rajendra Sharma
Respondents : The New India Assurance Company Limited
This matter came up for hearing on 24.07.2008 pursuant to Commission’s
hearing notice dated 09.06.2008. Appellant was absent, while the respondents
were represented by Dr.Shriram Mundhy, Manager, Shri Arun Kumar Saxena,
Branch Manager & CPIO and Shri B.C. Sethi, Assistant Manager.
2. Appellant’s second-appeal dated 10.03.2008 relates to his RTI-application
dated 29.10.2007 and the CPIO’s reply dated 21.11.2007. In this appeal,
appellant has questioned respondents demanding from him Rs.20,000/- under
Section 7(3) of the RTI Act to disclose the requested information which
respondents claimed was not only voluminous but would require deployment of
additional staff to collect and collate it. They have stated that the information
which the appellant has requested, pertains to himself and the documents which
he now wants the public authority to supply to him were those he himself was
required to furnish to the respondents. Respondents urge that applicants such as
this should not be encouraged to use the RTI Act to get from the respondents
information which ought to be in the appellant’s own custody. Apart from it,
respondents have urged that he has asked for certain explanation from the
respondents about the basis of imposing a certain cost on him.
3. It is noted that respondents are not averse to providing to the appellant the
requested information. They, however, demand that the cost of disclosing this
information should be paid by the appellant in the form of further-fee under
Section 7(3) of the RTI Act. It is the respondents’ case that they receive
applications for housing loans in hundreds and thousands. If parties start
demanding copies of the documents they filed along with such loan applications,
the public authority, which is a commercial entity, shall incur substantial loss in
attending to it.
4. In view of the submission made by the respondents, it is found that the
point to be decided is the cost to be imposed on the appellant for disclosure of
this information, which respondents are willing to provide anyway.
5. Since the reasonableness of the cost demanded from the appellant is the
subject of this appeal, it is considered that it is best decided at the level of the
Page 1 of 2
Appellate Authority, who, being an officer on the spot, has the first-hand
knowledge of whether disclosure of such information involves incurring costs
and if so the magnitude of that cost.
6. Matter is accordingly remitted back to the Appellate Authority,
Shri A.R.Sekar, General Manager, with the direction that he shall assess the
reasonableness of the cost demanded from the appellant by the respondents and,
if necessary, modify the demand as per his own judgement.
7. Appeal is disposed of with these directions.
8. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Authenticated by –
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH )
Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar
Page 2 of 2