RTI application seeking details of casual newsreaders & comparers who are not voters of Churu municipality was returned claiming it lacked proper IPO - FAA: submit a fresh RTI application with proper RTI fees - CIC: provide info; show cause for penalty

Details of casual newsreaders and comparers who are not voters of Churu municipality alongwith the details of officers who are contracting them - the RTI application was returned claiming that it was not accompanied with proper IPO - FAA advised the appellant to submit a fresh RTI application with proper RTI fees - CIC: provide information; show cause for contravening timeline

O R D E R

RTI application

1. The appellant filed an RTI application with the PIO on 10.12.2012 seeking details of casual newsreaders and comparers who are not voters of Churu municipality as also the details of officers who are contracting them. In all, information was sought on 3 points. The CPIO returned the RTI application on 14.12.2012 for want of appropriate RTI fees.

2. Not satisfied with the reply of PIO, the appellant filed his first appeal on 31.12.2012 with the first appellate authority (FAA). The FAA upheld the reply of CPIO on 30.1.2013 and advised the appellant to send fresh RTI application with fresh IPOs. The appellant approached the Commission on 21.3.2013 in second appeal.

Hearing

3. The appellant, accompanied with his son, and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.

4. The appellant referred to his RTI application of 10.12.2012 and stated that he had sought information on the following points:

a) The names of casual announcers and comparers along with the dates of their first broadcasting assignment;

b) Names of the officers who allotted these assignments;

c) Copy of the orders of higher authorities in this regard; and

d) Name of the appellate authority.

5. The appellant stated that instead of providing information on the above points, the respondent returned his RTI application on some flimsy grounds.

6. The respondent stated that the RTI application was returned to the appellant on 14.12.2012, as it was not accompanied with proper IPO and the FAA advised the appellant on 30.1.2013 in reply to his first appeal to submit a fresh RTI application with proper RTI fees. The respondent stated that they do not intend to withhold any information from the appellant.

Decision

7. The respondent is directed to

(a) provide to the appellant information on the four points mentioned in para 4 above;

(b) show cause why action should not be taken against the respondent for contravening the timelines of the RTI Act; and

(c) comply with the above within 30 days of this order.

The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to both the parties.

(Vijai Sharma)

Information Commission

Citation: Shri Pramod Kumar Bhardwaj v. Prasar Bharati in Decision No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000533/VS/05960