CIC: Though there was a delay in delivery of information, but it cannot be concluded that there was any malafide intention on the part of the Respondents to obstruct free flow of information - CIC: Respondents cautioned to exercise due care in future
19 Sep, 2018O R D E R
FACTS:
The matter was earlier being heard by IC (SB) who vide its order dated 01.12.2016 issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) against Rajendra Prasad, then CPIO, CESTAT, Asst. Registrar (Excise), CESTAT, Dy. Registrar (Customs), CESTAT and AR (SM), CESTAT directing them to submit their explanation to the Commission on or before 30.12.2016 explaining why action under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated on the ground that no information was provided to the Complainant within the stipulated period of time. Subsequently, the Commission vide its order dated 09.01.2017, found the explanation tendered by Shri Rajendra Prasad, the then CPIO, CESTAT satisfactory and in the absence of any malafide intention on his part dropped SCN proceedings against him. However, on account of non-submission of written explanation by the Asst. Registrar (Excise), CESTAT, Dy. Registrar (Customs), CESTAT and AR (SM), CESTAT the SCN proceedings continued against them. The matter was subsequently heard on 03.03.2017.
The Commission(IC-SB) vide its interim decision dated 21.03.2017 had stated that due to some administrative reasons, the matter could not be taken up for hearing by IC-SB and with the revised allocation of work among the Registries w.e.f 10.01.2017, the work relating to CESTAT had been allotted to IC-BJ, therefore, the case was transferred to this Registry.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing on 19.06.2017:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. R. K. Jain;
Respondent: Mr. V. P. Pandey, CPIO & Assistant Registrar, CESTAT, New Delhi;
The Commission was in receipt of a written explanation of Mr. S.K. Verma, Assistant Registrar, dated 13.02.2016, written explanation of Mr. V. P. Pandey, CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi dated ‘Nil’ and Mr. Mohinder Singh, Dy. Registrar, CESTAT, New Delhi dated 01.03.2017 against the Show Cause Notice contained in the Commission’s order dated 27.10.2016.
Mr. S. K. Verma in his written submissions dated 13.02.2016 had stated that the Complainant had filed RTI application dated 02.09.2014 which was transferred to the Registrar, CESTAT, New Delhi under Section 5(4), 5(5) and 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. On receipt of information from the Registrar, the then CPIO had transmitted the same to the Complainant on 26.09.2014. However, the Complainant filed an Appeal on 01.10.2014, which was disposed off on 16.01.2015 with a direction to furnish the information in accordance with the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by Member Judicial, Kolkata as FAA. The said letter dated 09.02.2015, was received by the Head Clerk and that he was on leave due to some accident and joined services only on 01.10.2015. The concerned administrative staff never placed the papers before him. The Head Clerk of the concerned Section was reminded by him to put up the papers but in the meanwhile, the Complainant filed the present Complaint on 05.10.2015. He had provided the information on 26.10.2015. Explaining his conduct viz-a-viz the other officials involved in the exercise, it was explained that there was no malafide in denying the information. He had given the data of the number of RTI applications/Appeals filed by the Complainant from 2008 to 2013. It was also mentioned that on a number of occasions approximately 200000 pages of information had been given and files inspected by the Complainant. It was also alleged that the Complainant was using RTI as a tool to further his business interest. A reference to several decisions of various courts had been made in the written plea and it was prayed that the show cause notice proceedings may be dropped against him.
Shri Mohinder Singh in his written submission stated that he had been transferred from CESTAT, Ahmedabad to CESTAT, New Delhi in the month of January, 2016. The Complainant had filed RTI application dated 02.09.2014 before erstwhile CPIO Shri Rajendra Prasad prior to his joining at CESTAT, New Delhi. On perusal of the RTI records, it was submitted that the erstwhile CPIO had transferred the RTI application to the concerned on 03.09.2014. Shri Kripa Shankar had provided the available information to the CPIO, CESTAT, Delhi vide letter dated 20.05.2015. He learnt about it, only when the present CPIO vide his letter dated 21.11.2016 informed about the FAA order dated 16.01.2015. He had informed the Complainant about the compliance of the FAA’s order on 22.11.2016. Therefore, it was urged that necessary action had been undertaken by him and there was no malafide intention on his part and that Showcause Proceedings may be dropped.
Shri V. P. Pandey present at the hearing drew the attention of the Commission to his letter (dated 02.03.2017), clarifying that the Circular/Order for maintenance of two registers was received in the Registries in September, 2014, which was complied and registers were already maintained from September, 2014 before the order of the FAA was passed. It was therefore, argued that the information was in existence and there was no malafide intention or denial of information.
The Commission was also in receipt of a reply by the Complainant dated 14.04.2017 against the written submissions of Mr. S.K. Verma, Assistant Registrar and Mr. Mohinder Singh, Dy. Registrar, CESTAT New Delhi. During the course of hearing, the Complainant argued that the order of the FAA dated 16.01.2015 directing the CPIO to furnish information in accordance with the order of Member (Judicial), Kolkata as First Appellate Authority on similar issues had not been complied with. It was also submitted that incorrect and incomplete information was provided by the AR Customs vide order dated 12.11.2014, AR (Excise) vide its order dated 20.02.2015 and AR (SM) vide order dated 26.10.2015 as the information prior to September, 2014 regarding pending cases where stay had been granted in whole or in part was not provided. A reference was also drawn to 1st pages of copy of registers provided by various CPIOs/ Deemed CPIOs which indicated that earlier records were maintained since the first page did not contain entry from S. NO. 1 and rather contained entries from different numbers as indicates below:
1. V.P. Pandey, AR (Excise) starting on S.No. 514 on 1st page
2. S.K. Verma, AR (SM) starting from S. No. 560 on 1st Page
3. Kripa Shanka, AR, starting from S. No. 281 on 1st Page
The Complainant therefore argued that copies of registers provided were being maintained earlier than September, 2014 and the claim of the CPIOs/ Deemed CPIOs that they had started maintaining the register from date of issue of circular on 04.09.2014 was false and misleading so as to obstruct the information and that the copies of registers provided to him were not the registers and records required to be maintained as per the directions dated 09.07.2014 of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner v. Small Industries Development Bank r/w CESTAT Registrar’s circular dated 04.09.2014.
In its reply, the Respondent (Mr. V.P. Pandey CPIO & Assistant Registrar, CESTAT, New Delhi) re-iterated its submissions made during the previous hearing on 01.12.2016 and stated that the registers were maintained from 04.09.2014 and all available information subsequent to the period from September, 2014 was provided to the Complainant. It was also argued that the order of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court was prospective in nature and did not have any retrospective operation. It was submitted that there was no malafide intention on their part to deny the information to the Complainant. The Complainant therefore, contested the replies and stated that there was palpable malafide in denying the information to him. It was argued that the aforesaid Respondents had been providing similar information in other cases. The grounds taken by each of the Respondents were incorrect and merely an excuse to cover up the weaknesses in the understanding of the RTI Act, 2005 and suppressing their alleged malpractices. The reason for shortage of staff, lack of resources and voluminous data was also not tenable and convincing. It was therefore, prayed that action under Section 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. 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 RTI Act, 2005 should be initiated alongwith the disciplinary proceedings against each of them.
INTERIM DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and following the principles of natural justice by providing a fair and reasonable hearing to all the parties against whom the Show Cause notice was issued, the Commission observed that proper service of notices to the concerned parties had not been issued properly. The Commission therefore instructs the Dy. Registrar to issue fresh notices of hearing to all the concerned parties in the matter and fix another hearing in the month of August, 2017 following laid down procedure.
The matter stands adjourned.
Note: Subsequently the Dy. Registrar, vide its letter dated 31.07.2017 issued fresh notices and fixed 18.08.2017 as the next date of hearing in the matter.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing on 18.08.2017 The following were present: Complainant: Mr. R. K. Jain; Respondent: Mr. V. P. Pandey, CPIO & Assistant Registrar, CESTAT, New Delhi; Mr. S. K. Verma, Asst. Registrar, CESTAT, Kolkata in person; and Shri Kripa Shankar, Assistant Registrar, CESTAT, Hyderabad through VC;
The Commission resumed the hearing with all the parties. The Complainant re-iterated the contents of his RTI application, replies of the CPIO, decision of FAA and his earlier written submissions placed before the Commission and stated that vide its order dated 09.07.2014, in the case of Commissioner v. Subhash Metal Industries, Tax Appeal No. 567 of 2014, the High Court of Gujarat had directed the Registrar of CESTAT to maintain two separate registers with respect to the Appeal in which stay had been granted fully or partly and Appeal in which no stay had been granted. The Complainant argued that he had sought information on points (A) to (C) in his RTI application dated 02.09.2014. The CPIO had transferred the application to Registrar in accordance with the provisions of Section 6(3) and Section 5(4) r/w Section 5(5) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the concerned CPIOs and deemed CPIO to provide information/inspection on or before 15.09.2014. The Complainant had sent reminder to the Registrar, CESTAT on the same. In the meanwhile vide letter dated 26.09.2014 the Accounts Officer/CPIO had also written to the Complainant to deposit the requisite fee for providing the information and the CPIO, CESTAT was communicated the order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. The First Appeal filed by the Complainant was also replied on 16.01.2015 where inter-alia it was submitted that similar RTI application made at Calcutta Bench of Tribunal had been decided by Member (Judicial), Kolkata as the FAA by passing an order dated 25.11.2014. The Complainant had filed written submissions dated 10.01.2017, 03.03.2017 and 14.04.2017 which are available on record. The Complainant specifically drew attention of the Commission to page-2 and 3 of his written submission dated 03.03.2017 wherein a specific note had been sent to the Registrar/CPIO to make available the copy of the order dated 25.11.2014 passed by Member (Judicial), Kolkata as the FAA. In addition the reliance was also placed on the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in ICAI Vs. Shaunak Satya in Civil Appeal no. 7571/2011 emphasising on the following observations made therein
“25………….Examining bodies like ICAI should change their old mindsets and tune them to the new regime of disclosure of maximum information. Public authorities should realize that in an era of transparency, previous practices of unwarranted secrecy have no longer a place. Accountability and prevention of corruption is possible only through transparency. Attaining transparency no doubt would involve additional work with reference to maintaining records and furnishing information. Parliament has enacted the RTI Act providing access to information, after great debate and deliberations by the Civil Society and the Parliament. In its wisdom, the Parliament has chosen to exempt only certain categories of information from disclosure and certain organizations from the applicability of the Act.
26………… We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 4(1)(b) Every public authority shall publish within one hundred and twenty days from the enactment of this Act,- (i) the particulars of its organisation, functions and duties; (ii) the powers and duties of its officers and employees; (iii) the procedure followed in the decision making process, including channels of supervision and accountability; (iv) the norms set by it for the discharge of its functions; (v) the rules, regulations, instructions, manuals and records, held by it or under its control or used by its employees for discharging its functions; (vi) a statement of the categories of documents that are held by it or under its control; (vii) the particulars of any arrangement that exists for consultation with, or representation by, the members of the public in relation to the formulation of its policy or implementation thereof; (viii) a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice, and as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public; (ix) a directory of its officers and employees; (x) the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations; (xi) the budget allocated to each of its agency, indicating the particulars of all plans, proposed expenditures and reports on disbursements made; (xii) the manner of execution of subsidy programmes, including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes; (xiii) particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorisations granted by it; (xiv) details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form; (xv) the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information, including the working hours of a library or reading room, if maintained for public use; (xvi) the names, designations and other particulars of the Public Information Officers; (xvii) such other information as may be prescribed and thereafter update these publications every year; and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption.”
In addition reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in J.P. Agrawal vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors, W.P. (C) 7232/2009 to argue that the CPIO cannot merely act as a Post Office as also the judgment passed in the case of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Amitabh Thakur v. U.P. State Information Commission through its Secretary and Anr. in Misc. Bench No. 2586 of 2017 on the issue that the PIO should be compulsorily present according to the relevant procedure of appeals provided under the 2012 Rules.
It was therefore, argued that necessary information was not provided and that the orders of the FAA were also defied. On a query from the Commission, if any Contempt Petition had been filed before Hon’ble High Court, it was explained that since he was not a party to the proceedings, he had not approached the Court in the matter.
In his written explanation, Shri V. P. Pandey, AR (Excise), CESTAT, New Delhi reiterated the comments oral and written made at the last hearing. The Respondent, Shri S. K. Verma drew attention of the Commission to his written submission dated 13.02.2016 (13.02.2017 as admitted to have been wrongly typed). With regard to the specific point raised by the Complainant that the Respondent Shri Verma was aware of the order passed by the FAA and that the communication from the CPIO dated 09.02.2015 was in his knowledge and known to him and that he was responsible for the delay in providing the information could not be denied or countered by Shri Verma. It was therefore wrong to assume that the Head Clerk had withheld the information. A reference was also made by Shri S.K. Verma to the CWP No. 16241 of 2017 filed by him before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana contesting the decision of the Commission in CIC/SB/C/2015/000049 dated 28.02.2017 on the ground that the CIC had erred in imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on him by holding him responsible for delay of 485 days in providing the information. In the aforesaid matter, S. K. Verma Vs. R. K. Jain and Ors., the Judge vide its order dated 10.08.2017 had issued a notice of motion for 14.09.2017 to Respondent 2 only. The Complainant expressed that he was unaware of any such order. The Respondent Shri Verma was directed to deliver a copy of the aforesaid order to the Complainant for his ready reference.
Shri Kripa Shankar, Assistant Registrar, vide his written submission dated 16.08.2017 stated that the Complainant had filed RTI application dated 02.09.2014 before CPIO, Shri Rajendra Prasad who had transferred it to the Customs and Service Tax Appeal Branch on 03.09.2014 which was received by Head Clerk of Customs and Service Tax Branch and FAA order dated 16.01.2015 was also received by Head Clerk. In this RTI application, Complainant had asked for information about implementation of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat. On the basis of Hon’ble High Court’s directions, the Registrar of CESTAT, New Delhi issued a circular dated 04.09.2014 wherein the Registrar had given directions to all Bench Registries to maintain Stay Order Directions as per directions of the Hon’ble High Court. It was argued that the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat was prospective in nature. It was stated that information was given to the Complainant on 20.05.2015 as per the record available in the bench registry, maintained as per directions of the Hon’ble High Court and circular issued by the Registrar. A reference was drawn to the circular of DoPT dated 16.09.2011 and the RTI Act as per which information in whatever form available should only be given to the Applicant. While referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011), it was argued that the PIO was not supposed to create or interpret information or solve the problems raised by the Applicants or furnish replies to hypothetical questions. It was prayed to dismiss the Compliant on the ground that there was no malafide intention to defeat the very purpose of the RTI Act for not furnishing the reply to the Complainant.
The Respondent, Shri Mohinder Singh, Dy. Registrar reiterated the earlier reply recorded at the last hearing. This was delivered personally by Shri V. P. Pandey, AR to the Commission.
In his reply, the Complainant emphatically stated that false and misleading information was provided by the Respondents with the intention to suppress the correct information. It was argued that there was complete non-maintenance of records despite High Court orders. Contesting the written submissions of each of the Respondents that as per Registrar’s Circular dated 04.09.2014 they were maintaining the desired information from the date of issue of the said Circular. It was submitted that the CPIOs had given false and misleading information. Explaining the basis of his contention, it was submitted that as per available records the Registers did not contain entry from serial number 01 but on different numbers as indicated by him in his written submission dated 14.04.2017. Therefore, it was vehemently argued that the concerned CPIOs/Deemed CPIOs were liable for imposition of penalty under Section 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. 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. and recommendation for disciplinary action under Section 20(2) 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 and persistently, failed 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 recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. of the RTI Act, 2005. The concerned CPIOs had purposefully ignored that the records in question were directed by Gujarat High Court to be maintained by CESTAT and such directions were issued by Division Bench of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and FAA being a subordinate authority was bound to carry the directions of Hon’ble High Court. The Complainant analyzed each of the responses submitted by the individual Respondents and submitted that the information was deliberately, malafidely and persistently obstructed by passing incorrect and illegal orders and prayed for imposition of penalty of Rs.25000/- and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the Respondents besides demanding compensation. The Respondent Shri Pandey however, submitted that point-wise information was furnished vide their letters dated 20.02.2015, 16.10.2015 and 26.10.2015. Moreover, there had been consistent correspondence with the Complainant in this matter and that there was no malafide or deliberate denial of information. It was also clarified that the Complainant had filed number of multiple RTI applications on similar subjects and that the Respondent Public Authority with its limited resources attempted to answer each of the issues raised by him in his different RTI applications. It was further clarified that all sincere attempts were made by them to furnish the information as sought by the Complainant besides giving him an opportunity for inspection of records.
The Commission observed that though there was a delay caused in delivery of information but it cannot be concluded that there was any malafide intention on the part of the Respondents to obstruct free flow of information. With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on: 01.06.2012) wherein it was held:
“ 61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute.”
Similarly, the following observation of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:
“17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.”
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
“Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.
……The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it.”
The Complainant was not able to substantiate his claims further regarding malafide denial of information by the respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause FINAL
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submission made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter. The Respondents are however, cautioned to exercise due care in future to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 shall be initiated. The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Show Cause proceedings are dropped. The matter stands closed.
(Bimal Julka)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. R K Jain v. Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Complaint No.:-CIC/SB/C/2015/000046-BJ-Final, Date of Decision: 19.06.2017, 18.08.2017