CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00840
Dated, the 30th December, 2008
Appellant : Shri Satish Sharma
Respondents : Daman & Diu Administration
This matter was heard on 22.12.2008 in the presence of both parties.
2. Appellant, through his RTI-application dated 05.11.2007, requested the
following information:-
“1. Copies of advertisement orders sent to various Newspapers or the
copies of advertisement orders sent to the Department of
Information and Broadcasting between 01.04.2007 and
31.10.2007.
2. Copies of orders of the Department of Information and
Broadcasting sent to various Newspapers for publishing of
advertisements.
3. Copies of bills sent by Newspapers after the advertisements have
been published.
4. Please provide the details of payments (viz. Cheque No., date,
amount and in whose favour) issued by the Department to the
Newspapers.”
3. CPIO answered the queries of the appellant through a communication
dated 07.03.2008 and the Appellate Authority decided the first-appeal, through
an order dated 12.03.2008. Appellate Authority’s order directed the Executive
Engineer, Electricity Department/CPIO to furnish all information as requested by
the appellant and warned the CPIO to be careful about processing RTI-petitions.
4. A second-appeal dated 07.06.2008 was filed by the appellant against the
respondents.
5. Appellant has stated that there was a concerted attempt by the respondents
not to disclose the requested information to the appellant with a view to prevent
the unravelling of what appellant describes as “advertisement scam”.
6. During the hearing, the respondents submitted that appellant’s first-appeal
was filed on 14.02.2008 and a hearing was conducted by the Appellate Authority
on 05.03.2008. Appellate Authority gave his decision on 12.03.2008.
Page 1 of 3
Meanwhile, in response to a communication dated 01.12.2007 of the CPIO,
appellant had deposited on 06.03.2008, Rs.52/- as fee for photocopying, etc.
charges for the information to be disclosed. All information was furnished to the
appellant on 07.03.2008. According to the respondents, the sequence of events
was as follows:-
Date Event 05.11.2007 Appellant filed his RTI-application 06.11.2007 CPIO received the appellant's RTI-application 01.12.2007 CPIO sent a communication to the appellant requesting him
to deposit Rs.52/- towards supply of information.
14.02.2008 Appellant filed his first-appeal before the AA
27.02.2008 AA conducted a hearing, in which the appellant informed that
he had not received the CPIO’s letter said to have been sent
by CPIO on 01.12.2007. CPIO informed that the letter was
sent through ordinary post.
05.03.2008 AA again conducted a hearing, in which the appellant was
informed about the amount to be paid for the disclosure of
information.
06.03.2008 Appellant deposited the fee. 07.03.2008 Information supplied to the appellant by the CPIO.
7. Appellant has pointed out that the so-called communication from the
CPIO asking appellant to deposit the fee said to be dated 01.12.2007 and sent to
the appellant through ordinary post, never reached the appellant’s hands.
8. It is the respondents’ position that as soon as the requisitioned fee was
deposited (on 06.03.2008), the requested information was disclosed to the
appellant (on 07.03.2008). They denied the charge that CPIO had made up the
story regarding sending through ordinary post a demand for payment of a fee for
the documents to be provided to the appellant.
9. It is noted that Appellate Authority had also faulted the CPIO for his
failure to provide relevant information to the appellant under proper proof of its
despatch. Apparently, what Appellate Authority meant was that CPIO, by
sending the requisition for fee through ordinary post, had given room for
avoidable doubts about his intention, when better and more authentic ways of
despatching the same notice were available.
10. CPIO, Shri M.R. Ingle, Executive Engineer, Electricity Department of the
public authority is warned to exercise due diligence and care in sending
RTI-related communications to applicants, through verifiable proof of despatch.
Page 2 of 3
11. As regards the information, considering the totality of the submissions in
this matter, it is an acknowledged fact that the entire information is disclosed to
the appellant by allowing him to inspect the file and the documents related to his
RTI queries. CPIO is directed that, under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, he shall
transfer appellant’s request at S.No.2 of the RTI-application to the appropriate
public authority, viz. to the Department of Information and Broadcasting for
consideration. CPIO was grossly remiss in not transferring this request to the
appropriate public authority when this application came into his hand. It was not
correct on his part to have advised the appellant to approach that public authority
himself. CPIO is warned to be careful in future.
12. Appeal is disposed of with these directions.
13. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Page 3 of 3