Name and designation of the official accountable for deemed refusal u/s 7(2) - CIC: PIO has already confirmed that he was the custodian of the RTI application; Expecting the PIO to point out the name of the accountable official would entail interpretation
21 Oct, 2020
Name and designation of the official accountable for deemed refusal u/s 7(2) - CIC: PIO has already confirmed that he was the custodian of the RTI application; Expecting the PIO to point out the name & designation of the accountable official would entail interpretation of records which is not his obligation under the RTI Act -The relevant records pertaining to action history of the RTI request indicating the factual position has already been provided to the complainant
O R D E R
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), M/o. Finance, Department Of Economic Affairs, New Delhi seeking following information:-
“a) Subject matter of information: Pertaining to RTI Reg No. DOEAF/R/2018/50584 Dtd 21.11.18 Transferred to Mr. Dalip Singh on 26.11.18 and NOT disposed till current date.
b) The period to which information relates: 21.11.18 till the Date of this RTI application.
c) Description of Information required: Please provide certified copies of following information:
1. Name and designation of the official accountable for showing deemed refusal u/s 7(2).
2. Name, designation, and official mobile number of the controlling authority of official mentioned at Sno 1.”
2. The CPIO responded on 11-02-2019. Thereafter, 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, 2005.
Hearing:
3. The complainant, Mr. Varun Krishna attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Singh, Under Secy. and Mr. Dalip Singh, Under Secy. participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The complainant stated that the respondent has not provided him name and designation of the accountable official who had shown deemed refusal of the RTI application dated 21-11-2018 u/S 7(2) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, an appropriate action should be initiated against the CPIO for not providing the name and designation of the accountable official.
5. Mr. Dalip Singh, Under Secy., the then CPIO categorically confirmed that he was the custodian of the RTI application dated 21-11-18 from 26-11-2018 till disposal of the RTI application on 12-02-2019. In this regard, they have already furnished the action history of the RTI request to the complainant vide their online RTI portal. Further, he submitted that the CPIO is obliged to provide the existing records to the RTI applicant and not the interpretation of the documents as per the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
6. This Commission observes that Mr. Dalip Singh, Under Secy., the then CPIO has already confirmed that he was the custodian of the RTI application dated 21-11-18 from 26-11-2018 till disposal of the RTI application on 12-02-2019. However, expecting the CPIO to point out the name and designation of the accountable official would entail interpretation of records which is not his obligation under the RTI Act, 2005. Nonetheless, the relevant records pertaining to action history of the RTI request prima facie indicating the factual position has already been provided to the complainant. Accordingly, no malafide is observed on the part of the CPIO and hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
7. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Information Commissioner
Citation: Varun Krishna v. M/o. Finance, Department of Economic Affairs in Complaint No. CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/602435, Date:31-08-2020