Professor (Dr.) R. Nath vs Public Information Officer Archeological Survey of India

Rajiv Shakdher, J.—This writ petition was filed to impugn the order of the Central Information Commission (in short the CIC) dated 26/30.11.2007. The order being short is extracted hereinbelow:

FACTS:

The complainant sought for a published copy of the documents prescribed u/s 4 of the RTI Act. Since he did not get any reply from the CPIO, he filed this complaint before this Commission. Comments were called for. In the comments, it is stated that since the nature of information sought was not dear, legal opinion was sought and as per the legal opinion, the information sought being huge and bulky in nature, the complainant be invited to inspect records and be provided the information required by him. Accordingly, the complainant has been invited to inspect the records and whichever copies of the documents he seeks, the same will be provided. It is also stated that so far the complainant has filed 9 applications and the information sought in these applications have been provided to him within the prescribed time as the information sought were specified.

DECISION:

In terms of Section 4, every public authority has to publish certain information as per that Section and every citizen is entitled to have a copy of the same. Some public authorities have published the same in the form of a booklet and most of them have exhibited the same in their websites. Therefore, there should have been no difficulty, if the information in terms of Section 4 have been compiled, to furnish the same to the appellant. However, since the appellant has been invited to inspect the records, he may do so and collect copies free of cost. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.

As is evident from the impugned order, petitioner had filed an application with the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), i.e., respondent no. 3, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short the RTI Act) seeking information which, according to the petitioner, ASI was otherwise required to publish in terms of Section 4 of the RTI Act. This application was filed on 12.04.2007. Apparently, the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the ASI did not reply to the petitioner''s application. The petitioner did not avail of the appellate remedy and, as a matter of fact, straightway approached the CIC. It appears that the PIO addressed two letters dated 22.08.2007 and 24.08.2007 to the petitioner calling upon him to collect the information from the office. In response to the same, the petitioner apparently wrote to the PIO seeking to know from him as to whether the information required u/s 4 of the RTI Act had been published or not Apparently, the PIO informed the petitioner vide communication dated 22.09.2007 that he was not authorised to run an independent website and, therefore, the information was not published.

It is in this background that the petitioner, evidently, approached the CIC, which led to the passing of the impugned order. Evidently, after the passing of the impugned order, the petitioner moved the CIC by way of a letter/application seeking amendment of its order. Obviously, there was no response to the said letter/application moved by the petitioner as there is no provision for review in the RTI Act.

Notice in this writ petition was issued on 07.07.2008. Thereafter, several hearings have been held in the matter. Today, before me, Ms. Girija Krishan Varma, who appears for the petitioner, does not dispute that information, which is required to be uploaded u/s 4 of the RTI act, has been uploaded. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that this information ought to have been available to the respondents, as soon as the RTI Act was enacted and not in 2013. It is her grievance that the petitioner is entitled to relief u/s 20 of the RTT Act.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that, as a matter of fact, ASI was maintaining a website even before the RTI Act come into force. It is the case of the learned counsel for the respondents that all 24 circles of ASI are maintaining websites which are hyperlinked with the main website of the ASI. Learned counsel for the respondents also states that, the information which is required to be made public in terms of Section 4 of the RTI Act will be uploaded and updated from time to time. She further submits that since it is an on-going process, they will also follow the mandate of Section 25 of the RTI Act.

In these circumstances the writ petition appears to have worked itself out as the respondents have taken steps in compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Since the petitioner claims relief u/s 20 of the RTI Act, the matter is remanded to the CIC to examine the same in accordance with law. I had specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether a prayer to that effect had been made before the CIC. She says that since the copy of the appeal is not filed, she would not be able to assist the court in that behalf. The CIC will examine this plea of the petitioner as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case any penalty ought to be levied u/s 20 of the RTI Act having regard to the prayer, if any, made in the appeal before it and other aspects, which are required to be examined, in terms of Section 20 of the RTI Act.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.