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.

Source: dna February 12, 2017 07:07 UTC