Is it necessary for a PIO to attend the hearing before CIC?
20 Jun, 2012Background
The appellant sought information regarding Akashvani Shahadol for a certain duration of time, such as, duration for which the Program Head of Akashvani was in office, how many days of EL medical leave was sought by the Chief organizer during the period, details of the monthly monetary expenditure on the petrol/diesel expenses and also on the maintenance and servicing of the vehicle, copy of the proposal and the acceptance letter regarding the purchase of the vehicle TATA Turin and details regarding T.D.S. amount deduction of each Akashvani employee during the period 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided a point wise reply and asked the appellant to deposit an additional fee of Rs. 46/- as photocopying charges. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) directed the PIO to furnish the information to the appellant. Proceedings
During the hearing the appellant stated that he had deposited the additional fee of Rs.50/- by way of IPO. The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the complete information as per available records to the appellant. Under section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act, the Commission awarded a compensation of Rs. 2000/- to the appellant for the loss and detriment suffered by him in having to pursue the appeals and getting the information late. 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. the Commission also issued a show cause notice to the PIO to give his reasons as to why penalty should not be levied on him. The CIC noted that the PIO Mr. G. P. Yadav had issued an order dated 26/04/2012 to Mr. J. P. Koshta, Assistant asking him to do all the work relating to RTI. The Commission held that this is apparently an administrative order to facilitate dealing with RTI Applications.
View of CIC
During the show cause hearing, the PIO did not appear before the Commission nor did he send any submission to explain the reasons for the delay in providing the information. Instead he sent his assistant who had no responsibility in the matter. The Commission observed that the PIO has no explanation for the inordinate delay in providing the information and he did not comply despite the clear order of the FAA. 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 the RTI Act, the Commission levied a penalty of Rs. 25000/- on the PIO for the delay in providing the information of over 100 days.
Citation: Mrs. Neeta v. Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, in Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000569/18374Penalty
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/396
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission