INFORMATION COMMISSION Kamadhenu Co-operative Super Market Building First Floor, New No.379, , Teynampet, – 600018.

Case No. 2242/Enquiry/2009

Date of Enquiry: 29th April , 2009 at CHENNAI

Present: Thiru S. RAMAKRISHNAN, I.A.S., (Retd.) State Chief Information Commissioner

Thiru R. Rathinasamy, I.A.S. (Retd.) State Information Commissioner

Petitioner: Thiru S. Dhanuskodi, Managing Partner Kandamanur Zameen Wealth Developer Meenakshi Illam, 2/105/1, Gangaveethi Ayyar Bangalow Part Madurai - 625 014

Public Authority: The Public Information Officer Office of the Commissioner of Archives , Chennai-8

The Public Information Officer Office of the Commissioner of Survey and Land Records, Chennai-5

The Public Information Officer Collector's Office, Theni ++++ For Today's (29-4-2009) enquiry, the petitioner Thiru S. Dhanuskodi is present. On behalf of the public authority, Tmt J. Amba Shankari, Deputy Commissioner, Tamil Nadu Archives, Chennai, tmt V. Prema, PIO and Assistant Director (Maps), Central Survey Office, Chennai and G. Leela, P.A. (General- Incharge) to the Collector of Theni are present.

2. The petitioner had asked for records relating to the Court of Wards in Kandamanur Zameen relating to the yester years in his RTI petition to the local Collectorate at Theni and Madurai and subsequently in his appeal to the Commissioner of Land Administration and Archives. He was told by the Collectorate that they had asked for the records from Archives when it is available they will be made available to him. The Archives had sent the records on 28-1-2009 to the Commissioner of Land Administration and informed the petitioner also of the same. The Commissioner of Land Administration however had bothered to move himself and notified the petitioner to come and inspect them only this morning at 11.00 clock probably because of the enquiry which has been posted.

3. The petitioner also has averred in his petition that the Archives have refused to let him inspect the records directly and that is a violation of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). However when the representative from the Archives was asked at the enquiry, they stated that they are only the custodian of the records and can only make it available to the originating Department and they do not directly supply the information as they are only the record keepers and custodian.

4. The Commission holds the delay on the part of the Commissioner of Land Administration is most unfortunate and explanation of the PIO concerned must be called for why the penal action as per the Act should not be invoked upon them for this delay. Even after records have become available with them vide letter of the Archives dated 28 and 30th in letter No.3990. The Commissioner of Land Administration must make all arrangements necessary to enable the petitioner to inspect the Court of Wards Index Register at his convenience and report compliance.

5. With regard to the issue of Archives not allowing the petitioner directly to examine the records in the Archives and the contention of the Archieves, the Commission went in to the issue. The internal Government instructions and practices for long wherein the Archives was treated as Custodian of records and these records were made available only to the originating Department is an old practice which however gets overruled by Section 22 of the RTI Act, after this Act has been enacted. Hence, hereinafter unless the document is previleged under Section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act, the Archives cannot refuse access to those documents if they are available in their custody. A point was however articulated by the Archives that since they are only the custodian of the records and they are not aware of the contents of the records and are not in a position really to evaluate whether Section 8 or 9 would apply to a particular case. This is a practical difficulty which has to be handled. The correct method of approaching this issue is to use Section 11. The Act provides for information placed at the disposal of any Public Authority by a third party and treated as confidential by that third party to be treated under the provisions of Section 11. In the current instance, the petitioner seeking access to the records is the first party and the Archives is the second party and the originating Department of the document becomes the third party. Hence, Archives, on a request under RTI Act, should immediately notify the originating department clearly marking the paper with bold headlines as "RTI URGENT" that a particular document has been asked for and whether they have any objection for supply of the same, and the provisios of Section 11 would thereafter apply. The originating Department gets 10 days to object within which if they do not do so it would be the opportunity forgone. However for a Document more than 20 years old, the document gets de-classified automatically under provisions of Section 8(3) except for documents governed by Section 8(1)(a)(i) and (e). So, for other documents, the Archives does not have to follow the Section 11 procedure and for documents falling under Section 8(1)(a)(c) and (i), Section 11 procedure will have to be followed.

6. With this, the case is treated as closed.

STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

Orders approved on this the 4th day of May, 2009 Under the Orders of the Commission

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Case No.2242/2009 To The Public Information Officer Office of the Commissioner of Archives Egmore, Chennai-8

Case No.2242/2009 To The Public Information Officer Office of the Commissioner of Survey and Land Records, Chennai-5

Case No.2242/2009 To The Public Information Officer Collector's Office, Theni

Case No.2242/2009 To Thiru S. Dhanuskodi, Managing Partner Kandamanur Zameen Wealth Developer Meenakshi Illam, 2/105/1, Gangaveethi Ayyar Bangalow Part, Madurai - 625 014 scs