RTI violation: Commission orders disclosure, emphasizes transparency

The Central Information Commission found that the respondents violated the RTI Act by failing to provide information in response to an RTI application and not disposing of the First Appeal. The Commission noted procedural irregularities and non-compliance with the Act by the respondents. Consequently, the Commission allowed the appellant's second appeal, directing the respondents to provide complete information within 30 days. Emphasizing compliance with the RTI Act, the Commission highlighted the importance of transparency and accountability in providing information to citizens, ensuring timely disclosure under its supervision.

---

---

Issues:
Failure to provide information in response to RTI application, non-disposal of First Appeal by FAA, violation of RTI Act 2005 and service rules by CBEC.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information on specific issues, but the respondents failed to provide any response. The appellant then filed a First Appeal (FA) which could not be disposed of by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) for unknown reasons, leading to a second appeal before the Central Information Commission.

2. During the hearing, the Commission questioned the respondent about the information provided to the appellant and the status of the FA filed by the appellant. The respondent could not provide satisfactory answers, indicating a lack of compliance with the RTI Act and procedural irregularities within the CBEC.

3. The Commission observed that the respondents deliberately deprived the appellant of the benefits of the RTI Act for over five months, defeating the purpose of the legislation. It was noted that the respondents failed to provide the required information, leading the Commission to allow the appellant's second appeal in its entirety instead of remanding it back to the FAA, which would further delay the process.

4. Consequently, the Commission directed the respondents to provide the complete information, issue-wise, to the appellant within 30 days in accordance with the RTI Act 2005. The Commission emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of the Act and indicated that Section 5(4) of the RTI Act could be invoked if necessary to ensure timely and complete disclosure of information.

5. The judgment highlighted the non-compliance of the respondents with the RTI Act and service rules, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in providing information to citizens. The appeal was disposed of with a clear directive to the respondents to fulfill their obligations under the RTI Act within the specified timeline, under the supervision of the Commission.

---