CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/C/2008/00048
Dated, the 20th October, 2008.
Complainant : Shri S.P. Goyal
Respondents : Customs Department
This complaint by Shri S.P. Goyal was heard through videoconferencing
on 13.10.2008. Complainant was present at the NIC Studio at Mumbai while the
respondents (Shri N.S. Ramachandran, Deputy Commissioner) were present at
NIC Studio at Kochi. Commission conducted the hearing through
videoconferencing from the CIC Office at New Delhi.
2. Briefly stated the fact in this case is that complainant filed his RTI-request
before the CPIO, Custom House Cochin on 07.11.2007. CPIO through an
interim reply dated 15.11.2007 requested complainant to send the application fee
under Section 6(1) read with Rule 3 through bank draft or to deposit it in cash.
Complainant had enclosed a Postal Order No.59E 511185 dated 25.10.2007 for
Rs.10 and Postal Order No.29G 515987 dated 07.11.2007 for Rs.50 along with
his RTI-application. CPIO also sent a reminder to the complainant,
Shri S.P. Goyal on 31.12.2007. Complainant filed his complaint under Section
18 before the CIC on 14.01.2008. The requested information was despatched to
Shri Goyal by the CPIO through a communication dated 15.01.2008.
3. The short-point for decision in this matter is whether the demand of fee
payment through Bank Draft or cash by the respondents was in order.
4. The respondents have accepted their error and pleaded that the word
postal order was inserted into the Section 6(1) read with Rule 3 of the RTI Act
through an amendment on 17.05.2006. This fact was unknown to the
respondents. That is the reason why they first demanded from the complainant to
pay the fee through Bank Draft or in cash rather than through postal order which
the complainant had done. As it was clearly an error based upon a certain
ignorance about the amendment which brought in postal order alongside Bank
Draft and cash as mode of fee payment. Respondents deeply regretted their
error, but pointed out that their bona-fides were established by the fact that not
only they promptly informed Shri Goyal, albeit wrongly, to make fee-payment
through Bank draft or cash, they also sent him a reminder. When Shri Goyal
filed his complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission, the
CPIO re-examined the whole matter and on being informed that postal order was
an accepted mode of fee payment, promptly despatched information on
Page 1 of 2
15.01.2008 to Shri Goyal. CPIO urged that his actions were fully covered by the
reasonable cause provisions of the Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
5. I notice that the CPIO’s actions, though erroneous, were on account of
certain ignorance about the amendment which had brought in postal order as the
mode of fee payment for RTI-applications. There was no denial of information
to Shri Goyal due to mala-fide intention on the part of the CPIO. CPIO’s
bona-fides are further established by the fact that following his communication
dated 15.11.2007 for fee payment through postal order or in cash, he also went
ahead to send a reminder to Shri Goyal. Had the complainant remonstrated with
CPIO (that postal order was an accepted mode of fee payment), it would have
been possible for the CPIO to re-examine the matter and come to a conclusion
favourable to the complainant, which he eventually did, after some delay, when
complainant came before the Commission against the CPIO. I, therefore, hold
that there was no mala-fide denial of information to the complainant by the CPIO
and that his action was free from any malice or deliberate attempt to withhold
information and, therefore, qualified to be covered by the reasonable cause
provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
6. Complaint closed.
7. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 2 of 2