IF-rr

= affk-th-F
, iJ7
(To be issued in Hindi also)

No.A-43020/38/2013-RTI
Government of India / Bharat Sarkar
Ministry of Home Affairs / Grih Mantralaya

New Delhi dated the H November, 2013

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Right to Information Act, 2005 - compliance of the

recommendations made by the CIC in its decision dated
27.08.2013 - regarding.

The undersigned is directed to circulate the copy of the decision

dated 27.08.2013 made by the CIC in its hearing on 18.07.2013 in file
Nos.CIC/BS/C/2013/000149/LS, CIC/BS/C/2013/000072/LS and
CIC/LS/C/2010/000108 and to request all the CPIOs of this Ministry for
compliance of the recommendations made by the CIC in the above said
decision.

vkiv
--r
(V. .,--Rajan)
Deputy Secretary Ej & CPIO
Tel. No.23094376
End.: As above.

To

.-*1.\--
All Appellate authorities and CPIOs in MHA ( including DOL/DOJ)

u_2Z Section Officer, IT Cell, MHA, North Block ( for uploading in the
website ).
 1 ,42_12i13-3- t
Ministry of Home Affairs
judicial Cell

Sub: Order of the full bench of the Central Information Commission-

reg.
rn

A
I
----,-,N
cc The Central Information Commission has sent the order dated
__') P 27.08.2013 in the matter of Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs Ministry of
.\'
Home Affairs, which is self explanatory. The full bench of the
Commission has made various recommendations in respect of the RTI
Act and Rules therein. The recommendations are very wide and require
the attention of all CPIOtand CAPIOSof the Ministry of Home Affairs as
Nt ' well as attached and subordinate offices. The RTI Section of the
Administrative Division is the nodal section of RTI Act. Therefore, the
C--N. -1:1■' said order is enclosed herewith for further necessary action.

U
1H17
(Rakesh jhingan)
Under Secretary (FII)

Joint Secr- ry 11.)

Toint-Setary (Admn) f2 etfjce,

qc-A"frn 0%6 oeikens
og c c •
0--j c
(-Je ll- 2-) Th-so \sz0
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 30R B-Wing. August Brand Rhawan. Bhikad Came Place. Nev. 1)&1n-110066

File No.CIC/I3S/C/2013/000149/LS
File No.CIC/BS/C/2013/000072/LS
File No.C1C/LS/C/2010/000108

Complainant :
Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal
Public Authority Minist iy of Home Affairs.
Date of hearing 8.072013
Date of decision 27.08.2013

Facts :-

In the RTI application dated 30.4.201L the appellant had sought

information on 11 paras from the Ministry of Law & Justice regarding the 187th
Reportofof the Law Commission of India and the matters 'elated there-with. The
CHO the
Mstry of Law & Justice had transferred the said RTI application
to the Mi nistrY
of Home Affairs for action as per law. Thereupon, Shri Rakesh
2Thingan, Section Officer, ,j(II)„M.H.A.. had responded to it vide letter dated
2.6.2011. His letter is reproduced below

"I am directed to refer to your letter dated 03.06.2011 furnishing

therewith the additional fee of P;:. 271
w2y of ma,. P9Agrr
that the validity of IPO is only six months from. date of issue. Valle
furnishing the same to the CPI();
a sufficient period of time i.e. one to
two months, should be given to CPIO/Accounts Officer for encasImient
of IP0(s). One of the IPO No. ID 132843- (OF Rs.7/-) has already' been
expired and issued date of another IPO No. 55F 324367 (Rs.20/-) is not
clear. Therefore, Accounts Officer of this Ministry has refused to accept
the same.

In view of above, your letter dated 03.06.2011 along with IPOs

No. 55F 324367 (of Rs. 20/-) & ID 132843 (of Rs.7%-) are returned
herewith. You are also requested that in future validity of IPOs may be
checked before sending it to this Ministry.

3.
This issues with the approval of Joint Secretary(judl.) & CPIO."
2. Thereupon:
the complainant had visited the M.H.A. office at Jaisalmer
House for deposition of fee of Rs. 27/- in cash but the Receptionist did not
allow him to enter the office and told him that the fee in cash was not accepted
in the said office and directed him to visit the North Block office of MHA for
 ▪

• the above purpose. The complainant then visited the North Block of MHA and
deposited the fee of Rs.27/-.

3. The complainant has filed the present complaint before the Coinmission
alleging therein that non-acceptance of fee in cash by the Jaisalmer House
office of NINA caused him avoidable harassment and also resulted in delayed
supply of information. The present complaint arises out of the issues stated
herein above.

4. In • view of the complex legal issues involved in the matter, the Chief
Information Commissioner constituted a Full Bench comprising of :-

- Shri Satyananda Mishra, CIC;

Shri MI. Sharma, IC; and
Shri Basant Seth, IC.

The Bench heard the matter on 18.72013. The appellant was present.
The Commission permitted Shri R.K. Jain, Advocate, to intervene in the matter.
The following_ officers from variou s Ministries Departments were present
before the Commission

MBA

• Shri J.P. Ang_arwal, Joint Secretary(Judicial)

• Shri Rakesh Jhingan, Under Secretary(J-II)

Dorf

• Shri R.K. G rdhar, Under Secretary

Department of Posts

Shri T. Neelakrislman„kssisant Director General

DoT

Shri G. Baskaran, Director

• Shri P.C. Sharma, Director

6. The parties were heard at length. The submissions made by the

complainant herein are summarized here below :-

2
 (i) The CPIOs do not accept the requisite
fee in cash. They ask the
information seekers to deposit the fee with the Cashier who, generally,
is not located in the same office. It results not only in harassment but
also wastage of time and resources of the information seekers.
(ii)
The fee is payable through the IPOs. However
: the public authorities
often refuse to accept the IPOs if they are not stamped or not properly
stamped by the Postal authorities. Stamping is to be done by the
Postal authorities; it is not the concern of the information seekers.
Non-stamping or improper stamping of the IPOs
for their non - - cannot be a ground
acceptance by the conCeMed public authorities;
(iii)
The Postal authorities issue IPOs in blank form. The information
seekers generally mention the names of the Accounts Officers of the
Public Authority as payee as per DoPT
• dated 5.12 .2008. Circular No.F. 10 /9/2008/IR
Notwithstandino the above:
the postal orders
.
payable to Thu Accounts Officers are not being .accepted by some of
the public authorities thereby causing harassment to the information
seekers.

(iv) More
than importantly, the operational cost of an IP0 of Rs. Cil- is more
22/- as per comingexercise undertaken in 2006-07. Thus, the
Central Government, instead of being a gainer, is, in fact, a loser in .
insisting on deposition of application fee and copying fee through
IPOs.

In order to streamline the system:

the complainant suggests that this
Cenurtission
Act :- may make the. following recommendations uts 25(5) of the RTI

(i)
To direct all public authorities to mention complete names and
addresses of the officers who may accept fees and copyingcharges in
cash along with the timings for depositing the fee;

(ii)
To direct all public authorities to make entire correspondence relating
Io RTI matters through Speed Post or Registered Post:

(m) To issue instructions to all public authorities to waive off copying

charges upto Rs. 20/-.

(iv) To recommend to the Department of Posts to issue RTI stamps of the

denomination of Rs. 10/-, to facilitate deposition of fee and copying
charges.
 (v) To recommend to the Department of Posts to direct all Post Offices to
accept RTI applications and the requisite fee. This is essential as
designation of only 4700 Post Offices, as of now, is grossly
inadequate, considering the size of the country and the number of
information seekers.

8. Slu-i R.K.Jain, Intervener, has made the following submissions in this

regard :-

The CPIOs insist on IPOs of the value of exact amount of fee. The
IPOs of the higher values are not being accepted by the CPIOs. The
DoPT may be asked to advise all public authorities to accept IPOs of
higher values, when the depositors do not insist on refund.

(ii) The IPOs not containing names of payees are not being accepted by
the public authorities even when they contain the names of the
senders. The information seekers are finding it difficult to mention
the names of the payees in the IPOs as this information has not been
put in public domain by most of the public authorities. Hence, DoPT
may be advised to issue directions to all the public authorities to
accept IPOs of ail denominations and to till up the names of the
payees, so long as the IPOs contain the names of the senders. He
buttresses his argument by referring to sub section (3) of section 5 of
the RTI Act which casts a burden on the CPIO to render 'reasonable'
assistance to the information seeker.

(iii) The designated Post Offices, numbering about 4700, donot diSplay at
conspicuous places in their premises that they shall accept RTI
applications. Besides, some designated Post Offices are refusing to
accept the RTI applications. They may be directed to comply with the
guidelines issued by the Department of Posts in this regard.

(iv) This Commission must make a strong recommendation to the

Department of Posts to issue RTI stamps of Rs. l0/- denomination for
facilitation of deposition of application fee and copying charges by the
information seekers. -

(v) The remittance of fee by the money order may be accepted cash
payment by the public authorities.

4
 (vi) The CPIOs and AAs must disclose their names. designations, postal
addresses and their telephone and fax numbers in the RTI related
correspondence.

(vii) All public authorities in the country may be directed to display the
names and designations of the officers who are responsible for
accepting RTI fee in cash or through any other mode of payment.

9. The real issue is to evolve an effective mechanism for depositing the fee
and copying charges for expeditious provisioning of information. In this
context, it would be pertinent to mention that Rule 6 of the Right to Information
Rules.. 2012, provides for three modes of deposition of fee. Rule 6 is extracted

"6. Mode of Payment of fee.-- Fees under these rules may be paid
any of the following manner, namely :-

(a) in cash, to the public authority or to the Central Assistant

Public Information Officer of the public authority as the case may
be, against a proper receipt; or

WI by demand draft or bankers cheque or :Indian 'Postal Order

payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority:: or

(c) by electronic means to the Accounts Officer of the public

authority, if facility for receiving fees through electronic means is
available with the public authority."

10. It May also be pertinent to extract the relevant part of the OM No. F.
10/9/2008-IR dated 5.12.2008 issued by DoPT in this connection :-

"The undersigned is directed to say that the Right to Information

(Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules. 2005 provide that a person
seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005 can make payment of
fee for obtaining information by cash or demand draft or hanker's
cheque /IPO should be payable to the Accounts Officer of the
---ccm:=Prried 1v1,, brought- to the nntice of t his
Department that some public authorities did not accept demand
drafts/banker's cheques/Indian postal Orders drawn in the name of
their Accounts Officer and insisted that these should he drawn in the
name of Drawing and Disbursing Officer or the Under Secretary or
the Section' Officer etc. This Department vide OM No.1/2/2007-IR
dated 23 rd March, 2007 issued instructions that the demand
 drafts/banker's cheques/IPOs made payable to the Accounts Officers
of the public authority should not be denied. Inspite of the
provisions in the rules and instructions of this Department, some
public authorities still refuse to accept demand drafts/banker's
cheques/IPOs drawn in the name of the Accounts officerqd. the
public authority.

2. Refusal to accept an application on the around that the

demand draft/banker's cheque/IPO submitted by the applicant has
been drawn in the name of the Accounts Officer may amount to
refusal to accept the application. It may result into imposition of
penalty by the Central Information Commission on the concerned
Central Public Information Officer under Section 20 of the Act. All
the public authorities should, therefore, ensure that payment of fee
by demand draft/banker's cheque/IPO made payable to the Accounts
Officer of the public authority is not denied."

11. It needs to be underlined that preamble of the RTI Act provides for
setting out the practical regime of right to information for the citizenry in
order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every
public authority. This word connotes a pragmatic approach on the part of all
concerned in implementing the provisions of this law. The Commission is
aware that difficulties are being experienced by the information seekers in
depositing the fee and copying charges and consequential delay in
provisioning of information. On a thoughtful consideration of the matter,
the Commission makes the following recommendations to the
Ministries/Departments/Public Authorities of the
Central Government u/s 25 (5) of the RD Act:-

(i) All public authorities shall direct the officers under their command
to accept demand drafts or banker cheques or IPOs payable to their
Accounts Officers of the public authority. This is in line with
clause (b) of Rule 6 of the RTI Rules, 2012. 'In other words, no
instrument shall be returned by any officer of the public authority
on the ground that it has not been drawn in the name of a particular
officer. So long as the instrument has been drawn in favour of the
Accounts Officer, it shall b e accepte d in all circumstances.

(ii) All public authorities are required to direct the concerned officers
to accept IPOs of the denomination of higher values vis-à-vis the
fee / copying charges when the senders do not ask for refund of the
excess amount. To illustrate, if fee of Rs. 18/- is payable by the
information seeker and if he sends IPO of Rs. 20/-, this should be

6
 accepted by the concerned officer rather than returning the same,
for practical reasons. The entire amount will be treated as RTI fee.

All public authorities shall direct the CPIOs and ACPIOs under
their command to accept application fee and copying charges in
cash from the information seekers in line with Rule 06 (a) of the
RTI Rules. It is made clear that the CPIOs and APIOs will not
direct the information seekers to deposit the fee with the officers
located in other buildings / offices.

(iv) DoPT shall direct all the CP10s / APIOs / Accounts Officers to
accept money orders towards the deposition. of fee / copying
charges. This is in line with the order dated 19.9.2007 passed by
the Karnataka Information Commission in B. V. Gautma vs. Dy.
Commissioner of Stamps & Registration, Bangalore. (TUC 2038
CoM 2007).

The Department of Posts has issued a detailed Circular No. 103-

172007-RTI dated 12.102007 for streamlining the procedure of
handling applications by various CAPIOs which, interalia contains
the following directions:-

"(1) Display of the signboard "RTI APPLICATIONS ARE

ACCEPTED HERE" should be made on the notice board /
prominent place in the post office. In addition, the names /
addresses of the CPTO and annronriate authorities of the
Post office should also be displayed.

--------------------------- -------------------------------- --- - --------------

(9) The fee alongwith application should be accepted at the same

counter and in no case the applicant should be made to visit
another counter for depositing the requisite fee."

The Department of Posts is required to ensure that the

above directions are complied with by all concerned.

it=ls no-ted herein above. as of now, the RTI applicaLions arid the
requisite fee are being accepted by the designated Post Offices,
numbering above 4700. Considering the size of the country and the
number of RTI applicants/applications, the number of designated Post
Offices appears to be too small. It has been brought to the notice of
the Commission that there are 25,464 Departmental Post Offices and
1,29,402 Extra Departmental Branch Post Offices. The Commission,
therefore, advises the Secretary, Department of Posts, to consider
 designating all 25,464 Departmental Post Offices to
applications and the requisite fee. accept RTI

(vii) The
RD best solution
stamps of thetodethe fee related problems appears to.. be to issue
nomination of Rs. 10/- by the Deptt. of Posts. It
would be a time and cost effective step. The Commission would urge
Department of .Posts/DoPT to consider the
with utmost disOatch. 'viability of this suggestion

(viii) The Commission also directs the CPIOs and the Appellate Authorities
to mention their names, designations and telephone and fax numbers
in the RTI related correspondence.

12. The Commission- expects all Ministries/Departments/Public Authorities

of /the Central Governthent to give urgent
recommendations.
c
onsideration to the above
•
Order reserved and pronounced on the
27 th day of August
; 2013.

Sd/-
( i. Sharma ) Sd/-
Information Commissioner
( Basant Seth )
Information Commissioner

Sd/- /
( Satyananda Mishra )
Chief Information Commissioner

Authenticated true copy. Additional copies

Com mission.and payment of the charges prescribed of
application orders
under the shall
Act, be supplied
to the CPIO against
of this

(K:
Depu
Address of parties

1. Shri Madan Chaurasia(SO-AS-I), Department of Telecom

(Access Services-1 Section), 1203. Sanchar Bhawan,
Ashok Road, New Delhi-I 10001.

2. Department of Telecom, 0/0 Administration, USD Fund,

Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road.
New Delhi-110001.

The CPIO, Department of Personnel and Training.

North Block, New Delhi-1 10001

The CPIO, Department of Post.

Dak Bhawan. Sansad ylarg,
New Delhi-110001

The CHO, Ministry of Home lairs_

im calmer Ibia-fse7-2-m-
--MaDli Rcead.
New Delhi-44-49—T
): 1

S1 n Subhash Chandra A.c,raN. al. -

1775 kucha Lanushah. Dariba. Lnandm
Delhi-1 10006_

Shri R.K. Jain,

1512-B, Bhislnn Pitamah Marg. Wazir Nagar.
New Delhi-110003.