Appellant had not paid the fee of Rs. 10/- with the RTI application - CIC: 15 days granted to the appellant to deposit the mandatory fees; If the Appellant pays, the Respondent shall grant inspection of the relevant volume or portion of the file to him

Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2021 seeking that date and time be fixed for inspection of the file no. 45(1)/2002-CWC (ASI).

The CPIO, Central Waqf Council vide letter dated 30.12.2021 replied to the Appellant by stating as under:-

“You may visit in the working hours of the office on working day with a proof of citizenship of India and inspection may be allowed subject to payment of fee in terms of RTI Act and Rules.”

On visiting the office of the Respondent on 31.12.2001 and 05.01.2022, since he was not granted inspection of the file, the aggrieved Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.01.2022. The FAA vide order dated 13.01.2022 held as under:-

“On 31st of December, 2021 despite there were vital works in office, the appellant was called with proof of citizenship and willingness to pay the fee in terms of rules. After the persuasion efforts the appellant showed his election I-card at 2:30 PM. He was asked to specify the purpose of information or the date of events etc. so that a staff of clerical level is managed to be spared for that purpose but he did not turn up. The file number 45(1)/2002-CWC (ASI) is pertaining to the activities which have direct bearing with the economic interest of ASI and Waqf Board (sovereign interest of Government). Therefore their objection is also mandated in view of section 8 of the RTI Act.

This appeal has no merit and premature filed before expiry of 30 days period as specified under RTI Act.”

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Shri Inam-ur-Rehman – CPIO/Accounts Officer and Shri Md. Afzalul Haque- ALO represented the Respondent while the Appellant was not present during the hearing.

The Respondent submitted a written submission during the course of hearing and contended therefrom that the Appellant had not paid the fee of Rs. 10/- either with the RTI application or thereafter. Moreover, it was stated by the Respondent that the specific file sought by the Appellant runs into numerous pages and multiple volumes, hence the Appellant was requested to specify the volume or period of the file no. 45(1)/2002-CWC (ASI) was sought by the Appellant. Due to the failure on the part of the Appellant to either deposit the fee or specify the information sought, his query could not be appropriately addressed.

Decision

Considering the fact that the written submission filed by the Respondent during the course of hearing has not been and the Appellant is not present for the hearing, the Respondent is hereby directed to send him a copy of the same with the relevant supporting documents through speed post, within two weeks of receipt of this order.

Considering the fact that the written submission filed by the Respondent during the course of hearing has not been and the Appellant is not present for the hearing, the Respondent is hereby directed to send him a copy of the same with the relevant supporting documents through speed post, within two weeks of receipt of this order.

In the light of the aforementioned contention submitted by the Respondent, the Appellant is granted opportunity of fifteen days, to deposit the mandatory fees of Rs. 10/- through DD or IPO, as per provisions of the RTI Act before the Respondent and also clearly earmark the volume and period of the file no. 45(1)/2002-CWC (ASI) sought by him. In the event that the Appellant fulfils the aforementioned requirements, the Respondent shall within fifteen days thereafter, grant inspection of the relevant volume or portion of the file no. of the file no. 45(1)/2002-CWC (ASI) to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act. The Respondent shall exercise due caution to redact information which is barred from disclosure under provisions of the Section 8 of the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off with the above observations.

Heeralal Samariya

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Advocate Prashant Chauhan v. Central Waqf Council, CIC/CWCNC/A/2022/604584; Date of Decision: 04.12.2023