Point-wise RTI disclosure and page references are required; mere file inspection does not satisfy the duty to furnish information.

An RTI response must provide specific, point-wise information with clear page references where documents are supplied; an undifferentiated bundle of papers is insufficient. The Commission treated the earlier disclosure as inadequate and directed proper point-wise furnishing of information to the requester. It also held that merely inviting inspection of the file does not discharge the statutory duty to supply information. On finding that the former CPIO acted in a casual and disinterested manner, the Commission held the default established and imposed penalty under the RTI Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the information earlier supplied under the Right to Information Act was inadequate and required specific point-wise disclosure with page references; (ii) Whether the former CPIO had failed to discharge the statutory obligation to provide information, attracting penalty under the RTI Act.

Issue (i): Whether the information earlier supplied under the Right to Information Act was inadequate and required specific point-wise disclosure with page references.

Analysis: The information initially supplied was held to be unspecific and insufficient. The Commission directed the current CPIO to furnish point-wise information and to indicate the page numbers of the documents corresponding to each query, rather than supplying an undifferentiated bundle of papers.

Conclusion: The information had not been properly supplied, and specific point-wise disclosure was directed in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the former CPIO had failed to discharge the statutory obligation to provide information, attracting penalty under the RTI Act.

Analysis: The Commission found that the former CPIO had dealt with the request in a casual and disinterested manner. Mere invitation to inspect the file was held not to be a substitute for the obligation to provide the requested information under the Act. On that basis, the statutory default was treated as established.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was imposed on the former CPIO.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained a direction for proper disclosure, and the defaulting officer was subjected to monetary penalty for failure to comply with the information obligation.

Ratio Decidendi: A public authority must provide specific information in response to an RTI request, and a mere offer of file inspection does not satisfy the statutory duty to furnish information; persistent failure may attract penalty.

---