Need Help: Can a CPIO declare a document which was inspected already as IRRELEVANT ( to RTI application) when a request for copy of such a document was made ?

[vijayK]

An RTI application was filed and records reg. to one particular action was sought.

CPIO allows the inspection of the whole file which contains other records too.

The applicant asks for copies of certain documents in the file.

The CPIO gives copies of some documents and reject the rest as IRRELEVANT to the RTI application.

Is it right ?

The applicant feels that once the WHOLE file is opened for inspection, then there is NO bar in the RTI act to take copies of any record in the file, irrespective of its relevance to the RTI application. At the most, the CPIO can cover the said records before the inspection if feels that those records were coming under exemption clause. But the records are NOT of that nature and hence there is NO bar on taking copies of the same.

The applicant also feels that the section 2(j)(ii) of RTI act provides the right to take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records. When he is empowered to take notes / extracts of those IRRELEVANT documents during INSPECTION, Why can't he take copies of the same ?

Kindly clarify on this aspect.

Case law in this regard may also be provided.


Similar Threads which you may be interested into:

• Need Help: Land Survey No and duplicate document copy
• file a fresh application under Section 2(j)(ii) of the Act seeking certified photocopy of the Marathi document held with them
• tamilnadu rti fee for document copy
• PIO saying no document is available
• Is Information on application form on priscribed format for a post personal document

[karira]

Sponsorer

What exactly did you ask to be inspected in your RTI application ?

Was it a particular "record" or the "file" ?

[vijayK]

The applicant asked for Inspection with regard to a particular order and connected files.

The whole file was placed before him.

He chose some records for taking copies.

The CPIO allowed him to take copies of some records in that file and refused to give copies of some other records by informing him that the said records are NOT relevant to the RTI application.

The applicant's contention is ..... once he was allowed to browse thro the whole file then he has the right to take copies of any record in that file irrespective of its relevance to the RTI application.

The applicant asks.....

If the records were irrelevant, then why those records were placed before him ?

I too have a feeling that section 2(j) of RTI act does not speak about any relevance to RTI application.

Once the CPIO allows the whole file to get inspected under section 2(j) of RTI act, then he is bound to give copies of any record in that file OR he could have avoided showing all the records to the applicant.

In fact, this has been the ploy of every CPIO. Place a big file before the applicant and make him go through the whole file to find out his own record. And the applicant has to pay for the above unnecessary screening of the file as an inspection fee.

This is a peculiar situation and that is why I sought our members suggestion & reactions.

[rajub]

A very peculiar case with far reaching consequences.

When inspection is sought for a particular record the PIO must present only relevent record for inspection. If the file contains the irrelevant records it must be told to the applicant that such and such record is irrelevant before the inspection begins.

The PIOs stand that a particular record is irrelevant may be an afterthought with an intention to refuse the legitimate record.

In my opinion, the applicant should file the first appeal.

The onus of proving the "record irrelevant" is on PIO.

Thus the appeal should argue that it was an afterthought by PIO to declare a particular record irrelevant after it was presented for inspection.

[whackpack]

raju, i second your opinion. but if the record is important, the applicant should parallel file a second RTI application seeking the particular record, just in case... as not much action is expected out of first appeal, and second appeal will take ages.