Shivangi Prakash –
Published on: September 1, 2021, at 08:55 IST
The Delhi High Court ruled on Tuesday that allowing a public organisation, in this case the Bureau of Pharma Public Sector Undertakings of India (BPPI), to fail to respond to an RTI application within a reasonable time would contradict the purpose of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The oral assessment came from Justice Rekha Palli, who was dealing with a petition filed by Cradle Life Sciences Pvt Ltd, which had been aggrieved by the Union of India’s inaction through the Public Information Officer, Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers, as well as the BPPI, for failing to provide the information sought by it under two RTI applications.
“Permitting respondent no. 2 (BPPI) to not dispose of RTI applications in a timely manner would defeat the purpose of the RTI Act,” the Court held.
The petitioner company was one of the companies that BPPI had asked to become distributors in 15 different States. As a result, the petitioner company submitted an application to be selected as BPPI’s distributor in Bihar.
As a result, the petitioner corporation submitted an RTI application on December 14, 2020, requesting information under the RTI Act. On December 31, 2020, a new RTI application was made under the Act, requesting additional information.
“Section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 mandates the Public Information Officer of a public body to dispose off the RTI application within a period of 30 days except those relating to life or liberty of a person. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the information has not been furnish ed by the Respondents despite lapse of more than seven months which shows callous attitude by the respondent which is instrumentality of the Central Government,” the plea stated
Counsel for the BPPI told the Court that a similar petition had been dismissed by the High Court in January of this year, and that the current petition was unnecessary.
The Court observed that “There is no reason why that would be a ground for the respondent no 2 (BPPI) not to deal with the petitioner’s RTI applications expeditiously.”
Counsel for the BPPI told the Court that a similar petition had been dismissed by the High Court in January of this year, and that the current petition was unnecessary.
Also Read: What is Central Information Commission?