TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>RTI fee payment procedures upheld in case setting aside rejection, ensuring timely provision of information</h1> <h3>RK. JAIN Versus CPIO, DEPUTY COMMR. OF CUS., JNCH, NHAVA SHEVA</h3> RK. JAIN Versus CPIO, DEPUTY COMMR. OF CUS., JNCH, NHAVA SHEVA - 2013 (294) E.L.T. 396 (R.T.I.) Issues:- Rejection of RTI application due to non-payment of fee- Contention regarding confusion in payment instructions- Allegation of delaying tactics by CPIO- Failure to provide information sought under RTI ActAnalysis:The case involved the rejection of an RTI application due to non-payment of the required fee. The appellant sought information related to note sheets but was informed that the postal order submitted was not payable to anyone, leading to the rejection of the application. The appellant argued that the postal order was valid and that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) should have filled in the payee's name as requested. Additionally, confusion arose regarding the correct payee name as per RTI Rules, with differing instructions provided by the CIC and the CPIO.The appellant further alleged that the CPIO deliberately delayed processing the application beyond the stipulated time frame, violating the RTI Act's provisions. The appellant emphasized the social welfare aspect of the RTI Act, highlighting the CPIO's obligation to assist applicants in fulfilling requirements like fee payment. The appellant also contended that the information requested was not voluminous and should have been provided promptly.During the hearing, the appellant did not appear but requested a decision based on the available record. The Appellate Authority reviewed the case, noting the CPIO's rejection based on fee non-payment. The Authority found the CPIO's decision incorrect, especially considering the CIC's previous advice to fill in postal orders for clarity. The Authority set aside the CPIO's order, directing the CPIO to provide the requested information within thirty days upon receipt of the order. The appellant was instructed to resubmit the returned postal order for processing.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to RTI fee payment procedures, the obligation to assist applicants, and the need for timely provision of information under the RTI Act. The decision aimed to rectify the CPIO's error and ensure the appellant's right to access the requested information was upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
