RTI Stamps:
[CIC/SA/A/2015/000743 dated 24.07.2015; A. S. Berar vs. Dte of Education (East)]
In response to a RT I application, the Central Commission writes:
Neither the Act nor Rules state anywhere that the Public Authority should charge Rs.2 for writing a response or answering certain points under RT I, like ‘yes’ or ‘no’ or “information attached”. The Act does not provide for pricing the information or for collecting cost of searching the files or writing notes from them. Charging Rs.2 for the covering letter, or typing on paper, information collected from other files, is unheard of. These methods by the Public Authority will lead to delay or denial of the information.
The Commission also found that certain RT I sections are wasting paper in many ways. They write ‘letter is attached’, and that letter contains two sentences like ‘information sought is not available’. Such letter sent through three or four wings of the office reflect the office’s response and responsibility. At each stage, a file was built, letter was written after the file noting was approved and then posted.
In a response from the Ministry of Communications and IT Department of Posts on 18th October 2013 to a RTI petition filed by Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal, sent through the Ministry of Finance, it was stated: “As per costing exercises 2011-12, the operational cost of a postal order is Rs.37.45”. This means to realise IPO of Rs.6, the department has to spend Rs.37.45, besides wasting man-hours and stationery for writing the letter. The cost must have increased in 2015.
There are the commonsense points that PIO failed to notice.
(a) Postal order for less than Rs.10 is discontinued, thus asking for Rs.6 is meaningless.
(b) Even if IPO for Rs.10 is given to pay Rs.6, the public authority has to incur operational cost for IPO Rs.37.45 to transfer the cash.
(c) In writing a letter to appellant to demand Rs.10, the public authority has to spend at least one manhour.
(d) To post the letter, the IPO has to spend Rs.17 (for local speed post, Rs. 28 for non-local), or Rs. 22 (17 plus 5 Registered Post, for every next 20 grams or part of it Rs.5 additional), Rs. 27 (Registered Post-Acknowledgement Due).
Chief Information Commissioner Sri Satyananda Mishra in his order on 30.05.2012, in a second appeal filed by Subhash Chandra Agrawal cautioned the PIOs “It is not prudent to ask for Rs.2 per page in giving one page of information, because in the process, much more public money is lost in correspondence”. The IPOs for Rs.1, 2, 5, 7 were discontinued, but IPO of Rs. 10 is retained, perhaps for helping payment of Rs. 10 RT I fee. Because of non-availability of IPOs of smaller denominations, the applicants have to |pay more money than what is prescribed. For instance to pay Rs.12 copying charges, one has to take IPO of Rs.20.
In order to avoid all these complex and costly affairs, considering delay and wastage of money in collecting fee and charges, the Commission recommends to the Government of India, especially, the Department of Personnel & Training and the Department of Posts, to arrange exclusive stamps for RT I on the lines of Radio licensing stamps, which were used to collect the license fee decades ago. (a picture of those stamps is given below, * how these stamps were fixed in a license book for Radio can also be seen). It will be useful and easy to pay RT I fee or cost of copying if these RT I stamps are made in different denominations of Rs.2, 10, 50, and 100.
The Commission directs the respondent authority not to deny information on such trivial causes and not to waste public money in demanding small amounts. If charges to be paid are not worth the cost of typing and posting a letter etc., they should avoid it. The Commission directs the respondent authority to train the personnel in the RT I wing and sensitise them to understand the difference between fee, cost and value of letter or sheet containing information.
The Commission is also not convinced with the demand for refund of 6. Appellant is right in questioning the demand of a paltry amount as explained above, but Lt. Col. A. S. Berar should not have sought refund of Rs.6, because even in doing so, the Public Authority has to spend once again unnecessarily.
The respondent officer submitted that she would furnish the information after the remaining school responded to her forwarded letters. The Commission directs the respondent authority to furnish the information for the remaining 42 schools which might not take more than a page, without asking an IPO for Rs.2, within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of. Mr. Subhash Chandra Agrawal commenting on the above judgement writes:
In a colorful pictorial CIC-verdict dated 24.07.2015 in appeal – number CIC/SA/A/2015/000743 wherein strongly reasoned recommendations citing RT I responses and earlier CIC-verdict are given for introducing RT I stamps in denominations of Rs.2, 10, 50 and 100 as the most convenient and enormous revenue-saving (of crores of rupees) mode for payment of RT I fees and other charges under the RT I Act.
CIC-verdict comes as a ready reckoner for concerned departments, namely Department of Posts and Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) when it incorporates colorful photos of Radio and TV License fees stamps on lines of which RT I stamps can be issued.
With postal-orders below Rs.10 discontinued, there is no practical mode for making payments in fractions like Rs.2, 4, 6 and 8. High handling cost of Rs.37.45 to get RT I fees of Rs.10 is the other reason for suggesting RT I stamps.
Red-tapism and ‘jaisa hai chalne do’ bureaucratictheory has obstructed issuing of RT I stamps earlier also suggested in a full-bench CIC-verdict dated 27.08.2014 in appeal-number CIC/BS/C/2013/000149/LS when Department of Posts informed that Security Printing Presses at Nasik and Hyderabad expressed inability to print RT I stamps because of shortage of paper. At least now sincere and serious steps should be made for immediate introduction of RT I stamps.
