Appellant claimed non-compliance of disclosure of powers & time norms for officers of Lok Sabha Secretariat as per Section 4(1)(b)(ii) - CIC: the application was without the requisite RTI fee & hence cannot be treated as an RTI application
Vide an Email application dt 17.3.13, addressed to the Speaker, Lok Sabha, appellant had sought information regarding disclosure of powers and time norms for officers as per Section 4(1)(b)(ii) of the RTI Act.
2. CAPIO, Lok Sabha Sectt, vide letter dt 25.3.13, informed appellant that his letter of 17.3.13 contains suggestions for amendments in rules and procedure and has not sought any information as per Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act. Appellant was informed that there was a separate Committee for examining the amendment for Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha and advised the appellant to go through certain website.
3. An appeal was filed on 31.3.13 reiterating that the public authority has not uploaded information as stipulated in Section 4(1)(b)(ii).
4. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. CAPIO submitted that they have not treated the information sought by the appellant vide his Email dt. 17.3.2013 as an RTI application as the appellant has not enclosed the requisite fee payable as per the provisions of the RTI Act. On receipt of a reminder Email dt. 31.3.2013, vide their letter dt. 25.4.2013 (copy submitted to the Commission and taken on record) it was clarified that his communication has not been treated as an application under the RTI Act. Appellant who was heard on telephone admitted that he has not submitted requisite fee but wanted his application to be considered as a complaint for non-compliance of Section 4(1)(b)(ii).
5. The Commission finds that the appellant’s second appeal before the Commission dt. 16.5.2013 is under section 19 and hence cannot be treated as complaint under section 18. We concur with the submission of the CPIO that the application of the appellant dt. 17.3.2013 was without the requisite RTI fee and hence cannot be treated as an RTI application. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Mani Ram Sharma v. Lok Sabha Secretariat in File No.CIC/SM/A/2013/000875/RM