Bimal Julka DECISION
Bimal Julka, Information Commissioner
FACTS
1. The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points regarding the inception date of Dr. B.R.A.- National Institute of Technology Jalandhar (formerly Dr. B.R.A.- Regional Engineering College Jalandhar), whether both the General Provident Fund (GPF) and Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) were available as an option to a new employee who joined before 01.01.2004 and issues related thereto.
2. The CPIO vide its letter dated 10/11.11.2017 furnished a point wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not available on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
3. The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh through VC;
Respondent: Mr. P.R. Azad, Law Officer through VC;
4. The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that complete and satisfactory information had not been received by him. Furthermore, the First Appeal filed by him had also not been answered. In reply, the Respondent reiterated that the CPIO had responded based on the information available on record. He denied having received any First Appeal. However, the Appellant contested the same and stated that he had filed online First Appeal which ought to have been received and replied. On perusal of the queries raised by the Appellant, it was evident that these were commonly asked questions and answers by the employees of the Institution that need to be put out in public domain to obviate the necessity of anyone filing an RTI application to seek such information. The Respondent assured that they would prepare FAQs for such and related queries to be placed on its website within a period of one month.
5. The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo-motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
6. The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on: 21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16. It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean-making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the informa........