Information Commissioners have no jurisdiction under Section 18 to mandate information access, and complaints must be filed timely reflecting bona fide concerns.

ORDER

Information Sought: The Complainant filed an RTI application on 13.04.2016, seeking information as under:

The CPIO vide letter dated 02.05.2016, transferred RTI Application u/s 6(3) to Sr. DCM & Public Information Officer, Pune and endorsed a copy of the same to the Complainant. Being dissatisfied, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 12.07.2016. The First Appellate Authority vide order dated 20.09.2016, (Not on record).

Grounds for Complaint:

The Complainant filed a complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act on the ground of unsatisfactory reply furnished by the Respondent. Complainant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for and take appropriate legal action against the Respondent. He also requested the bench to award Compensation.

Submissions made by Complainant and Respondent during Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, the instant hearing is being scheduled through audio conference after informing both the parties.

At the outset, the Commission remarked as to on what date the instant RTI Application was filed; he replied that it was filed in 2017. The Commission again prompted the Complainant to confirm the same by going through the relevant documents; he replied that after verifying from the Respondent’s reply, the instant RTI Application was filed in April 2016. The Commission yet again asked the Complainant as to on what date the instant Complaint was filed, he replied that the date of filing of the complaint is not available with him but he is sure that it should have been filed sometime in 2019. The Commission was forced to tutor the Complainant by letting him know that the date of receiving the complaint was on 26.12.2018. In response, to conceal ignorance, the Complainant in an impudent manner stated that he cannot access the date of receiving from the Commission’s website.

Further, the Commission queried him as to why there is a delay of more than 2 years in filing the instant Complaint and also sought to know whether he has filed any application for condonation of delay, he replied that as per Section 18 of the RTI Act, there is no time-frame to file a Complaint. He stated that the Commission is adjudicating his cases after three years from the date of PIO’s reply and his comprehension of RTI Act is different because he is categorically making all the submissions in time i.e., uploading of link sheets, written submissions etc. two weeks prior to the date of hearing on the Commission’s portal and a copy of the same has also been marked to the Respondent as well as to both Information Commissioner and the Deputy Registrar on their respective e-mail addresses. Therefore, he is well aware of his responsibilities/duties and the same cannot be questioned. Moreover, an option was given by the Complainant to the Commission that in the event the Information Commissioner expects a request letter for condonation of delay, the same shall be provided. Pursuant to this, he reiterated the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

The Respondent submitted that the instant RTI Application was received on 21.04.2016 and the same was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to PIO and Sr. DCM, Pune on 02.05.2016. He further submitted that the instant RTI Application was adequately replied on 04.08.2016, while the First Appeal was also disposed off on 20.09.2016. He furthermore submitted that as per the revised rules, they are ready and willing to provide the relevant information to the Complainant as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

The Complainant interjected to state that the Respondent has illegally demanded money from him. He further stated that the said act of the Respondent is in contravention of Section 4 (1)(d) of the RTI Act.

In response to the interjection of the Complainant, the Respondent clarified that as on the date of the RTI Application, the policy in vogue was to demand a sum of Rs. 750/- per PNR number + 14.5% serv