Two year delay in providing information
Background of the case
The appellant sought copies of correspondence between himself and another individual regarding certain departmental proceedings vide application dated 7 August 2007. Vide order dated 12th February 2008, the PIO informed that the appellant had already been provided with copies of all the documents relied upon during the Departmental proceedings. On appeal, the FAA held that additional information could not be sought by the appellant at this stage.
View of CIC
During the hearing before CIC on 5th October 2011, the appellant stated that in spite of a previous order of the Commission, in which the respondent had been directed to provide opportunity of inspection of the concerned file to the appellant and to furnish photocopies of the requested documents the respondent had not permitted the appellant to take photocopies of the selected documents. Respondent stated that now the appellant would be given photocopies of all the documents identified by him. The Commission directed to provide opportunity of inspection of the concerned files to the appellant and also to provide photocopies of all the documents identified by him, free of cost. A show cause notice was issued to the PIO for not furnishing information under stipulated time period and non compliance of the previous order of CIC.
The information was finally provided on 21st November, 2011. The appellant stated that he has made several trips to Jaipur from his native place Khetri causing him financial loss. He also stated that he had met PIO four – five times but that he was referred to junior officials who did not provide the requested information to him. The PIO submitted that the information was held at their offices at Sikar and Bikaner and disciplinary action was taken by the Jaipur office and that this fact accounted for loss of time in collecting the information. The Commission did not find the explanation of the PIO convincing that it has taken almost 2 years to collect the requested information was not convincing. The Commission imposed a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the PIO under Section 20 (1) of the RTI, Act, 2005 and awarded the compensation under Section 19 (8) (b) of RTI, Act of Rs.3000/- to the appellant for the loss suffered by him by way of mental and physical harassment on account of delay in providing information.
Citation: Shri Durga Perasad Meena v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur in appeal no. CIC/SM/A/2010/000499DS
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/7
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission