Introduction
Saroj Punhani, Information Commissioner will decide the second appeal filed by the Appellant.
Facts
The Appellant filed an RTI Application on 17th May 2019. In the application, the Appellant asked for attested copies of her evaluated answer booklets for Roll no. 2640469. The CPIO replied to the application on 22nd May 2019. The Appellant was dissatisfied with the CPIO’s response. So, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27th May 2019. The FAA’s order is not available on record. This further disappointed the Appellant due to which she filed for a Second Appeal on 17th June 2019.
Arguments Advanced
The Appellant along with her father was present through video conference. Lily Kumudini Tirley, Assistant Secretary & CPIO represented the Respondents side. The Respondents were present through the audio conference.
The Appellant stated that she needed to know why there had been a delay in providing her with her attested answer sheets under the clause of Life and Liberty of the RTI Act. The Appellant stated that she had to sacrifice an opportunity to study at the prestigious Delhi University because of her desire to want more marks. She also stated that whenever she tried to contact the CPIO, they wouldn’t listen to any of her requests. According to the Appellant, the CPIO would tell her that there is a 30-day time period for responding to the RTI Application and there is still time left.
The Respondent stated that the first time the Appellant filed an RTI Application she didn’t pay the fees for the same. The Respondents further added that the freedom of the Appellant to seek information wasn’t denied as CBSE allows a 3–5-day window for students to apply for revaluation of answer sheets and copy of answer sheets.
The Appellant stated that the cost for revaluation/ copy of a paper is rupees 1000 and the cost for a copy/ revaluation of an answer is rupees 500.
The Respondent rebutted this statement made by the Appellant and said that the revaluation/copy of an answer sheet is rupees 500 and the revaluation/copy of an answer is rupees 100.
Court Observation
The Commission used the clause of Life and Liberty under the RTI Act. It also referred to the case of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr wherein it was judged that the expression information held by public authority does not include information that the public authority has shared to the general public. Section 4 (1) (a) of the RTI Act also states the alternate recourses to get the required information. Section 20 of the RTI Act was also used to understand the actions that need to be taken against a public authority if it fails to provide the relevant information within a specific time limit.
Decision
The Commission stated that a scanned copy of the marks card needs to be provided by the CPIO to the Appellant. The Commission also stated that the CPIO needs to provide a proper explanation as to why it didn’t provide the necessary information within the 30-day time limit. The CPIO must provide this explanation along with necessary documents within 30 days of this order.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
