BEWARE ALL THE GULLIBLE CITIZENS WHO RATE RTI ACT HIGHLY:
To all those who boast about the 'revolutionary' transformation brought about by the Right to Information Act, pointing to the manner and practice of wooden bureaucracy defeating or indefinitely delaying the requests for information by socially active citizens, by rejecting their applications as for information related to "third party":
I have received a message from a client requesting me to cause the filing of, and appear in, an appeal against such queer rejection of their request for information by a public authority of no less eminence and [supposed] learning as Registrar (Judicial) of a High Court and I am giving the operative part of the rejection order here so that all citizens can learn the manner and fashion of our wooden bureaucracy defeating the democratic aspirations and urges of the people:
The operative part of the REJECTION ORDER runs as follows:
"With regard to the queries of the applicant, since the SPIO cum Registrar (Jdl) has to seek assistance from Registrar (Management), High Court of AP, Hyderabad as the instant subject is within his control, a letter dated 04-06-2013 was addressed to furnish the information as sought for by the applicant, and a reply was received.
Now the point for determination is whether the request of the applicant for furnishing the requisite information can be acceded to?
As seen from the request of the applicant itself, there was a fire accident. The applicant is a third party. It is not his case that he had any interest in the said accident or repairs.
In the instant case, the applicant is not seeking personal information, but he is seeking information of another Expression "third party" includes even public authority.
It is also apt to refer to the decision of our Hon'ble High Court in K. Varalakshmi Vs. Municipaol Commissioner, Puttur, Chittoor District and others (W.P. No. 7902 of 2009). The observation in Para 7 runs thus:
"Of late it has become a fashion for many, particularly those who have spare time at their disposal, to take various offices for a ride, by filing frivolous applications, by misusing the facility created under the act. As it is, many offices of the government are functioning, virtually with skeletal staff, since the Government has stopped appointments of the officials, over the last several years. The duties under the Act add to their woes. A notion is spread, or is developing, that the application submitted under the Act must be attended to, even by keeping the routine and important functions of the office, aside. One can certainly appreciate such priority being given, if the grievance is genuine, or the applications are relevant. The experience thus so far discloses that most of the applications are filed by totally unrelated persons, with a demand to disclose every possible thing that occurs in various offices. Section 8 of the Act has become very handy for them. To satisfy their ego, or to feel a semblance of triumphalism, such persons are virtually crippling the otherwise paralyzed officers."
In the instant case, as the information sought for by the applicant relates to third party, I do not find any merit in the request of the applicant.
In view of the circumstances referrred to supra, the request of the applicant is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the request of the applicant with regard to questions Nos. 1 to 4 is rejected.
The applicant, if aggrieved, is at liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority cum Registrar-General, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, under Section 19 of the Act within 30 days from the date of receipt of the instant order."
The queries by the RTI applicant are not given here since there is no need for the same. It is enough to note that any request which is not for 'personal information' and from a 'third party' which includes a public authority, is not maintainable and liable to be rejected! Oh, what a legal acumen and what a high level of understanding displayed!
