Large number of RTIs filed by the complainant - CIC: Strict warning was issued to PIO previously who has taken the same defence; FAA has blindly approved the replies of PIO; Terming any information unnecessary is not warranted; Penalty of Rs 500/- imposed
14 Jul, 2021O R D E R
CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647839:
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi, seeking information on two points, including, interalia:-
(i) Kindly highlight the relevant part from grievance which proves that the subject matter is concerned with SPMCIL;
(ii) Name and designation of the official whose assistance is sought u/s 5(4) + 5(5), etc.
CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647842:
2. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi, seeking information on two points, including, interalia:-
(i) Name and Official mobile number of the official who transferred the subject grievance to SPMCIL;
(ii) Copy of approval taken from highest authority before transferring to SPMCIL, etc
CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647906:
3. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi, seeking information on two points, including, interalia:-
(i) Kindly highlight the relevant part from grievance which proves that the subject matter is concerned with SPMCIL;
(ii) Name and designation of the official whose assistance is sought u/s 5(4) + 5(5), etc.
CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647907:
4. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Department of Economic Affairs, New Delhi, seeking information on two points, including, interalia:-
(i) Name and Official mobile number of the official who transferred the subject grievance to SPMCIL;
(ii) Copy of approval taken from highest authority before transferring to SPMCIL, etc.
5. Being aggrieved with the response given by the respondent, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Hearing:
6. The complainant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Ms. E Jessie Jacob, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
7. The complainant and the respondent has agreed for adjudication of the above cases together, as the subject-matter is similar in nature.
8. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 26.05.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
9. The complainant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his all above RTI applications. The complainant contended that the respondent with malafide intention has obstructed the information under the RTI Act. The complainant further submitted that the respondent in response to his RTI applications has given cyclostyle response and not applied his mind in giving reply/information. The complainant submitted that he has sought specific information in each of his RTI application but vague reply was given by the then CPIO on all his RTI applications. The complainant further submitted that there is a delay in giving reply by the then CPIO. The complainant further contended that the then CPIO has also not sought assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act in order to obtain information from the concerned department/section/CPIO. That CPIO intentionally did not provide documentary information relating to functioning of his Supervisor Officer/FAA to avoid embarrassment to him and obstructed information with malafide intention. The complainant further contended that the then CPIO in its reply has wrongly gave his opinion that “It is not practical and feasible for the Government to create unnecessary records which do not involve public interest” which is beyond the provisions of the RTI Act.
10. Regarding conduct of FAA, he further stated that the FAA has also not disposed of his first appeals within stipulated period of time as per the provisions of the RTI Act. That the FAA has given decisions where information sought is related to him and his poor conduct which is in sheer violation of principal of natural justice. That the FAA has also not given opportunity to the complainant of being heard in his first appeals and orders have been passed in favour of the CPIO. That the FAA malafidely upheld the reply of the CPIO, knowingly that the reply of the then CPIO is vague and misleading. The complainant further stated that the FAA had also disposed of his first appeals in cyclostyle manner vide which he has upheld the wrong and identical replies of CPIO. Therefore, an appropriate legal action should be initiated against the then CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
11. The respondent submitted that reply has been given to the complainant on his RTI applications by the then CPIO Shri Dalip Singh wherein the complainant was informed that
“Attention is invited to Para 9 of DOP&T OM No.1/4/2008-IR dated 25.4.2008 Only such information is required to be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority It is not required under the Act to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. It is not practical and feasible for the Government to create unnecessary records which do not involve public interest. Under RTI Act, the applicant is not supposed to seek the reasons for any action of the Government officials. More specifically, RTI applicant is supposed to seek available record only. RTI Act is not meant for initiating enquiry against any person or seeking details steps/ activities within the Govt. Department”.
The respondent further submitted that at the stage of complaint, she has given point-wise reply/information to the complainant on his above 4 RTI applications through her written submissions dated 26.05.2021.
Decision:
12. This Commission is not adjudicating on furnishing the information to the complainant and therefore, the legal issue to be decided herein is whether there is any malafide of the then CPIO which attracts penal action u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The complainant has contested that there is a malafide intention on the part of the respondent public authority which is wilfully obstructing the information. On the other hand, the respondent contended that there was no malafide intention in denying the information.
13. Further, while examining the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information. This legal position has been authoritatively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
“30. It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information.”
14. The Commission observed that the then CPIO has been very casual in disposing of the RTI applications. The conduct of the then PIO, Shri Dalip Singh is under adverse observation of the Commission in previous cases also wherein strict warning has been issued to him again and again, however no improvement has been noticed in his working as CPIO. The Commission further observed that the then CPIO has always taken the same defense in all previous cases.
15. The Commission observed that the complainant contended that the respondent public authority has not disposed of his RTI applications within stipulated period of time, therefore, he had filed more and more RTI applications to find reasons and justifications of delay. The Commission further observed that the conduct of the First Appellate Authority has also come under observation, as he has upholding the vague replies of the CPIO by passing general orders and no directions or guidance was given by the FAA to the CPIO to provide the information to the applicant. Rather he has blindly approved the replies of the CPIO. Further, there is a delay on the part of the FAA in disposing the first appeals of the complainant and he did not recuse or provide information in RTI matters relating to his conduct as FAA.
16. The Commission is of the view that the CPIO is not required to give his own judgments on the issue but he should have specifically/point-wise denied it the information sought is not available as per their records or should have sought the assistance of the concerned CPIO/department u/s. 5(4) of the Act in order to give specific reply/information. Terming any information unnecessary is not warranted. The Commission takes a serious note of this fact. A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held as under:
7.“it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken”. The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act.”
17. On the issue of alleged malafide for not sharing the information relating to functioning of superior authority, the Commission observed that the CPIO has not differentiated among RTIs whether relating to functioning of Sr. Authorities, pending RTI matters, appeals, complaints and other issues and has given same replies in all the cases. Prima facie, there are large number of RTIs filed by the complainant though technically different but of similar nature which could have been dealt more meticulously rather than being responded in identical manner differentiated among RTIs whether relating to functioning of Sr. Authorities, pending RTI matters, appeals, complaints and other issues and has given same replies in all the cases. Prima facie, there are large number of RTIs filed by the complainant though technically different but of similar nature which could have been dealt more meticulously rather than being responded in identical manner.
18. The Commission further observed that firstly, there is a delay in giving reply to the complainant on his RTI applications. Secondly, the information was not provided specifically to the complainant on all his RTI applications as mentioned above. Thirdly, the response given by the then CPIO is without application of mind and callous behavior has been adopted by the then CPIO in disposing the RTI applications. This amounts to grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Further, this also shows lackadaisical approach of the then PIO in dealing with the RTI applications. The defense taken by the then PIO is not sustainable and cannot be accepted in the eyes of law. The Commission observed that in Shail Sahni Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. in W.P.(C) No. 845 of 2014, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held that “misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficent Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law.”
19. In the above circumstances, levy of penalty is warranted. Therefore, this Commission is constrained to impose a penalty of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) u/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. of the RTI Act, 2005 on the then CPIO, Shri Dalip Singh who held charge of the RTI applications during the relevant period for his casual and callous approach in responding to the RTI applications. The amount of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) shall be deducted by the Public Authority from his salary by way of a demand draft drawn in favour of “PAO, CAT”, New Delhi and the demand draft should be forwarded to the Deputy Registrar (CR-II), email: dyregcr2_cic@gov.in Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067. This demand draft of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) should reach the Commission by 30.06.2021. The present CPIO should ensure service a copy of this order to the then CPIO.
20. 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.
21. The present CPIO is also directed to be cautious in future and ensure that proper replies should be given to the RTI applicants.
22. With the above observations, the complaints are disposed of.
23. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Information Commissioner
Citation: Mr. Varun Krishna v. M/o. Finance Department of Economic Affairs in Complaint Nos. CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647839, CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647842, CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647906 & CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/647907, Date of Decision: 27-05-2021