Compensation for misleading the applicant
The applicant sought the details about the different complaints filed by him about a housing society. The Appellate Authority directed the concern to provide the details of the inquiries in return to which the Asstt. Registrar replied that the information sought is not available in a compiled form and requested the applicant to inspect the relevant file on any working day and obtain the information on payment of prescribed fees.
View of the CIC
During the hearing, the respondent submitted that the complaints had been addressed to the concerned Authority in the Housing Society and the copies of the same had simply been endorsed to them. Hence, no action has been taken on the letters. At this stage, the applicant wanted to know why he was asked to inspect the file at the appeal stage instead of being informed that no action has been taken on his complaints. The Commission observed that the Asstt. Registrar has misled the applicant by asking him to inspect the file when he could very well have informed the applicant that no action has been taken on the complaints. The Commission further held that had the FAA provided the correct information, he would have been spared the hassle of filing the second appeal and attending the hearing at the Commission. For the harassment undergone by the applicant, the Commission directed the Public Authority to compensate him by paying him an amount of Rs. 1000/- for the expensed incurred by him in attending the hearing at the Commission.
The designated authorities under the RTI Act should take a view in favour of disclosure rather than using measures for which they may be held to task.
Citation: Shri Bharat Bhushan v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies in File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002272