Refund of fee charged for unsolicited information
The appellant sought certain information regarding a permission letter for removal of wood after pruning. He was provided certain information after charging a fee of Rs. 10/-. The appellant filed an appeal with the First Appellate Authority complaining that the PIO has furnished incomplete information and the fee of Rs. 10/ charged by the PIO for supplying the documents should be refunded since the documents provided against the said amount were irrelevant and not asked for. The FAA held that there does not appear to be convincing reason for refund of the deposited amount and directed the Deputy Conservator of Forest (West) to provide certain additional information. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commission against the disallowance of refund.
View of the CIC
The Appellant submitted that he had requested only for a copy of application submitted by someone to the public authority, but the PIO has unnecessarily provided with three more applications submitted by some other individuals and had collected excess amount of Rs. 8/- from him. He also claimed that the PIO has incorrectly provided him a copy of the permission letter for pruning of trees, while he had sought the permission letter for removal of wood after pruning was completed. The Commission found merit in the appellant’s contention that 4 pages of information supplied to him by the PIO was irrelevant and unsolicited and directed the PIO to refund the amount of Rs. 8/- to the appellant. The PIO was also warned to be careful in future while responding to RTI applications.
It is the duty of the PIO to ensure that only correct and solicited information goes to an applicant.
Citation: Shri Narain Singh v. Department of Forests & Wildlife in File No. CIC/AD/A/2011/002596
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/40
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission