Facts
The Appellant filed an RTI Application on 8th January 2018 asking the CPIO to provide a copy of the N.C.A.E.R about a Research Institution registered under Special Registration Act submitted in 1986, provide a true copy of N.C.A.E.R about payment of Customs duties on import, provide a true copy of N.C.A.E.R being a Research Institution and will not involve in any commercial activity that provides any kind of monetary gain for providing computers facilities to outsiders.
The Appellant files a second RTI Application on 8th February 2018 seeking information about which department the N.C.A.E.R comes under, the cost of N.C.A.E.R land, for how many years the land had been taken on lease and the certified copy of the lease, and the purpose of N.C.A.E.R to provide the details on the work done in the interest of the country.
The CPIO didn’t respond within 30 days. So, the Appellant filed for an FAA on 13-03-2018, 05-03-2018 & 13-02-2018 which were not disposed of by the first appellate authority.
The Appellant filed a second appeal under SECTION 19(3) of the RTI Act asking the Commission to take action against the CPIO under SECTION 20 of the RTI Act.
Arguments Advanced
Both the Appellant and the Respondent attended the hearing through audio conferencing. The Appellant had initially stated that he hadn’t received any information from the CPIO. However, on inspection, the Appellant had admitted that he did receive some of the information. During the hearing, the Appellant had asked for the written submissions made by the Respondent.
The Respondent stated that they had provided all the necessary information to the Appellant. The Respondent further added that they had even taken photocopies of the documents. Hence, the CPIO stated that it had performed its task given to it under the RTI Act 2005.
Court Observations
The Commission referred to SECTION 19 (3) and SECTION 20 of the RTI Act 2005 to understand whether any legal action needs to be taken against the CPIO.
Decision
The Commission stated that upon inspection, the necessary information had already been provided to the Appellant. Hence, no extra information needs to be provided by the CPIO. However, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of its written submission within 15 days. Hence, this appeal has been dismissed.
Click here to read the judgement.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also 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.
