Ex-CIC order in ignorance of statutory provisions: CIC Mathur

In a controversial order, newly appointed Chief Information Commissioner R K Mathur has rescinded a directive of former chief Satyananda Mishra saying it was "rendered in ignorance of the statutory provisions" and was not binding.
The case relates to an RTI application filed by activist Subhash Agrawal on October 7, 2013. The Supreme Court responded to it on November 16, 2013 (after 30 days mandatory period) asking for Rs eight to supply records related to movement of his RTI petition.
Not getting satisfactory response to his questions, Agrawal appealed before the CIC on various grounds including the demand of Rs eight as fee by the Supreme Court.

To buttress his arguments, he cited order of Mishra, section 7(6) of the RTI Act and also circular of Department of Personnel and Training to public authorities.
The then CIC Mishra had told the Home Ministry that its demand of Rs two for providing copy of one page of information might be correct "technically" but notprudenttodoso as much more public money is lost in correspondence.
He had asked the CPIO to keep these observations in mind while demanding fee for photocopying charges.

In his order, Mathur quoted section 4 of the Right to Information Rules, 2012 to say that Mishra's order is "per incuriam in as much it was rendered in ignorance of the statutory provisions mentioned above and is not binding on this Commission. Hence, the CPIO's demands for copying fee do not have any flaw".

According to the section 7(6) RTI Act, if the public
authority did not respond within 30 days (as claimed by Agrawal in this case) of RTI application being received by a public authority, no additional fee can be charged. However, the CIC did not consider this section in the order.
The DoPT circular, cited by Agrawal, had also said that it was brought to the notice of the CIC that some CPIOs inform the information seeker about the additional fee under sub section 7(3) of the RTI Act at the fag end of the 30 days period prescribed for providing the information.

"As soon as the RTI application is received, the holder of the information should decide about how much information to disclose and then calculate the photocopying charges so that the CPIO can immediately write to the information seeker demanding such fees," it has said.
Mathur mentioned that Agrawal cited the circular but did not take its note in his "decision".