2018 (5) TMI 524 – CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION – 2018 (15) G. S. T. L. 694 (CIC) – Non-disclosure of information – The Complainant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information had not been provided to him – Held that: – The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms.
–
The Commission directs the Respondent to furnish the broad details of income and expenditure to the Complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
–
Complaint disposed off. – CIC/MOFIN/C/2017/311791/CCEDL-BJ Dated:- 23-4-2018 – Bimal Julka Information Commissioner ORDER FACTS: The Complainant vide his RTI ap
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
uested to inspect the documents on the given date and time. Subsequently, vide his letter dated 28.10.2016, he had informed the Respondent that being a senior citizen, he expressed his inability to inspect the document and surrendered his requirement for information on points (E) to (I). In support of his claim he referred to the decision of the CIC dated 15.12.2009 conveying his right to surrender for inspection of records being inconvenient and expensive. In its response the Respondent submitted that a point-wise reply had been given by them to the Complainant. It was stated that the Complainant did not inspect the documents despite several requests to do the same. Furthermore, it was argued that voluminous data was involved and it was not cost effective to disclose the information. The data sought was for almost two and a half years which was voluminous and contained very minor details of the logistics and infrastructural support which was not feasible to be provided. During the hea
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ious judgments as under: Rakesh Saraf Vs. Director General of Systems and Data Management- Appeal no. CIC/SS/A/2011/901105, Sayyed Education Society Vs. State of Maharashtra W.P.1305/2011 dated 12.02.2014 (Bombay High Court), Dy. Commissioner of Our Archive Vs. State Chief Information Commissioner W.P. No. 20372/2009 dated 07.01.2010, Brig. Davinder Singh Grewal Vs. Police Department UT Chandigarh File No. CIC/DS/A/2011/003080 dated 07.08.2012, R. K. Jain Vs. D/o Revenue File No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000652 dated 16.09.2009, Munish Kumar Vs. Indian Medicines Pharma Corporation Ltd. File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002478 dated 02.01.2013 etc. The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms.
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ection 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information. Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under: 8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 had held as under: The ideal of Government by the people makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for open governance which is a foundation of democracy. DECISION: Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to furnish the broad details of income and expenditure to the Complainant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Respondent Authority is also advised to suo-motu disclose all information relating to broad details of the income and expenditures, audited statements
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =