Commission orders document access and disclosure, emphasizing RTI rights. Compliance and transparency requirements in effect.

The Commission directed that the appellant be allowed to take copies of documents within two weeks of the order, emphasizing that the RTI Act permits both inspection and obtaining copies. Additionally, the Commission instructed the disclosure of comments from third-parties under Section 11(1) to the appellant within one week, highlighting the necessity of providing reasons for decisions and ensuring transparency. Compliance with the directives was mandated, with parties to receive a copy of the order for reference.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of copies of documents after inspection under RTI Act.
2. Providing copies of comments received from third-parties under Section 11(1) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant raised concerns regarding denial of copies of documents after inspection on 5-5-2009, as the respondents stated that a fresh RTI application was required for copies. The Commission found this position untenable, emphasizing that the RTI Act allows for inspection, taking notes, and obtaining copies of records. The Commission highlighted that these actions are not mutually exclusive, and applicants can be authorized to inspect and take copies in the same petition. Therefore, the Commission directed that the appellant should be allowed to take copies of the documents within two weeks of the order, upon payment of the requisite fees under the RTI Act.

2. The appellant also requested copies of comments received from third-parties under Section 11(1) of the Act. The respondents argued that there was no mandate to provide copies of references made to third-parties and their responses. The Commission noted that while Section 11(1) focuses on consulting third-parties confidentially, it emphasized the need for reasons to be furnished for denial of information under various sections, including Section 11(1). The Commission highlighted that decision-making under Section 11(1) should be supported by reasons, and both the appellant and third-party should be informed of the decision and the grounds for it. The Commission clarified that disclosure of third-party submissions to the CPIO is the norm, except in cases where it may harm or injure the third-party. Consequently, the Commission directed the disclosure of the requested information to the appellant within one week of the order.

In conclusion, the Commission disposed of the appeal by providing directions for allowing the appellant to take copies of documents inspected and disclosing the requested information from third-parties under Section 11(1). The Commission emphasized the importance of providing reasons for decisions under the RTI Act and ensuring transparency in the disclosure process. The parties were instructed to comply with the directions, and a copy of the order was to be sent to them for reference.

---