Penalty of Rs. 25,000 for refusal to accept the RTI applications
15 Dec, 2012Background
The appellant filed five applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) seeking information regarding some civil contractors. The Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO) returned the applications on the ground that fee of RTI was not in order due to incorrect address of the payee on the postal order and asked the appellant to submit the said applications with correct payee address. The appellant then addressed a letter to the Public Information Officer (PIO) requesting him to intimate the “correct address of the payee” however no reply was given. The First Appellate Authority too did not pass any order regarding the first appeal filed by the appellant.
Proceedings During the first hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the CIC observed that as per section 5(3) of the RTI Act, the APIO was bound to render reasonable assistance to the appellant but he failed to do so. The commission also observed that the DoPT has issued consolidated updated guidelines on the RTI Act to help all stake holders in dealing with RTI matters. All the postal orders enclosed with the five RTI applications were in the name of AO, BSNL and the PIO could not have refused the same in terms of the above guidelines. The Commission directed the PIO to furnish the complete and correct information as requested by the appellant in his 05 RTI applications. 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 issued a show- cause notice to the concerned PIO to explain whether he had any reasonable cause for refusing to accept the RTI applications.
During the second hearing before the CIC, the PIO was unable to give any satisfactory reply and admitted that refusal on his part to receive the RTI applications were not in accordance with the RTI rules. As regards non-supply of information the PIO pleaded that the information sought is very voluminous and there was acute shortage of staff and hence the same could not be furnished.
View of CIC
The Commission noted that the IPOs filed by the appellant were in accordance with the RTI rules and that the refusal of the said RTI applications by the PIO is a gross violation of the RTI Act. The Commission observed that the burden of proving that denial of information was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per section 19(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. of the RTI Act. 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 maximum penalty of Rs. 25000/- on the PIO and directed thim to furnish the complete information to the appellant.
Citation: Mr. Gaurav Bharadwaj Kothi v. BSNL in File No: CIC/LS/A/2011/001708/BS/0821-Penalty
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/873
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission