Causing inordinate delays in providing information requested for under the RTI Act due to one reason or the other, even if not purely intentionally but largely because of not being fully acquainted with the Act, is tantamount to its violation which in simpler words means disregarding the powers of the Parliament which made the Act. The said Act, needless to add, is made to empower the citizens of the country to know what they desired as regards specific information requested for related to public institutions and Government authorities except in respect of such information which is purely personal having no relation with public activity , Bank information, classified and security related information and information in respect of private citizens and the like. If a particular information is caused to be denied to an applicant simply because of the belief that certified copies of the relevant information as requested could not be dispensed with as it was not provided for under the said Act is not justified. In a case where such information was sought in respect of the documents of the land acquired for the purposes of Industrial Growth Centre SIDCO Phase 2 in Samba district, such wrong interpretation of the Act caused delay which has been viewed seriously by the Chief Information Commissioner. In fact, in simple parlance and in ordinary course, any information provided is presumed to be factual and strictly according to the available information and records. What problem, therefore, should be there, as such, in certifying the same to be true and issuing the information as requested by an applicant. The Act not only provides enough powers to a citizen to visit the concerned department / office and inspect the particular document and get the information but even the duly certified copies thereof too obtained. Further stipulation and which is the core of the entire gamut of the Act is issuing the information ”within 30 days” and that is what the CIC has reiterated and even gone to the extent of directing the concerned UT authorities comprising Assistant Commissioner Revenue, four Block Development Officers and a Chief Medical Officer to stick to timelines. It seems that an approach right from the beginning in the instant case has been not strictly as per the provisions of the Act even when after being dissatisfied with the response received in respect of negation of “certified copies”, the applicant filed the first appeal which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority making things complicated. It was only after filing second appeal, the applicant received the information which was brought into the notice of the Commission. In this connection, the CIC, therefore, has desired that the timelines be strictly adhered to in future which is 30 days from the date of receipt of the application. Time limits in respect of transfer by Public Information Officer (PIO) to another Public Authority (PA) is 5 days and issuing notice to third party by the PIO is again 5 days from the date of the receipt of the application. Time limits are, again, of special significance in the Act as delays would not otherwise be caused but defining what a delay meant in extent and limit which therefore makes it obligatory on the PIO to arrange the desired information to the applicant to adhere to timelines and not cause an applicant to feel aggrieved and thus impinging upon its exercising the right to know. It is an admitted fact that since lot of discretionary powers are vested in and exercised by public authorities , the same could be abused at times which needed not only to be discouraged but an element of accountability and responsibility established. Records, decisions, orders, execution of directions etc are becoming part and parcel of such public institutions as records which an ordinary citizen is empowered under the RTI Act to know. That way it can be seen as a major step towards citizen – Government participation
Follow our WhatsApp channel
