Public authorities must proactively disclose information under the RTI Act, prioritizing public interest.

Information sought:

1. The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.01.2024 seeking the following information:

4. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 04.03.2024.

The FAA order is not on record.

5. PIO, O/o Executive Engineer, North West Electrical Division, PWD vide letter dated 29.04.2024 stated as under:

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

7. Written submission dated 18.10.2025 has been received from Executive Engineer, North West Electrical Division, PWD and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:

1. “..The reply to the RTI application of Sh. Ravinder Kumar Jain was given by this office vide letter No. 23(23)/NWED/PWD/458 Η dated 29.04.2024 (Copy enclosed) through speed post, copy of speed post is enclosed

2. As per RTI Act if the applicant is not satisfied with the reply of PIO / CPIO he can file an Appeal before The First Appellate Authority and if the applicant is not satisfied with the decision of First Appellate Authority he can file the Second Appeal before The Central Information Commission.

3. In this case the applicant has not filed any appeal before the First Appellate Authority as no order of First Appellate Authority was received in this office of supply of any information to the applicant.

4. The reply vide Letter No. 23(23)/NWED/PWD/458H dated 29.04.2024 has already given to the applicant…” Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:- Appellant: Present in person.

Respondent: Shri Amaresh Chandra Chaudhary, AAO- participated in the hearing.

8. Proof of having served a copy of Second Appeal/ Complaint on Respondent while filing the same in CIC on 30.04.2024 is not available on record. The Respondent confirms non

9. The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He averred that instead of furnishing of information, the Respondent has wrongly called him for inspection of records. Furthermore, information sought at point No. 3 of the RTI Application has been denied by the PIO under Section 8 (1)(d) without any cogent justification. He submitted that information sought by him is in larger public interest and should be suo-moto disclosed by the Public Authority on their website as per Section 4 of the RTI Act.

10. The Respondent while defending their case inter-alia submitted that vide their letter dated 29.04.2024, they have advised the Appellant for inspection of relevant records in their office. He stated that the tender was awarded on 04.02.2023 and completion certificate of work assigned has been received.

Decision:

11. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that that the core contention raised by Appellant in the instant Appeal was non-receipt of information from the Respondent.

12. The Commission notes that the Appellant has sought information related to agreement/contract executed by PWD with respect to Contract No. 245/EE(E) NIED/PWD year-2022-2023. The information sought by him is in public interest and should be put in public domain as per Section 4 of the RTI Act, as expenses on such things are made from public fund.

13. The Commission would like to counsel the Respondent that every public authority shall make constant endeavour to take steps in accordance with the requirements of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act to provide as much information suo moto to the public at required intervals through various means of communications, including internet, so that public does not have to resort to the use of RTI Act to obtain basic information.

14. It is worthwhile to mention that since the tender was awarded on 04.02.2023, information sought by the Appellant should ideally have been placed in publi