Appellant: joint hearing of 24 second appeals has avoided the possibility of 2000 more RTI applications - he had a premeeting with PIOs & appealed to them to respond positively - CIC appreciated the new trend in resolving information related disputes
9 May, 2014FACTS
Heard on 22.4.14. Appellant present. Public Authority is represented by none.
2. The Commission on perusal of the RTI application holds that information sought does not fall under the definition of ‘information’ as defined u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act.
3. During the hearing, the Appellant stated that by combining the hearing of twenty four second appeals on his RTI applications, he could achieve justice at least for 2000 people. All the information he sought was in public interest and by combining the appeals, the possibility of two thousand more RTI applications have been avoided. He added that after receiving the hearing notice, he met all the CPIOs of the concerned Divisions and appealed to them to respond positively and he was happy that they responded positively. This premeeting between the appellant and the respondents has facilitated most convenient conclusions in accordance with the RTI Act leading to dissemination of information needed in public interest. The Commission notes with appreciation that most of the respondent/CPIOs recorded their appreciation for the Appellant and said that he became their friend. The Appellant also profusely thanked the Respondents. The Commission observes that the Appellant has set a new trend in resolving information related disputes through coordination and friendly negotiations.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Vijay Kumar Garg v. M/o Law & Justice in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2014/000199