RTI Corner

Information in connection with the National Iodine Deficiency Disorders Control Programme was sought. The PIO submitted that in all the RTI applications where the appellant was directed to pay the requisite photocopying charges, he has never paid the same on the pretext that he is facing some problem while paying the additional photocopying charges through online mode, despite the fact that the First Appellate Authority had properly guided the appellant in a step-wise manner as to how the charges are to be paid. This shows that the appellant is misusing the RTI Act and is not serious about obtaining the information sought. The CIC took note of the fact that in 7 other cases against the same respondent, the appellant has raised the issue regarding online payment of the photocopying charges. The CIC observed that the appellant is himself non-serious about the RTI applications filed by him. Further, the bonafides of the respondent organisation can be established from the fact that in each of the RTI applications, the PIO has never denied any information. In the interest of justice, the CIC directed the PIO to explain in writing the modes of payment other than the online RTI portal so that appellant can pay the requisite charges.
Comments
It is not mandatory for any applicant to pay the additional charges through online mode only and an appellant can opt for any other option for making the payment like IPO, DD etc., rather than waiting for the Information Commission to give any relief. Multiple RTI applications where the queries are also not specific and which are often not covered under the definition of information under Section 2(f) lead to obstruction of the flow of information with respect to other applicants and defeats the very purpose of the RTI Act.
Citation: Rajesh Nagar v. Salt Commissioner, Directorate General of Health Services and Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade in Decision no.: CIC/SALTC/A/2019/139973/03502, Date of Decision: 18/05/2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com

The appellant sought to know why the Punjab National Bank (PNB) returned a particular cheque unpaid with a reason insufficient funds. The CIC observed that the respondent has shown callous and unprofessional attitude both while representing during the hearing as well as dealing the RTI application. The CIC held that the respondent may not evade their responsibility as a public authority on the pretext of relocation of their office in addition to the lapse of over two years. A show cause notice was issued to the PIOs to show cause as to why penalty under provisions of section 20 (1) of RTI Act may not be imposed upon each of them for not responding to the RTI application within the prescribed time limit.
Comments
It is the duty of the PIO to maintain a professional behaviour and follow the provisions of the RTI Act. Relocation of the Office cannot be used as a ground for denial of information.
Citation: Lopamudra Chatterjee v. Punjab National Bank in Second Appeal No. CIC/PNBNK/A/2018/130662, Date of order: 12.05.2020
Dr. Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is an expert on RTI matters and has co-authored the books RIGHT TO INFORMATION - LAW AND PRACTICE and PIO’s guide to RTI. Apart from her weekly article here, her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link: www.rtifoundationofindia.com