Appellant had deposited Rs. 20/- which was not adjusted against photocopy charges and instead he was asked to deposit an additional Rs. 8/- – CIC: if additional Rs. 20/- were deposited apart from application fee of Rs. 10/–, it is to be refunded

Appellant had deposited an amount of Rs. 20/– by IPO which was not adjusted against photocopy charges and instead he was asked to deposit an additional Rs. 8/– which was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act – CIC: PA should ensure that receipts for payments are issued on the same day, in case the appellant has deposited Rs. 20/– in addition to the prescribed fee of Rs. 10/– along with his RTI application then this amount of Rs. 20/– to be refunded to the appellant

ORDER

Facts:

1. Appellant submitted RTI application dated 5 October 2012 before the CPIO, Office of District Commandant Home Guards, UT Chandigarh seeking details regarding the issuance of Order No. 202631DSHG/ CI/F43/2012 dated 28/9/2012 regarding discharge of Appellant’s duties.

2. CPIO vide order dated 8 November 2012, informed the Appellant that complete information has been already been provided to him vide letter dated 22/10/2012.

3. Appellant preferred first Appeal dated 5 December 2012 to the First Appellate Authority.

4. Vide Order dated 29 September 2012, FAA upheld the CPIO’s Order.

5. Being aggrieved and not being satisfied by the above response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.

6. Matter was heard today. Respondent and appellant as above appeared via videoconferencing at Chandigarh and Sonepat and made submissions. CPIO submitted that information as sought by the appellant had already been furnished to him and that he had also inspected the file pertaining to the subject matter of the RTI application. Appellant stated that he had deposited Rs. 10/– as additional fees for obtaining the photocopies of the requested documents but that he had only been provided with a receipt for Rs. 8/– and that also on the next day thereby causing him inconvenience and financial loss on account of having to travel to the office of the public authority for a second time. It was also stated by the appellant that he had, in addition to the RTI fees of Rs. 10/– (which was deposited by IPO), also deposited an amount of Rs. 20/– by IPO which was not adjusted against photocopy charges and instead he was asked to deposit an additional Rs. 8/– which was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act.

Decision notice

7. After hearing both parties Commission directs the CPIO to provide one opportunity of inspection of the file pertaining to the dismissal of the appellant, to him within two weeks of receipt of the order at a mutually convenient date and time. Further, Commission directs that the public authority namely the office of the District Commandment, Home Guards, Headquarters, Chandigarh ensure that receipts for payments made under the RTI Act are issued on the same day and for the full amount of deposit. Further, in case the appellant has deposited Rs. 20/– in addition to the prescribed fee of Rs. 10/– along with his RTI application then this amount of Rs. 20/– will be refunded to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of the order.

(Smt. Deepak Sandhu)

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Shri Om v. Distt Commandant, Home Guards in Appeal: No. CIC/DS/A/2013/000600