http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_20122007_41.pdf
"The Commission directs the Respondents to not only show these maps but also enable the Appellant to digitally photograph these maps since the photocopies cannot be taken - being ferro prints" http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_03082006_1.pdf The 2006 decision oft cited in support, as below, actually pertains to videography of "inspection of work of widening the road". The appellant had separately requested the copies of documents to be given to him against prescribed fees. The drafting of the decision "records / samples" is sloppy (CIC was understaffed then) and the question of videographing documents was not exactly at issue in that matter - so this is not to be relied upon - at least not in a court of law. There is clearly no other way to obtain a copy of ongoing "work" but by videography / cinematography - the resources for which would not be available to the P/A and hence the "cost" of the same was transferred to the appellant. http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/Decision_04122006_12.pdf In this one IC(PB) disposes of an appellant who wants to photograph the statue of Major Johnson in the National Stadium but was prevented. Sarbajit --- In [email protected], krushnachandra das <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Videography > If an applicant wishes to make copies of records/ samples given to him for inspection > at his own expenses, it is not for the Public Authority to object to the form in which the > copies are being made, provided it is restricted to the information permissible under > the Act. There is no provision in the Act disallowing Videography, and therefore, > cannot be excluded unless it violates the parameters of any information sought and > agreed to be provided. > CIC/WB/A/2006/OO144 -- 3 Aug,2006 > > > >
