Process of establishment, control and regulation of Treatment-cum-Rehabilitation Centres assisted by the Ministry of SJ&E by way of grants - PIO provided part information with a delay - CIC provide complete information; show-cause notice to PIO for delay
30 Oct, 2013ORDER
1. The appellant through his RTI application dated 26.7.2012 sought information on the following thirteen queries in respect for alcohol and drug de-addiction centres in the country:
(a) What is the total number of alcohol and drug de-addiction centres in the country – Government and Private. Give State-wise break-up in numbers;
(b) Give details of all the alcohol and drug de-addiction centres in Delhi (areas covered as per jurisdiction of NCT of Delhi – their names, addresses and contact details;
(c) What is the process of opening an alcohol and drug de-addiction centre in the NCT of Delhi by a private person;
(d) What is the process of controlling the functioning of such de-addiction centres by the NISD in terms of how they are operating, are they giving proper food and medical care to inmates;
(e) What are the basic amenities/mandatory amenities that need to be provided and made available to inmates of all de-addiction centres – Governmental and private in the country;
(f) Can a person open a de-addiction centre without approval from NISD in the country, with specific reference to NCT of Delhi;
(g) What rehabilitation facilities are being provided to alcohol and drug addicts to engage them in vocational training so that they can be self-sustained post recovery;
(h) Is it mandatory for private persons operating such de-addiction centres to provide vocational training as asked for in (g) above;
(i) Should a person running a de-addiction centre and not listed in (b) above, be classified as unregistered and illegal;
(j) How many raids have been conducted by NISD since inception – year-wise details required – to identify unregistered, unapproved and illegal de-addiction centres and ensure that no inhuman conditions are being practiced there like chaining, thrashing, beating, locking up, low nutritive food etc. in India. Details required year-wise and state-wise;
(k) If any information is given about illegal and unregistered de-addiction centre, what measures does NISD take on such complaints. Can these complaints be anonymous;
(l) Does NISD or any related agency of the nodal Ministry provide grant-in-aid to private de-addiction centres; and
(m) If yes, details of such grants-in-aid may be provided for the last five years. Details are required year-wise as also recipientwise”.
The CPIO vide letter No. F. 13011/45/2012-DP-I dated 18.10.2012 replied to the appellant on queries (a) to (e) of the RTI application and ignored rest of the queries.
2. However, aggrieved with reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 30.10.2012 before the FAA on the grounds of providing incomplete answers to queries (a) to (e) and ignoring Points (f) to (k) of the RTI application. The FAA vide order No. 11013/45/2012-DP-1 dated 7.12.2012 directed the CPIO to provide information on Point No. (f) to (k) of the RTI application within two weeks.
3. During the hearing the CPIO states that in compliance with the directions of the FAA, the CPIO, National Institute of Social Defence (NISD) vide letter No. 72/04/2011-RTI dated 22.1.2013 submitted point-wise information to the CPIO, M/SJ&E and endorsed copy to the appellant. Thereafter the CPIO/NISD vide letter No. 72/04/2011-RTI dated 14.2.2013 directly provided point-wise information to the appellant.
4. The appellant during the hearing submits that he ahs not been provided complete, the clear and categorical reply to his queries at Point No.
(c) – What is the process of controlling the functioning of such de-addiction centres by the NISD in terms of how they are operating, are they giving proper food and medical care to inmates; and
(f) – Can a person open a de-addiction centre without approval from NISD in the country, with specific reference to NCT of Delhi.
The appellant also requests for initiation of penalty proceedings against the CPIO/MSJ&E 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 for the delay in providing information.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and perused the relevant records on file, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO/MSJ&E to provide complete information to the appellant on the queries raised by him at Point No. (c) and (f) of the RTI application in respect of process of establishment of and control and regulation of Treatment-cum-Rehabilitation Centres assisted by the Ministry of SJ&E by way of giving grants to these Institutions. The CPIO will comply with the directions of the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order.
6. The Commission is of the view that Shri Lalsaglur, Director & then CPIO, M/SJ&E has only replied to the appellant vide his letter dated 18.10.2012 in response to appellant’s RTI application dated 26.7.2012 and that too by providing incomplete reply and has further failed to comply with the directions of the FAA in providing information on Point No. (f) to (k) of the RTI application, in spite of the fact that the CPIO/NISD has provided requisite information vide letter dated 22.1.2013 to the CPIO/M/SJ&E for onward transmission to the appellant, which has prima-facie caused a delay of more than 100 days in providing information to the appellant. A separate show-cause notice 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 would be issued to Shri Lalsanglur, Director/then CPIO, M/SJ&E asking him to show-cause why a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed upon him.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Rajiv Boolchand Jain v. Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000464