The Central Information Commission (CIC) has taken a strong view by issuing show-cause notice to a public-authority for refusing to accept copying-charges under Right to Information (RTI) Act paid through postal-order.
The CIC has warned that declining accepting payments made in name of “Accounts Officer” will be taken as declining to provide information.
According to RTI activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal, this was happening despite Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)-circular-number F.10/9/2008-IR dated 05.12.2008 clearly mentioning that all payments under RTI Act will be accepted only in name of “Accounts Officer”.
Mr. Agrawal has revealed that in a matter he had successfully appealed before the CIC, what was more disturbing aspect was that not only PIO declined accepting payment made in name of “Accounts Officer”, even the First Appellate Authority(FAA) did not provide relief despite a copy of the said DoPT circular been sent to both PIO and FAA.
He said that DoPT has repeatedly reminded public-authorities to accept all payments under RTI Act made in “Accounts Officer”. But since difficulties were being faced by RTI petitioners because of public-authorities not complying with DoPT circulars, Department of Posts had accepted recommendations of full-bench CIC-verdict for issuing RTI stamps also to save huge handling cost of postal-orders which according to fiscal-year 2011-12 was Rs. 37.45.
But authorities at security printing-presses at Hyderabad and Nasik expressed inability to print RTI stamps because of shortage of paper, as he was informed in one of his recent RTI application In the instant case, an order passed on November 3, in an appeal filed by Mr. Agrawal, Information Commissioner M. Shridhar Acharyulu, New Delhi has issued a show cause notice returnable in three weeks to Mr. Rajesh Singh, Executive Engineer C.D. IV, AAP of Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Delhi asking why penalty u/s 20 of RTI Act should not be imposed on him for not accepting IPO in the name of Accounts Officer, despite clear instructions of DoPT.
The Commission further directed the then PIO (as on 12.8.13 to 19.11.13) to show cause as to why penalty u/s 20 should not be imposed on him for not responding to the RTI application within the mandatory time period, with directions to submit his written explanation to the Commission within three weeks.
In what is seen as yet another RTI user-friendly directions, the Commission has further directed the PIO to ensure that while responding to the RTI application, the PIO should ensure that reference date is mentioned so that appellants do not find it difficult to link it to their RTI application.
