Case Law Details
It is evident that the Respondent Public Authority had transferred the RTI queries raised by the Complainant to the appropriate Public Authority. As regards the use of CPGRAMs for transfer of RTI queries to the concerned Public Authority, the suggestion was noted for implementation by the Respondent. The Commission noted that the original RTI application was returned by the Public Authority merely on the basis of the RTI Fee having been furnished in favour of the ‘Accounts Officer’ as stipulated in the OM No. F.10/9/2008-IR issued by DoP&T dated 05.12.2008, instead of DDO, D/o Public Enterprises. This highlights the anomaly in the procedures followed in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, there needs to be an immediate remedial action in respect of the confusion thus created as a result of the procedural lacunae resulting in RTI applications getting stuck in such administrative web. Therefore, the Commission felt that DoP&T and Department of Posts necessarily need to coordinate and initiate steps to introduce RTI stamps or numbered RTI coupons to eliminate prevailing ambiguity with regard to Rule 06 of the RTI Rules, 2012, on the mode of payment of RTI Fee keeping in view the experience in handling similar issues on a day to day basis. The suggestion made by the Complainant therefore, merits a favourable and sympathetic consideration.
Full Text of the CIC Order is as follows:-
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information on 14 points regarding the correspondence/ documents/ file noting on the action taken on each aspect of his submission dated 28.06.2016 made to the CPIO, Department of Public Enterprises, list of panellist/ guest speakers/ coordinators etc in the public enterprises, information on holding consultative/ educative workshops in public enterprises, information on the action taken against co- ordinator Pankaj Sahwani, action taken on his letter dated 07.05.2016 addressed to Engineering Projects (India) Ltd., file noting on the movement of the RTI petition and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO vide its letter dated 10.08.2016 informed the Complainant to submit the requisite fee in favour of DDO, Department of Public Enterprise although, the Fee had been submitted in the name of Accounts Officer in accordance with the DoP&T Circular dated 05.12.2008. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission.
HEARING:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.