Providing incorrect information to an applicant with a malafide intent
The appellant sought information regarding levy and collection of illegal charges by car/two wheeler dealers from intending buyers and the status of his complaint. The PIO informed that the department has taken a serious view on the matter and has issued show cause notices to a number of dealers seeking explanation. The PIO also stated that action will be initiated on receipt of reply as per rules in this regard. An appeal was filed on the ground that the PIO has not enclosed any related noting portion or supporting documents to substantiate the statement. The First Appellate Authority directed to provide copies of documents as requested by the appellant including all notices issued to dealers and relevant note sheets of the file within 10 days. On not receiving any further response, the appellant filed a second appeal before CIC.
View of the CIC
The respondents submitted before the Commission that there are 116 dealers in all and that show cause notices are issued to dealers as and when specific complaints against the dealers are received. Further, the respondent submitted that 48 pages of file notings with regard to the show cause notice issued to one dealer have already been furnished to the appellant which the appellant refuted. The appellant informed that from inspection of files he has come to know that the show cause notice the respondent is referring to in his reply was issued in connection with some other complaint and not to the complaint which he has referred to. During the hearing, the Commission learnt that no show cause notice had been issued to any dealer and the complaint of the appellant had never been sent to the concerned officers. The Commission concluded that the PIO has given an incorrect reply to the appellant and directed to inform the appellant categorically in writing that there is no recorded evidence of the ‘serious view’ taken by the Public Authority on the issue of charges being levelled by the dealers. A show cause notice was also issued to the Dy. Commissioner (Operations) to as to why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for having provided the wrong information to the Appellant with seemingly malafide intention.
Citation: Shri. C. Rajaram v. Transport Department Secretariat Branch in File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/002315