2007 (3) TMI 749 - Commission - Indian Laws

CIC directs CPIO on RTI compliance and order-making functions

Shri R.L. Kain Versus Ministry of Defence

The Central Information Commission (CIC) addressed a case involving an appellant seeking information on actions taken regarding the garlanding of Dr. ... - Issues:1. Request for information on actions taken by authorities regarding garlanding of Dr. Ambedkar's statue.2. Appellant's dissatisfaction with CPIO's response and subsequent appeal to Appellate Authority.3. Concern regarding non-maintenance of records by Public Authority under RTI Act.4. Direction to provide government order on retention schedule of records and relevant register.5. Difficulty faced by RTI applicants in submitting applications and fees to CPIOs in Defence Ministry.6. First Appellate Authority delegating order-making function to CPIO.Analysis:1. The Appellant had sought information on actions taken by authorities regarding the garlanding of Dr. Ambedkar's statue. The CPIO initially requested copies of the Appellant's applications, later providing comments and clarifications. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed to the first Appellate Authority, who upheld the CPIO's decision, leading to a second appeal to the Central Information Commission (CIC).2. During the hearing, the Appellant highlighted the Public Authority's failure to maintain records as required by the RTI Act. The Respondent explained the difficulty in locating old documents and mentioned the weeding out of records following retention schedules. The CIC directed the CPIO to provide the Appellant with the government order on record retention and relevant register, along with file notings related to a specific application.3. The CIC addressed the issue of RTI applicants facing challenges in submitting applications and fees to CPIOs in the Defence Ministry. The Ministry assured improvements in receiving applications efficiently. The CIC emphasized the importance of the Ministry being sensitive to citizens' needs and enhancing infrastructure for easier application submission.4. Notably, the CIC observed that the first Appellate Authority had delegated the order-making function to the CPIO, which was deemed impermissible. The CIC clarified that the Appellate Authority must personally hear appeals, provide an opportunity for the Appellant's input, and issue orders independently. Delegating such responsibilities was considered incorrect.5. Ultimately, with specific directions and observations, the CIC disposed of the appeal, emphasizing the need for compliance with RTI procedures and proper handling of appeals. The CIC also mandated providing copies of the order to the involved parties free of cost, ensuring transparency and accessibility in the process.