The appellant sought information regarding alleged unauthorized deduction of amount referred to in his complaint & action taken report on the application along with daily progress - CIC issued a show cause notice u/s 20(1) to PIO for not responding
1. Shri D Shekhar, the appellant, sought information regarding unauthorized deduction of amount referred to in his complaint dated 6.12.2014 and sought the status report and action taken report on the application along with daily progress; name and designation of the officers who were supposed to take action on the application but had not done so; copy of norms prescribed to deal with this kind of applications; list of applications received after his application but dealt with earlier and the reason thereof and the date on which he got the amount deducted from him.
2. The GM (NW.2) transferred the RTI application to CPIO&AGM, SBI, Port Blair RBO for reply and intimation to the CPIO’s office. Neither the CPIO nor the FAA appeared to have dealt with the case. The appellant, therefore, came in appeal before the Commission
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant was not present in spite of a notice of hearing having been sent to him. The respondent authority was absolutely unprepared regarding the matter in hand and could not answer as to why no reply was given by the CPIO or the FAA.
4. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO to give a point wise response in the matter keeping the RTI Act in view within seven days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The Commission, further issues a show cause notice u/s 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act, to the then CPIO for not responding in the matter. His explanation should reach the Commission within ten days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The FAA had also not adjudicated the first appeal. He is, therefore, cautioned against negligence displayed in replying to the first appeal. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri D Shekhar v. State Bank of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/000737