Brother of a deceased sought information relating to the death of his sister - PIO: Fee for photocopying charges was not provided - FAA reiterated and disposed appeal - CIC: If no proof of delivery of the demand letter, provide information free of cost
21 Sep, 2021Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information pertaining to the death of Smt. Mamta Kumari alias Mamta Singh at the Indian Air Force Station, Pathankot:
1. Provide the date and time of death of Smt. Mamta and copies of the related documents.
2. Provide the date, time and place of conducting post-mortem of Smt. Mamta. Also provide copies of the related documents.
3. Provide the date and time of reaching of the brother of Smt. Mamta, Mrityunjay Kumar Gautam at the place of death of Smt. Mamta.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant is the brother of the deceased third party and is asking for certain information relating to the event of the death of his sister. He submitted during the hearing that he had not received any reply and was not aware that he had been asked to pay Rs 16/- as photocopying charges. The CPIO submitted that vide letter dated 05.04.2019 the appellant was requested to deposit photocopying charges of Rs 16/- which he failed to deposit the same. Further, he submitted that the appellant had preferred a first appeal which was disposed of on 21.05.2019 reiterating the same reply. He further summed up stating that the instant appeal was filed without any genuine grounds.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant is the brother of the deceased third party and is asking for certain information relating to the event of the death of his sister. He submitted during the hearing that he had not received any reply and was not aware that he had been asked to pay Rs 16/- as photocopying charges. The CPIO submitted that vide letter dated 05.04.2019 the appellant was requested to deposit photocopying charges of Rs 16/- which he failed to deposit the same. Further, he submitted that the appellant had preferred a first appeal which was disposed of on 21.05.2019 reiterating the same reply. He further summed up stating that the instant appeal was filed without any genuine grounds.
The CPIO was asked to justify as to how photocopying charges was claimed in contravention of Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act to which he submitted that the RTI application was received on 05.03.2019 and accordingly a reply was sent on 05.04.2019 which is within 30 days from the date of receipt.
Observations:
The Commission observes that if the reply was not received by the appellant as stated by him during the hearing, he is entitled to receive the information free of cost. In view of the same, the CPIO should provide a revised reply to the appellant providing him the copy of the letter dated 05.04.2019 alongwith the delivery proof. In case the CPIO has no proof of the same, the documents should be sent to the appellant free of cost.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO shall send a revised reply to the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order. In case the CPIO provides the proof of delivery of the letter dated 05.04.2019, the appellant shall deposit Rs 16/- photocopying charges within the same time period to obtain the copies. Failing which, the CPIO should provide the information free of cost.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mrityunjay Kumar Gautam v. HQ Western Air Command, CJA Branch Indian Air force in File no.: CIC/IAIRF/A/2019/131483, Date of Decision: 08/07/2021