Information Commissioner Sridhar Acharyulu said as the

ASI Director General grants permission for maintenance and repair, how can the ASI claim that they do not have or maintain such record.

"Appellant brought to the notice of the Commission that because of denial of information about area, demarcation, details of houses... several plots remain empty, houses deteriorated and structures were crumbling and they could not be repaired," he underlined.

The appellant contended that besides affecting routine life, lack of information was leading to corrupt practices.

Acharyulu said it was a case of non-compliance of mandatory proactive disclosure under Section 4(1)(b), and denial of information under the RTI Act.

The Information Commissioner said the ASI has a duty to disclose authentic information after preparing in collaboration with Agra Development Authority.

According to Acharyulu, it is the duty of Agra Development Authority to demarcate the restricted area around the monument and inform about it to the residents of the locality.

"It is not correct on the part of public authority, the ASI, to deny information on rules, restrictions and areas under which public residing within prohibited zone around Taj Mahal. It is blatant violation of Section 3,6, and 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act," he said.

The Commission would like to reiterate that Section 4 imposes a significant obligation of transparency on public authorities, which might effectively reduce corruption and also minimise the need of RTI applications, he said.

(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)