Show cause issued to the PIO for not complying with the orders of FAA
The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) seeking certified copy of the latest license deed in respect of two shops, copy of the license deed at the time of allotment and copy of the affidavit submitted by the occupiers of those shops. The Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide any information. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) held that the information sought is too voluminous and will take up a large time and manpower resources. However for some information, he directed the PIO to allow the applicant to inspect one file per day and supply photocopies of documents up to one hundred pages per week. With regard to the rest of the queries, the FAA directed the PIO to transfer the RTI application to the Personnel Department.
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant submitted that he has not received any information from the Personnel Department nor is he aware of whether the RTI application has been transferred to them in compliance with the order of FAA. He added that in compliance with the order of the FAA he had inspected all the files and had identified the documents required by him but he has been given copies of only some of the documents till date.
View of CIC
The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the remaining copies of documents as identified by the appellant during inspection. Noting that the PIO has neither responded to the RTI application nor has transferred it to the Personnel Department, the Commission directed the PIO to transfer the RTI application to the Personnel Department so that information could be provided by him directly to the appellant. The Commission also noted that the PIO has not supplied all the documents identified by the appellant and therefore issued a show cause notice to the PIO why penalty should not be imposed upon him 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. of the RTI Act.
Citation: Mr. Harkrishan Das Nijhawan v. New Delhi Municipal Council in File No. CIC/AD/A/2012/002458
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/897
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission