Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + Commission Indian Laws - 2014 (1) TMI Commission This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1548 - Commission - Indian LawsRequest for information - Inspection of documents - Right to information - Held that - The files to be shown to him for inspection are also those which clearly deal with both these subjects, once again, as on the reference dates. The Appellant is not entitled to see any other file except exactly those which deal with both the subjects and with reference to the dates mentioned by him. It is the duty of the CPIO to find out the exact files and to show him, and secondly, if required, to provide the photocopies of relevant records - The Right to Information (RTI) Act provides for the appointment of up to 10 Information Commissioners. If this is deemed to be the sanctioned strength, the vacancy on a particular date will be calculated with reference to the number of Information Commissioners already in position on that date. Similarly, the staff strength of the CIC is sanctioned by the appropriate government. Therefore, the vacancies in various categories of staff on any reference date can be worked out by subtracting the number of staff already in position from the total number sanctioned. Inspection must be completed in a reasonable time period. Be that as it may, in the present case, if there are files which have not been inspected due to whatever reason, those must be shown to the Appellant for inspection. We would, therefore, like to direct the CPIO to invite the Appellant on any mutually convenient date within 15 working days of receiving this order and to place before him the remaining files, strictly relevant to the information sought, for his inspection. Needless to say, after such inspection, if the Appellant would choose to get the photocopies of some documents, the same should be provided to him free of charge - Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues:
1. Appellant's request for information regarding vacancy position and steps taken to fill vacancies. 2. Appellant's request for inspection of relevant files. 3. Appellant's objection to the decision of the Appellate Authority and delay in inspection. 4. Respondent's argument regarding the practicality of summoning files from higher authorities. 5. Analysis of the Right to Information Act provisions. 6. Timeframe for file inspection and balancing citizen's right to information with government business. Analysis: 1. The Appellant sought information on the vacancy position in the Central Information Commission (CIC) and steps taken to fill vacancies. The CPIO provided some information and allowed inspection of some files. The Appellant claimed he couldn't complete inspection due to time constraints. The Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO's stand without providing a hearing to the Appellant, leading to an appeal. 2. The Appellant objected to the Appellate Authority's decision and the lack of direction on file inspection. The Respondent argued against recalling files from higher authorities for inspection. The Commission noted two sets of information sought by the Appellant relating to vacancies in the CIC and staff strength. The CPIO was directed to facilitate the Appellant's inspection of relevant files within 15 working days. 3. The Commission observed that the time for file inspection should be reasonable to maintain efficiency. The CPIO was directed to invite the Appellant for inspection of remaining files and provide photocopies if needed. The issue of delay was addressed, emphasizing the need to balance access to information with government business. 4. The Commission analyzed the provisions of the Right to Information Act concerning the appointment of Information Commissioners and staff strength in the CIC. The calculation of vacancies was discussed based on sanctioned strength and existing positions. 5. The Respondent's argument on the practicality of recalling files from higher authorities was considered. The Commission emphasized the importance of balancing citizen's right to information with government processes. It was noted that recalling files for routine submissions might not be practical. 6. The judgment concluded by disposing of the appeal and providing copies of the order to the parties free of cost. The Commission highlighted the need to strike a balance between citizens' right to information and government business operations, ensuring efficient handling of information requests.
|