AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 1046
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opportunity of being heard, the appellant preferred Second Appeal before the Commission. 4. The number of RTI applications about which the RTI application was filed was 14, each with several points. The CPIO might have thought it would be a big task and difficult to provide the information which has to be collected from different sections. In fact the appellant was asking for copies of 14 RTI applications, file notings and responses to them, etc which would not be more than 14 files, which cannot divert substantial resources of the public authority. From the representations and contentions of officers of Public Authority the Commission noted a kind of confusion and stress among them as they felt difficult to find appropriate answers to the 14 applications each of which 5. The appellant being a leading lawyer and an expert RTI activist, with many appeals, RTI applications, appeals and judgments to his credit, his RTI applications sought information about staff given to Attorney General of India, file opening registers of all the administrative sections and cash sections of the department of legal affairs, implementation of pro active disclosures about foreign and domestic tour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In fact one of the reasons for this complaint is that after denying the information and getting that confirmed in first appeal, the office was inviting him to inspection, which appellant termed as wrongful intention. The Commission is of the opinion that offer of inspection by Public Information Office reflect positive response to provide access rather than malafide intention to deny the information. 8. The complainant wanted all files with notings about 14 of his RTI applications but the PIO thought he was asking copies of several documents he sought in earlier 14 RTI applications through this RTI application. The PIO has to understand that, they have to confine at present to this RTI application alone. This means only 14 files for which Section 7(9) cannot be invoked. Issues before the Commission 9. There are two issues, one: Whether First Appellate Authority's order is legal? Two: Whether appellant is entitled to information he sought, under RTI Act? 10. Both parties made their submissions. The appellant submitted that he was denied information by the respondent authority saying it would disproportionately divert resources of the public authority under Section 7(9)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the appellant. But as the concerned FAA Dr. Gita Rawat had already retired, he was not interested in remanding appeal to the present FAA. Making point by point analysis of the FAA order, the appellant submitted that it was not proper for the FAA to raise the issue of safety of the record which was not claimed by the CPIO. The appellant took serious objection to para 6 of the FAA order wherein the FAA has stated that: "Appellant may kindly note that if in future any information coming under Section 7(9) is sought by him, his request will be rejected, ab initio. Hence the appeal is rejected." 12. The appellant also took exception to the wording of para7 of the FAA order, wherein the FAA said that "The appellant may kindly note that since the proceeding has been closed, no further hearing may be conducted in this matter.", which implies that there was hearing in this case, but he was not heard. In this connection, the appellant referred to his complaint to CIC in file No. CIC/SA/C/2014/000019, which is being taken up after this appeal. He finally submitted that he does not want to inspect the files, but copies of the documents asked for may be supplied by the respondent au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the website of the respective Ministry/Departement may be started w.e.f 31.10.2014. 4. It may be noted that RTI applications and appeals recived and their responses relating to the personal informatioon of an individual may not be disclosed, if they do not serve any public inteest" 16. This order further strengthened the right to secure the information about his earlier RTI applications along with responses. The Commission appreciates the DoPT for making it an obligation of every public authority to proactively disclose RTI applications and appeals received by them and their responses on the websites and directs the Department of Legal Affairs, including First Appellate Authority to comply with the DoPT directions dated 21.10.2014 with immediate effect. 17. Section 2(j) explains right to information includes 'inspection of work, documents, records; taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; taking certified samples of material... The Commission observes: When huge information/record sought pertains to a larger period such as ten or more years, which does not attract Section 8 or 9, the best way of realization of right to information is to fac....