Mechanism followed by the Censor Board for exporting films abroad was sought from the Ministry of I&B - PIO transferred the RTI application to the Directorate of Film Festival - DFF informed that it was not concerned with it - CIC: SCN for penalty issued
27 Mar, 2016Date of Decision: February 26, 2016
ORDER
1. The appellant, vide RTI application dated 15.10.2014, had sought information with regard to export of Indian Films in Spanish speaking countries; the mechanism of verification and translation of films for export to foreign countries, name, address, e-mail id, phone no. etc. of body that verifies and approves the translation, list of films that were sent for participation in the Latin American Film Festival, Barcelona, etc. through 4 points.
2. The CPIO, vide letter dated 3.08.2015, provided the list of Spanish title of Indian films that participated in Latin American Film Festival and other festivals of Spanish speaking countries and intimated that this Directorate was not concerned with the rest. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 24.03.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA) 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; and 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. for knowingly misleading and subsequently denying to furnish the information. The FAA, vide order dated 16.04.2015, provided point wise response explaining the position obtaining with their Directorate, clearly. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission vide letter dated 12.05.2015 on the ground that CPIO & FAA had intentionally not provided the information.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant wanted to know the mechanism followed by the Censor Board for exporting films abroad from the Ministry of I&B but the CPIO of the Ministry transferred the RTI application to the Directorate of Film Festival (DFF) and it was after a delay of more than two and half months that he was informed that the DFF was not concerned with the information being sought by him. The FAA also gave a similar reply intimating him that the DFF had no role to play in the matter. He stated that he was hardly satisfied with the treatment given to his RTI application. The CPIO of the ministry should have known as to the CPIO with which the information sought should be available. He added that the defaulting official should be penalised and he should be given a clear response to his RTI application. The respondents stated that the Ministry of I&B had forwarded the RTI appellant to them and they had provided the information as available with them. They added that the Ministry does not directly deal with the export of films which is a private enterprise and the rules of the country to which the films are exported apply in such matters. He further added that the delay on their part was on a consequence of the position that their whole office leaves for Goa in November/ December every year for the film festival and the Ministry had sent the application to them in the month of December.
4. On hearing both the parties, the Commission finds that the respondents had not given a clear response to the RTI application. The appellant’s RTI application was clearly addressed to the CPIO of the Ministry of I&B who should have been in a position to either reply to it or forwarded to the CPIO concerned for a direct reply. Instead of doing this, the CPIO had forwarded it to DFF, which had resulted in uncalled for delay in responding to the RTI application. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO, Ministry of I&B to provide a response to the first two points of the RTI application within 15 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The CPIO concerned of the Ministry of I&B is issued a show cause notice 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. 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 to explain the delay in responding to the RTI application within the mandated period. He should submit his explanation within two weeks of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The hearing for the show cause will be held at the Commission office on 22.4.2016 at 1.00 PM and the CPIO should attend the hearing personally. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Salil Kumar Gupta v. Directorate of Film Festival in Appeal No . CIC/YA/A/2015/001437/MP