Is restructuring of revenue districts a reasonable cause for delay?
9 May, 2013Background
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the Department of Revenue seeking information on action taken on his application regarding mutation of khasra in the Revenue estate of Village Massodpur in favour of the actual owners/ proprietors. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any information even after the directions of the First Appellate Authority (FAA). During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that he has brought the information with him to the hearing and with the permission of the Commission handed over the same to the appellant. The Commission directed the appellant to review the information provided by the respondent during the hearing and to inform the PIO about any missing information that is still to be supplied to him. It was further directed that the PIO should furnish the information, if available on record. The Commission also directed the PIO to show cause as to why penalty 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. should not be imposed upon him for not responding to the RTI application within the mandatory period and for not complying with the order of the FAA.
Proceedings
During the show- cause hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the respondent submitted that the appellant had not raised any further objection to the information provided during the first hearing, it reflects that information desired by the appellant had been provided to him. The respondent also submitted that that due to restructuring of revenue districts at that time, the information desired by the appellant was not readily available, which caused the delay. Moreover, the information sought by the appellant was mostly based on why, when where, whether and the reply of the same could not be provided under the RTI Act.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that ‘restructuring’ of revenue districts was carried out in the month of September, 2012 that is much later to the date of the appellant’s RTI application and the date of the order of the FAA. Thus, the explanation provided by the respondent is not acceptable and the same cannot be construed as ‘reasonable cause’ for not responding to the appellant. The CIC ruled that the PIO is a statutory authority under the RTI Act who is duty bound to adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act, especially the time limit, which is the key element in the RTI Act. The PIO could have provided an interim reply to the appellant which he did not and had thus failed to discharge his statutory duty. Further, the defiance of the order of the FAA by the PIO is highly objectionable.
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 imposed a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the PIO holding that the PIO has delayed/obstructed the supply of information to the appellant without any reasonable cause.
Citation: Mr. Bhan Singh v. Department of Revenue in File No: CIC/AD/A/2012/001843
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2013/CIC/1262
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission