Do you agree that IC has acted beyond his scope by making self assumption in his order that " It appears the complainant in the present case has no definite purpose but a generalised goal and would like to study these records at leisure later. As such he has himself not taken blanket opportunity afforded to him ie.. to inspect the records and files. Therefore complaint is disposed off " What is this "disposed off means ? rejected ?
Colnkurup Sir. I need your further valuable views on application of section 7(9). If this section is not very conservatively applied - a query on Ration card or Land matter because of our huge population and fragmented land records.It will be always 'disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority"in Food Dept or Land Dept of the Govt.
You are absolutely correct. Section 7(9) is a double-edged weapon. It can also be misused by PIO to evade giving information. Section 2(j)(i) viz., provision to allow inspection can counter the negative aspect. The present case is a typical example. After all an honest PIO who is keen to follow the RTI Act need some protection from the so called misusers. If the information seeker is clean, what stop him from inspecting the document when he is allowed. He would have done so and would have specifically asked for copies of specific pages. He does not want to do it. He would like the PIO to gather the information and provide him as if the PIO is his assistant in his research work . Don't you think it is unfair ?. After all PIO does not mean enemy of the Act. He is one of us. If he is clean, the RTI Act should help him also. I personally feel that Architect of the Act would have visualised such a cituation and deliberately put Section 7(9) to save honest PIOs.