Commission orders document access and third-party disclosure timelines, emphasizing transparency and reasons for decisions.

The Commission directed the authorities to allow the appellant to take copies of the documents he inspected within two weeks, upon payment of the requisite fee. It also ordered the disclosure of third-party comments to the appellant within one week, emphasizing the need for reasons for decisions and the norm of disclosure unless it harms the third-party's interests. The Commission highlighted guidelines for handling third-party submissions, stating that disclosure is the standard practice.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the denial of copies of documents to the appellant by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority, and the refusal to provide copies of comments received from third-parties under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.

Denial of Copies of Documents:
The appellant stated that he was denied copies of documents he had inspected, with the authorities claiming that a fresh RTI application was needed 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 directed that the appellant should be allowed to take copies of the documents he inspected within two weeks, upon payment of the requisite fee.

Request for Third-Party Comments:
The appellant also requested copies of comments received from third-parties under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act. The respondents argued that there was no obligation to provide such copies. The Commission noted that while Section 11(1) focuses on consulting third-parties confidentially, the Act requires reasons for denial of information under various sections, including Section 11(1). The Commission highlighted the importance of providing reasons for decisions and directed that the requested information, including third-party comments, be disclosed to the appellant within one week.

Disclosure of Third-Party Averments:
The Commission discussed the disclosure of third-party submissions to the CPIO under Section 11, stating that disclosure is the norm unless it jeopardizes the third-party's interests. The Commission outlined guidelines for handling third-party submissions, emphasizing the need for reasons for decisions and the disclosure of such submissions to the appellant unless they cause harm or injury to the third-party. In this case, the Commission directed that the third-party comments should be disclosed to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Commission disposed of the appeal with directions for providing copies of documents to the appellant and disclosing third-party comments within specified timelines. The parties were instructed to receive copies of the directions.

---