Providing the information free of cost
Information related to appointment of Safai Karamcharis by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was sought. The PIO did not reply to the application. Despite the order of the FAA on to provide the information, the PIO acted contrary to the RTI Act and demanded fees.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that the PIO was guilty of not furnishing complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the RTI Act. He further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer who clearly ordered for the disclosure of information. The CIC issued a show cause notice to the PIO, directing him to give reasons as to why the penalty should not be levied on him. Under the powers granted vide Section 19(8)(a) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including (i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form; (ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be; (iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information; (iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records; (v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials; (vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4; of the RTI Act, the CIC awarded a compensation of Rs.2000/- to the Appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him.
If the Public Authority fails to provide the sought information within the stipulated time of 30 days as prescribed under section 7(6) of the RTI Act, no fees should be charged as cost of providing the information.
Mr. Devraj Manav v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi in CIC/SG/A/2011/002287/15528