Outcome of representation given by the appellant sought under RTI
The applicant wanted to know the outcome of his representation regarding non implementation of orders by Deputy Conservator of Forest (DCF) for joining of duty. He also requested for the noting portion of a particular order. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided point wise information. The appellant argued that he has not received information related to some points. During the hearing, the respondents stated that information related to some points pertains to the PIO (HQ).
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) noted that the PIO has failed to transfer the part application to the concerned PIO under section 6(3) of the RTI Act which has obstructed the disclosure of information to the appellant and thereby has inflicted unwarranted financial detriment on him. 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 granted a compensation Rs. 2000/- to the appellant. The Commission also directed the PIO to provide the information to the appellant in respect of some points. 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. the Commission served a notice to the PIO to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for his failure to transfer the appellant’s RTI request to the concerned PIO of information under section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
Citation: Mr. Jagdish Singh Rana v. Department of Forests and Wild Life, in File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/001063
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/485
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission