Inspection was offered by the Respondent instead of supplying the desired information - CIC: the offer of inspection cannot be claimed as denial of information & it indicates the willingness to disclose information; it curbs unnecessary wastage of paper
Heard on 27.11.14. Complainant present. Respondent is represented by Shri Manoj Kumar, Antima Jain, Smt. Vidya Devi, Shri Raman and two officials
2. Complainant through his RTI application dated 01/10/2013 had sought for information on 17 points Viz i) Copy of all records containing the notes and correspondence relating to the decision taken by the Competent authority to resubmit the service record of the applicant to the Consultant, PAO after complying with the directions of consultant for obtaining service verification certificate, for inspection of the applicant ii) Please make available all records obtaining the notes and correspondence whereby the competent authority has sought for comment, opinion, advice or approval of consultant PAO for inspection of the applicant etc. Claiming non furnishing of the information sought, the Complainant has approached the Commission U/S 18 of RTI Act
3. During the hearing, the Complainant submitted that RTI Application dt.1.10.13 was responded only on 14.11.13. The Respondent claimed that information was furnished on 29.10.13.
4. The Commission after hearing the submissions made holds that RTI application was responded within time limit and accordingly the case is closed at the Commission’s end.
5. Complainant through his RTI application dated 09102013 had sought for information on 12 Points Viz i) Action taken for implementing CAT Order dated 23/05/2012 in OA NO. 4484/2011 ii) Amount and interest padi to Girija Chaudhary...etc Claiming nonfurnishing of the information sought, the Complainant has approached the Commission U/S 18 of RTI Act.
6. During the hearing the Complainant submitted that RTI application dt.9.10.13 was responded only on 20.1.14. Shri Raman submitted that RTI application was received on 6.12.13 and reply was furnished on 3.1.14. Shri Manoj Kumar submitted that RTI application was received on 10.10.13 and transferred to DDE (NWB) on 14.10.13. The Complainant admitted that information from DDE(NWB) was received in time.
7. The Commission holds that information was supplied within time limit and accordingly the case is closed at the Commission’s end.
8. Complainant through his RTI application dated 20072013 had sought for information on 13 Points in relation to Letter dated 05/11/2012 of the respondent authority forwarding letter of Accounts officer in respect of RTI Id No. 13323. Claiming non furnishing of the information sought, the Complainant has approached the Commission U/S 18 of RTI Act.
9. Ms. Antima Jain submitted that RTI application was received on 24.7.13 and reply was sent on 7.8.13. The Complainant refuted by stating that reply was not in response to the RTI Application but in response to the order from PGC. He also added that information covered only one query and rest of the queries were not answered. Ms. Antima produced another document which indicates mixing up of file and the queries were responded in another RTI Application.
10. The Commission holds that there was no delay on the part of Respondent and accordingly the case is closed at the Commission’s end.
11. Complainant through his RTI application dated 01072013 had sought for information on 16 Points Viz i) Report of action taken by GOC on his letter dated 15/03/2013 ii) Reason for not taking the action and giving reply on the said letter...etc. Claiming non furnishing of the information sought, the Complainant has approached the Commission U/S 18 of RTI Act. 12. The Complainant alleged that his RTI application was transferred only on 7.11.13 by Shri Rajendra Kumar causing a delay of 4 months.
11. The Commission directs Shri Rajendra Kumar to show cause as to why penalty 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. should not be imposed upon him for not transferring the RTI application within the stipulated time period and thereby obstructing the supply of information. He is directed to submit his written explanation so as to reach the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order. The present PIO is directed to forward a copy of this order to Shri Rajendra Kumar for compliance and shall render necessary assistance required by him.
13. Complainant through his RTI application dated 08042013 had sought for information on 6 Points Viz i) Please intimate me the date, pointed out by the consultant PAO in his observation dated 13/10/2011 on which his pay was fixed incorrect and required re-fixation for the purpose of calculation of overpaid amount and its recovery ii) Please intimate the date from which the Competent authority of DOE refixed ny pay for the calculation of the overpaid amount...etc. PIO replied on 30042013 asking the appellant to come for inspection. Claiming non furnishing of the information sought, the Complainant has approached the Commission U/S 18 of RTI Act.
14. The Commission on perusal of the document holds that there is no delay on the part of the Respondent in the instant case.
15. The complainant has filed RTI application on 2.5.2013 for seeking information through 4 points viz. action taken by ADE(GOC) on his representation dt 24.1.2013 regarding refixation of pay and revision of pensionary benefits in terms of order dt 20.12.2012 of Hon’ble CAT in matter of B D Gupta vs UOI; whether representation placed before Addl. Director of Education , if not reason for the same; copy of note sheet and detail of all medical bills raised by him. CPIO forward the application to ADE(GOC), who replied on 28.5.2013 that on point one letter send to Addl. Commissioner for seeking current status and on point no 2 replied that not cover under RTI , on point no 3 asked to deposit Rs 4/, on point no 4 replied that not pertain to them. Being aggrieved by the reply, the complainant made complaint before the commission.
16. The Commission on perusal of the documents holds that there is no delay on the part of the Respondent and accordingly closes the case at the Commission’s end.
17. The complainant filed RTI dt nil for seeking 8 point information viz. reason for not giving telephone number by PIO & FAA while replying to the applicant; number of medical reimbursement bills received in the a/c branch of Dept of Education, name and designation f the claimant etc. CPIO on 5.3.2013 provide the point wise information. Being aggrieved by the CPIO order, the appellant made first appeal. FAA on 22.4.2013 ordered that information on point no 1 & 2 is to be given by PIO (HQ) and appellant can do the inspection regarding question no 3 to 8 in Account branch within 15 days. ON not receiving any reply from the CPIO, the complainant made complaint to the commission.
18. The Commission holds that RTI application was responded in time and accordingly the case is closed at the Commission’s end.
19. The compliant has filled RTI application on 22.1.2013 for seeking information with respect to refixation of his pay and name and designation of officer responsible for it. CPIO on 22.2.2013 directed the complainant to inspect the document. Being unsatisfied with the inspection, the complainant has filled this complaint before the Commission. 20. The Commission holds that RTI application was responded within time limit and accordingly the case is closed.
21. The Commission observed that Complainant’s main complaint is the inspection offered by the Respondent instead of supplying the desired information. The Commission holds that offer of inspection cannot be claimed as denial of information and it indicates the willingness of the Respondent to disclose information. It would be easier for the Respondent to supply those documents identified by the Appellant after inspection thereby curbing unnecessary wastage of paper. However, the Commission advises the Respondent to supply those documents that can be supplied instantly and to offer inspection if it is scattered over several files.
22. The Commission also directs the PIO to indicate their contact No./ email id in every response and also to obtain the contact details of the Applicants so that they can be intimated in case of unforeseen delay.
23. The Commission directs the PIO to refer the reference No. given by the Applicants in their application or the ID No. generated by the Respondent and to refer to that no. in every correspondence with the Applicant.
24. The Commission ordered accordingly.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: Bansi Dhar Gupta v. Directorate of Education, GNCTD in CIC/SA/C/2014/000043 CIC/SA/C/2014/000044 CIC/SA/C/2014/000050CIC/SA/C/2014/000051 CIC/SA/C/2014/000052 CIC/SA/C/2014/000055 CIC/SA/C/2014/000056 CIC/SA/C/2014/000057