CENTRALINFORMATIONCOMMISSION(RoomNo.315,BWing,AugustKrantiBhawan,BhikajiCamaPlace,NewDelhi110066)

Prof.M.SridharAcharyulu(MadabhushiSridhar)

InformationCommissioner

CIC/SA/A/2014/001610

AlokKumarGhoshv.PIO,NationalGreenTribunal

ImportantDatesandtimetaken:

RTI:18.03.2014 FAA:24.06.2014

SA:27.10.2014 Hearing:21.05.2015 Decision:

Result:Postedforcomplianceon22ndJuly2015at12.00noon.

PartiesPresent:

1. Appellantisnotpresent.PublicauthorityisrepresentedbyMs.JayaGoyal,Advocate.

FACTS:

2. Mr.AlokKumarGhoshfiledanRTIapplicationon18.3.2014.Heappliedforpostof

Group DMTSon27.4.2013but not selected. He wanted to knowhowmanycandidates

appearedforthatpost,marksobtained,hisrankingeneralandrankamongOBCcandidates,

names of selected candidates and their marks, how many Group DMTS officers were

engaged in NGTat present andnumber of employeesoncontract for this category. He

presentedcopyofVoterIDtoprovehisIndiancitizenship.

3. Claiming that he got no response, he filed appeal before the Commission. The

Commissionconsidersthisasacomplaintalsobecausehecomplainedthattherewasno

communicationatall.

ProceedingsbeforetheCommission:

4. Theappellant isnotpresent. TheStandingCounciloftheNationalGreenTribunal

representedthePIO,statedthatappellantpaidthefeeofRs.10intheformofcourtfeestamp,

whichcannotberealizedbytheiroffice,andthus,theofficewrotetoappellanttopayRs.10in

theformofIPOordemanddraftandtocollecttheinformationfromtheiroffice.Neitherthe

copyof the letter norproof of dispatchwaspresented to theCommission. Theappellant

complainedinhissecondappealthathedidnotreceiveanycommunication.

5. TheCounselforNGTreferredtoprovisionsofRTIActandrulestosaythatpayment

throughthecourtfeestampcannotbeaccepted.WhenaskedwhetheraroundRs50was

spentonwritingaletteraskingforRs10,thecounselsaidyes.

6. iftheappellant,asaskedpaysRs10byIPO/DD,NGTwouldspendanotherRs50to

sendbackinformation.IfappellantpaidRs10,NGTslossstillremainsRs40.Ifinformationis

dispatched,costwillgouptoRs100.SupposingappellantdidnotdispatchRs10bypostal

order,thepublicauthorityhasalreadylostRs50.InsteadofallthisspendingCPIOshould

havesenttheinformationsought.Thelearnedcouncilsaidifnottheauditwouldobjectwhy

moneyduetoGovernmentisnotcollected.

7. The Commission got, in another Second Appeal a certified copy of a document

regardingengaginganadvocatefortheirRTIcases.AsperthisratetheAdvocateispaidRs

31,000asretainerpermonth,Rs700forconveyanceforconference,Rs11,000forconducting

first appeal andRs21,000 forsecondappeal plus10percent clerkagechargesbesides

miscellaneousexpenses.

8. TheNGTpaysRs31,000asretainer,Rs.11000plusRs21,000forfirstandsecond

appeals asking its advocate topresent expert argument howabsence IPO for Rs10 is

stumblingblocktofurnishinformationaboutselectionandrejectionofcandidatesforsome

posts.Thisreflectslackofconcernfortransparencyandalsoforpublicmoneyandleaves

commonmanwonderingreasonabilityofthisattitude.IsitworthspendingRs33050plusto

deny information? Becauseof suchattitude, doubts raiseabout fairness of process for

recruitment for GroupDMulti TaskStaff. This also indicatesadireneed for tosensitize

personnelinNGTtobreakthiskindofmindsetofdenyingtheRTIatthehugecostofstate

exchequer.

9. ThepublicauthorityshouldnothaveignoredthefactthatitwasawingofGovernment

entrustedwithdutyofservingjustice.Itshouldhaveunderstoodthatthecitizenhasalready

paidRs10throughcourtfee,whichwillsurelygointotheaccountofGovernment(Stateor

Centre),thoughformatofpaymentmaynotbestrictlyasprescribed.Itisnotacasethatcitizen

applicantdidnotpayanyfee.Thisisnotanapplicationwithoutfeesimpliciter.Thebonafides

ofapplicantisestablishedbyhispayment.

10.TheRTIActprovidesatwowayaccesstoinformationproactivedisclosureasordained

bySection4andinresponsetorighteousdemandforitunderSection3subjecttoS8&other

provisions.Whatisthenatureofinformationsoughthere?NGTselectedsomeandrejected

othersforthepostsofDMTS.ThisinformationhastobevoluntarilydisclosedbyNGTwithout

waiting for any application. Under Section 4(1)(d) it has to provide reasons for its

administrativedecisions toaffectedpersonsandunder (c) publishall relevant factswhile

formulatingallimportantpoliciesorannouncingdecisionswhichaffectpublic.Whenapublic

authorityselectsandrejectssomeforpostsasperannouncedrulesandregulations, that

beinganadministrativedecision,the affectedpersonsaretheselectedandthustheyare

entitled toknowwhy theyarerejected, andwhyotherswereselected?Qualifyingmarks,

assessmentoftheirperformanceetcasdecidedbyselectcommitteeshouldbemadepublic.

11. The text of section4(2) needs tobe repeatedly told to adamant CPIOsof non

transparentpublicauthorities.

Itshallbeaconstantendeavourofeverypublicauthoritytotakestepsinaccordance

withtherequirementsofclause(b)ofsubsection(1)toprovideasmuchinformation

suomotutothepublicatregularintervalsthroughvariousmeansofcommunications,

includinginternet,sothatthepublichaveminimumresort totheuseofthisAct to

obtaininformation.

12.Denyinginformation,whichpublicauthorityhastogiveonitsown,evenafterappliedfor,

rejectingitforRs10,andfightingtherightfulcitizenwiththemightofstatepowerandpublic

moneyisabsolutelyunpardonableandtotallyagainstthewilloftheparliament.Rs10isnot

mustforgivinginformation,aspublicauthorityhastosupplymostofinformationonitsown

andapersonofBPLshouldgetitforfreeasprescribedbylaw.

CanPIOrejectRTIrequest,fornonpaymentoffee?

13. Letusconsiderasituation;canaPIOrejectaRTIrequestfiledbyacitizenfornon

paymentorsimplybecauseitisnotaccompaniedbyaIPOorDD?Ifapplicantisaperson

belowthepovertyline,Actsaysheisentitledtoinformationwithoutpayingfee.RTIrequest

withoutfeeisnotinvalid perse.Paragraph20ofGuideonRighttoInformationAct,2005,

issuedbyDoPTsaysthereisnobaronthepublicauthoritytosupplyinformationin

responsetosuchapplications.

14. There is another relevant paragraph in DoPT guide with caption, Applications

receivedwithoutfee,inwhichitisstatedatpoint2Soonafterreceivingtheapplication,the

Public Information Officer should check whether the applicant has made thepayment of

applicationfeeorwhethertheapplicantisapersonbelongingtoaBelowPovertyLine(BPL)

category. IfapplicationisnotaccompaniedbytheprescribedfeeortheBPLCertificate, it

cannotbetreatedasanapplicationundertheRTIAct.Itmay,however,benotedthatthe

PublicInformationOfficershouldconsidersuchanapplicationsympatheticallyand

trytosupplyinformationsoughtbywayofsuchanapplication.

15. FromtheseguidelinesitisclearthatfeeisnotmaterialfactortothrowouttheRTI

request.Nonpaymentoffeeisnotprescribedgroundforrejectionofrequest.Infact,

thisisnotatallacaseofRTIrequestwithoutpaymentoffee.Applicantisalsonotclaiming

BPLstatus.Theveryfactthathehaspaidfeethroughcourtfeestampsproveshisintentionto

pay. Whenguidelinesgoad thepublicauthority tobesympathetic toanapplicant without

payingfee,itdoesnotneedspecialmentionthatitcannottaketechnicalexcuseaboutformof

paymenttodenyordelaytheinformation.Whetheranypublicservanthastimeandinclination

tounderstandtheserules?

16. Thus the Commission finds no justification to apprehend audit objection to giving

informationdisputingthemodeofpayment.Realauditorwillnotobjectthis.Infact,auditwill

surelyobjectthiswayofunmindfulspendingofhugeamountforRs.10.

17. Thereisadutycastuponthepublicauthoritytosimplifytheprocessofpaymentoffee

ofRs10.InPatna,publicauthorityacceptstheRTIapplicationonphonethoughit isnot

accompaniedwithRs10,whichisaddedtotelephonebill.Somestatesacceptcourtstamps

forpaymentoffee.

18. Itispatheticthatsuchasimplerequestforinformationhasbeendraggedtothelevelof

secondappealengagingsomehighlypaidadvocatesandbuildingheapsofdocumentswith

multiple files consuming reams of paper (which means some trees and thus a clear

environmentalwastagebesidescontributingpollutionbyaGreenPublicAuthority!)spending

hugeamountofmoneybesidesconsumingprecioustimeofpublicservantsincludingthatof

theCommission.

19. Intheabsenceofcopyofcommunicationandproofofdespatchoftheallegedletterto

appellant askinghim tocomeand take the informationbypayingRs10asclaimed, the

Commission finds that the respondent authority did not discharge burden of proving the

performanceoftheirdutyofrespondingintime.

20. Assuming,withoutacceptingthatrespondentauthorityhaswrittenaletter,stillitwas

unreasonablydelayedandultimatelydeniedonthatflimsy,technical,andhopelessexcuse.

21.Surprisinglynohigherauthorityquestionedtheofficeforsuchrecklessspendingandillegal

denialofinformation.

22.AfterhearingstoryofspendingforlegalbattlestodenyinformationuptoRs30,000foran

IPOofRs10,theproverbpennywisepoundfoolishhastoberewrittenasrupeewiseand

thousandfoolish.

23. Thusitisapparentdenialofinformationandthattoowithoutanyreasonablecausethat

attracts Section 20of RTI Act. TheCommission is vexedwithnonresponseof CPIO to

numberofitspenaltynoticesandthusdesistfromissuinganothersuchnoticeinthiscase,

thoughitisafitcasetopenaliseandrecommenddisciplinaryaction.

24.TheCommissiondirects,within21daysfromdateofreceiptofthisorder,thePIOto

a) furnishpointwiseinformationtotheappellantalongwithcertifiedcopiesofrelevant

documents,freeofcost,

b) give a complete report on the process, criteria adopted to select DMTS staff

challengedbyapplicantconsideringhisRTIapplicationascomplaint,withthereasons

forrejectingcandidatesincludingappellant,marksobtainedbycandidates.

c) givedetailsofexpenditureincurredindealingthisRTIapplicationuptothelevelof

secondappeal,includingthecostoflitigation,and

d) make it a policy to place all results of recruitment test or interview, minutes of

committeeselectingcandidatesfordifferentposts,withreasonsforrejection,besides

informingthattoeverycandidate.

e) explainwhypublicauthorityshouldnotbedirectedtopaycompensationwhich is

equivalenttoamountspentbypublicauthoritysofar,fightingagainsthimtodeny.

25.Withtheabovedirectionsthecaseisdisposed,andbepostedforcomplianceon22July

2015at12.00noon.

(M.SridharAcharyulu)InformationCommissioner

Authenticatedtruecopy

(BabuLal)DeputyRegistrar

Addressesoftheparties:

1. TheCPIOunderRTI,

NationalGreenTribunal,

FaridkotHouse,CopernicusMarg,

NewDelhi110001.

2. ShriAlokKumarGhosh,

VillGhosha,POChhinamore,

PSBhadreswar,DistHooghly,

WestBengal712233.