Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI Application dt.29.3.11 with the PIO, Directorate of Education, GNCTD seeking the names and numbers of teachers employed along with their pay scales and current salary drawn and date of appointment in School St.Pauls East Delhi Public School, D593, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi 110 092. In response to the PIOs letter dt.28.4.11 (Copy not enclosed but apparently vide which the PIO had returned the IPO as also the RTI application to the Applicant informing him that the IPO has not been made in the name of the correct authority and asking the Applicant to send a fresh IPO in the name of the Accounts Officer), the Applicant on 26.8.11 sent the same IPO to the PIO , however, after inserting a slash and Accounts Officer on the face of the PIO. This IPO too was returned by the PIO stating that the Finance Branch of the office had refused to accept the IPO as it was overwritten. The Applicant however instead of sending a fresh IPO apparently simply signed his name next to the entry he had made earlier which is Accounts officer and once again sent the same IPO to the PIO. Finally the Applicant filed a complained before the Commission on 21.11.11 complaining about that information hs not been provided to him despite his having made the required entries on the IPO and terming the non furnishing of information as deemed denial on the part of the PIO. Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondent related the sequence of events which led to the filing of the second appeal by the Appellant.
3. The Appellant who arrived late after the Respondent left averred that there is no provision in the RTI Act to return the RTI Application and insisted that not accepting and returning the IPO along with the RTI application must be considered as deemed denial on the part of the PIO. According to the Appellant he had sent the same IPO four times after amending the IPO each time and that each time the IPO was returned to him. Hence he insisted that penalty be imposed upon the PIO.
4. On careful consideration of the facts of the case, the Commission finds it pertinent to bring to the notice of the Appellant Rule 3 of the Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules which reads as given below: (3) A request for obtaining information under subsection (1) of section 6 shall be accompanied by an application fee of Rs. Ten by way of cash against proper receipt or by demand draft or bankers cheque (or Indian Postal Order) payable to the Accounts Officer of the Public Authority.
5. It is evident from the above that an RTI application is to be accepted by the PIO only if the RTI fees is paid (unless the Applicant belongs to the BPL category) and that the PIO therefore has not violated the provisions of the RTI Act when he demanded that the IPO be made in the name of the Accounts Officer, (unless decided otherwise by the Public Authority) while returning the RTI application. The Appellants insistence that returning the RTI application be considered as deemed denial, has no merit, according to the Commission, since the RTI application is not to be considered in the absence of the RTI fees.
6. The Appellant during the hearing argued that the IPO with the different entries on it at different stages, by him, including his signature , ought to have been accepted by the PIO, since such alterations are acceptable. The Commission however, while relying upon the information available on the website of the India Postal Department holds that the payment by IPO may be refused if :
a)IPO contains erasure or alteration
b)is cut, defaced or mutilated
c)is not signed or datestamped by the Post master of the Post Office of issue. And accordingly once again holds that the Finance officer of the Public Authority has not violated the RTI Act by refusing to accept the altered IPO.
7. Be that as it may, since the supply of information has already been delayed and since the Appellant has already paid the fee of Rs.10/ albeit in favour of the wrong authority, the Commission directs the PIO to provide the information to the Appellant without waiting for the RTI fees, by end March, 2012.
8. The appeal is disposed off with the above direction. (Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar
1. Shri. Kamal Krishan Sharma Advocate Lib No.1 Supreme Court of India Tilak Marg New Delhi 110 001
2. The Public Information Officer Directorate of Education O/o Asst. Director of Education (ACT) Headquarters Govt. of NCT of Delhi Old Secretariat Delhi
3. Officer in charge, NIC Note: In case, the Commissions above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTIAct, giving (1) copy of RTIapplication, (2) copy of the Commissions decision, and (3) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.