Pradip Pradhan |
| News | Posted By: hindtodaynews on:6/5/2008 10:55:04 PM |
Dear friends
There is a discussion going in the state whether the BPL people will be provided information free of cost. AS per section 7(5) of the RTI Act, BPL people are debarred from paying any fee for information. The spirit of the Act is that as the people are poor and living below poverty line, they may not be able to pay the fees for information.
But Orissa Information Commission wrongly quoting Orissa RTI Rules has been directing the BPL people to pay the fees for information through their decisions. In the meantime, RTI Activists of the state are at loggerheads with Orissa Information Commission for these wrongful decisions. In this context, Ido attach herewith the historic decision of Central Information Commission where it has directed the public authority not to collect fee from BPL people. I think the Orissa information Commission and few persons supporting this dangerous move of the commission should learn from the decision of CIC and rectify themselves.
Thanks
Pradip Pradhan
State Convener
Right to food campaign, Orissa
M-99378-43482
Central Information Commission
No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00717
Dated: 18 April 2007
Name of the Appellant : Ms. Shama Parveen,
D/o Shri Aftab Ahmed,
H. No. 235, Julahan, Behind Jail,
Distt. Bijnor – 246 701.
Name of the Public Authority: National Human Rights Commission
Background:Ms. Shama Parveen of Bijnor filed an application with the PIO, National Human Rights Commission, on 20 September 2006 for seeking information regarding the process, procedures and policies of the National Human Rights Commission. The Appellant also sought certified copies of file notings and orders passed by the Hon’ble members on the admittance of her case No.37638/24/2001-2002, 2967/30/2002-2003-WC, 1907/30/2002-2003 & 1359/30/2002-2003-WC and other related issues, etc.
2. The PIO vide her letter dated 3 October 2006 stated that the complete information regarding the process and procedures was available in the NHRC’s office and could be obtained on payment basis, and was requested to deposit Rs.444/- for obtaining 222 certified copies of the relevant records/material. The Appellant was also told that the procedures for filing a complaint in the international agencies like UNHRC, Amnesty International, etc. were not available in the NHRC.
3. Not satisfied with the information provided by the PIO, the Appellant filed an appeal with the first Appellate Authority on 17 October 2006 wherein she stated that she belonged to the BPL category and hence it was difficult for her to pay Rs.444/- and so the photocopies should be given to her free of cost. Thereafter, the Appellant approached the Central information with a second appeal on 29 November 2006.
4. The bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, Information Commissioner, heard the matter on 9 April 2007.
5. Ms. S. Manjula, CPIO and Shri A.K. Sinha, Consultants, represented the Respondents.
6. The Appellant, Ms. Shama Parveen, was neither present nor send any representative for the hearing.
Decision:
7. In the absence of the Appellant, the Commission heard the Respondents who stated that while they were prepared to give each and every piece of information asked for by the Appellant, they had merely asked for Rs.444/- towards photocopying charges of the pages containing the information. The Appellant, on the other hand, stated that she belonged to the BPL category and therefore could not pay this amount.
8. The Commission felt that when, under the Act, Smt. Parveen, a BPL citizen was not required to pay Rs.10/- as the RTI-application fee, it only stands to reason that one cannot expect her to pay an amount of Rs.444/-.
9. The Commission, therefore, directed the Respondents to call the Appellant to the office to go through the records and see if the number of pages for which she had asked for photocopies could be substantially reduced.
10. The Commission then directed to provide to the Appellant photocopies of the material she required, free of cost.
11. During the Appellant’s visit, the Respondents should make sure that it is the Appellant who is a genuine sucker of information and that she is not working as a proxy for someone who merely wants to save money by utilizing the name of a BPL member.
Sd/-
(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
Sd/-
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:
1.Ms. Shama Parveen D/o Shri Aftab Ahmed, 235, Moh. Julahan, Behind Jail, Dist. Bijnor (U.P.)-246701
2.Ms. S. Manjula, Central Public Information Officer, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001
3.The Appellate Authority, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Faridkot House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi-110001
4.Officer Incharge, NIC
5.Press E Group, CIC