Copy of TA Bills officials of CGIT was sought - Appellant: fee charged should be refunded as information was supplied late - CIC: the information has been provided in 26 days which is within the time limit of 30 days; further fee need not be refunded
28 Dec, 2013Copy of TA Bills officials of CGIT was sought - Appellant: there was a delay in the supply of information and hence the fee charged should be refunded - CIC: RTI application was received by the PIO on 03/08/2012 and after 11 days further fee was demanded which was received by the PIO on 23/08/2012 and the information was provided on 07/09/2012 (15 days) - information has been provided in 26 days (11+15 days) which is within the time limit of 30 days - further fee need not be refunded
ORDER
Information sought:
Copy of Part-B of the TA Bills [filled by Bills Section], containing the recommendations/approval of the controlling officer/disbursing officer of your office, including copies of vouchers/tickets/bills submitted by the officials of CGIT, Bangalore for their camps at Hubli from 01/01/2009 to the date of this letter for sanction to the appropriate authority.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
The PIO has not given the information. The demand for cost of information was also not specified by the CPIO.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The appellant’s representative stated that his only grievance is that there was a delay in the supply of information and hence the fee of Rs. 620/- charged for providing photocopies should be refunded. The CPIO stated that the appellant’s RTI application dated 28/07/2012 was received on 03/08/2012 and vide letter dated 14/08/2012 they had demanded a fee of Rs. 616/- for supply of photocopies of the bills consisting 308 pages and the fee was received on 23/08/2012 and the information was supplied within the prescribed time on 07/09/2012. The appellant’s representative contended that the fee was remitted vide letter dated 16/08/2012. The CPIO stated that the fee may have been remitted vide letter dated 16/08/2012 but reiterated that the postal order was actually received by them on 23/08/2012.
Decision notice:
As per Section 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: of the RTI Act the CPIO on receipt of the RTI application shall ‘as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within 30 days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for…..’ As per Section 7(3) of the RTI Act ‘(3) Where a decision is taken to provide the information on payment of any further fee representing the cost of providing the information, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall send an intimation to the person making the request, giving— (a) the details of further fees representing the cost of providing the information as determined by him, together with the calculations made to arrive at the amount in accordance with fee prescribed under sub-section (1), requesting him to deposit that fees, and the period intervening between the dispatch of the said intimation and payment of fees shall be excluded for the purpose of calculating the period of thirty days referred to in that sub-section; As per Section 7(6) of the RTI Act ‘(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub-section (1)’. In the matter at hand it is seen that the RTI application dated 28/07/2012 was received by the CPIO on 03/08/2012 and vide letter dated 14/08/2012 (11 days) further fee of Rs 616/- was demanded for supply of 308 pages of documents. The appellant remitted the aforesaid fee vide letter dated 16/08/2012 which was received by the CPIO on 23/08/2012 and the information was provided vide letter dated 07/09/2012 (15 days). Thus, excluding the period intervening between the dispatch of the intimation demanding fee (viz. 14/08/2012) and the payment of fee (viz. 23/08/2012) the information has been provided in 26 days(11+15 days) which is within the time limit of 30 days prescribed as per Section 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: of the RTI Act. Hence, the CPIO’s contention that he has provided the information within the prescribed time cannot be faulted. The fee of Rs 616/- charged for the supply of information need not be refunded. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mrs. Jayalaxmi ICA v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court in File No. CIC/BS/A/2012/001922/4045