CIC/SA/C/2014/000265, CIC/SA/C/2014/000278, CIC/SA/C/2014/000279, CIC/SA/C/2014/000288 and CIC/SA/C/2014/000289. Case: Abhinav Sharma and Ors. Vs National Green Tribunal. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | CIC/SA/C/2014/000265, CIC/SA/C/2014/000278, CIC/SA/C/2014/000279, CIC/SA/C/2014/000288 and CIC/SA/C/2014/000289 |
| Judges | Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner |
| Issue | Right To Information Act, 2005 - Sections 20, 25, 6(3), 7(9) |
| Judgement Date | January 28, 2015 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
|
Decision: Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner 1. Heard on 08-01-2015. Complainants not present. Respondent is represented by Ms. Jaya Goyal and Shri Chetan Chawla. 2. The complainants had filled RTI application on various dates which was replied by the CPIO. All the applications are same prints from same file but filed by different persons and registered separately. The information sought and the reply provided in all cases are given below: Questioning this kind of denial by CPIO the applicants made this complaint before the Commission. 3. During the hearing, the Respondent CPIO and Standing Counsel Ms. Jaya Goyal submitted that information sought is not available in the format it is asked. She added that there are three benches in Delhi and five all over the country and all the judgments are available in the website of NGT. She added that it can be accessed by everyone. 4. The PIO made contradictory claims in his response. While saying that the information asked for is not maintained in their authority, the PIO suggested the appellants to have inspection of relevant files in the concerned Zonal Benches. 5. The Standing Counsel claimed that PIO has to scan each and every page to cull out the information requested which would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority and invoked the Section 7(9) of RTI Act, saying it is the duty of the research scholars and not the duty of the PIO. 6. Section 7(9) of the Act is reproduced below: An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question. 7. A cursory glance of the above section clearly shows that information has to be supplied in whatever form it is maintained by the public authority and in this case, CPIO has stated that data is maintained as per their Registration number, year of registration, Institution, Pendency and Disposal. Even assuming that information sought is not maintained in the way it has been sought, nothing prevented the CPIO in disclosing the information in the way it has been maintained by the Public Authority at least at the Principal Bench of NGT or inviting the Complainants to inspect the records and supply the documents identified by them after inspection. 8. Transfer of RTI Application to other Zonal Tribunals Section 6(3) of the... |
To continue reading
Request your trial