Claim for inspection quoting an incorrect section
The appellant requested for inspection the concerned files related to any computer programme (software) that has been developed for the Environment Section of the Regional Office of MoEF at Bhopal u/s 1(j)(i) of RTI Act, 2005 to the PIO. The PIO sought clarification regarding the specific Information required by the appellant. The appellant was not satisfied with reply of the PIO and file appeal before FAA. The FAA observed that the information asked, does not fall under ambit of Section 1(j)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005.
View of CIC
The Commission noted that the appellant had sought inspection of records relating to the development of the software as indicate in his RTI application while the PIO wanted the period for which the appellant wants to inspect the records. From the records, it appeared that the appellant did know about the period and had made a mistake in quoting Section 1(j)(i) for inspection of records. The Commission observed that FAA had stated that there is no such provision which is correct as the Appellant means that he wants to do the inspection as per the provision of Section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act which defines that Right to Information includes the right to “inspection or work, documents, records”. The Commission directed the PIO to facilitate an inspection of the records sought by the Appellant at the office of the PIO and also directed to provide upto 100 pages to the appellant free of cost.
Errors of typographical nature, like quoting a wrong section may be overlooked by a PIO rather than harping on technicalities.
Citation: Mr. Sujoy Banerjee v. Ministry of Environment & Forests in Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/002570/16062