Whole RTI application transferred to district PIOs who were not concerned with the issue - CIC: SCN issued to PIO (PHQ) for imposing penalty - practice of routine transfer of application to be brought before police Commissioner
5 Sep, 2013Information regarding Anna Hazare agitation - whole RTI application transferred to district PIOs who were not concerned with the subject matter of the queries while the most of the queries pertained to PHQ only – CIC: the PIO (PHQ) has obstructed the supply of information by transferring the whole RTI application of the Appellant to the PIOs, who were not concerned with the subject matter of the queries – on being summoned for the hearing through Commission’s notice, the PIO (PHQ) failed to appear or to take note of the replies of the districts units and instead wrote to the Commission that the PIOs of the Districts units were being instructed to present themselves for the hearing as the matter pertained to them - CIC: SCN issued to PIO (PHQ) why penalty 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 should not be imposed for obstruction of information - the habit of PIO (PHQ) of routinely transferring RTI applications to the district units who are not concerned with the subject matter of the queries to be brought before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police for his information and necessary action
Facts of the case:
2. The Appellant, through his RTI application dated 19.08.2011, filed with the CPIO, Delhi Police Headquarters, New Delhi, sought following information:
“1. Copies of complete correspondence (together with related file notings, documents etc if any) between Anna Hazare and/or his team members with Delhi Police on holding fast from 16th August 2011 in favour of Jan Lokpal Bill, right from the beginning when the first application was first moved by Annateam to Delhi Police till today including all in between correspondence like also including letter of Delhi police allowing fast at JP Park with conditions, Anna team letter not accepting all conditions of Delhi Police, Delhi Police initial offer for fast at Ramlila Maidaan and final acceptance signed by Delhi Police and Anna team members
2. Copies of complete correspondence on the aspect of Anna Hazare’s fast from 16th August 2011 with other functionaries like also including Union Home Ministry
3. Nature of facilities provided by Delhi Police and other public authorities like Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for Anna Hazare’s fast at Ramlila Maidaan including also assistance provided to prepare Ramlila Maidaan for the large gathering and the fast
4. Was the public protest in support of Anna Hazare’s fast peaceful and nonviolent without any damage to public property?
5. If not, please specify
6. Complete and detailed information together with related correspondence/ file notings/ documents etc on decision taken to arrest Anna Hazare on 16th August 2011 and on his being arrested from Mayur Vihar (Delhi) enclosing also copy of charge sheet against him as filed in the court
7. Complete and detailed information together with related correspondence/ file notings/ documents etc on decision taken to release Anna Hazare and ordering subsequent release of Anna Hazare on the same day at 16th August 2011 enclosing also copy of release order mentioning time when the release order was signed and handed over to Shri Anna Hazare
8. Do jail manuals provide any rules regarding time of release of arrested persons?
9. If yes, please specify
10. Was any permission for release of Shri Anna Hazare taken from the concerned court having endorsed arrest of Shri Anna Hazare?
11. If not, complete and detailed information on rules permitting Delhi police to release persons at its own without seeking permission of the court endorsing such arrests
12. Was there any role of Union Home Ministry and/or some other government functionary in first arrest and then release of Shri Anna Hazare?
13. If yes, please specify with related documents, correspondence, file notings etc.
14. Any other related details
15. File notings on movement of this RTI petition as well”
3. The Assistant Public Information Officer (APIO), PHQ vide his letter dated 26.08.2011 transferred this application to 6 different PIOs viz., PIO/Crime; PIO West District; PIO/ East District; PIO/North West District; and PIO/ North District. This was followed by a letter dated 29.08.2011 of the CPIO/PHQ, Shri Mangesh Kashyap informing the Appellant of the transfer of the RTI application and enclosing the APIO’s letter dated 26.08.2011.
4. The Appellant thereafter filed the present petition before the Commission wherein he, while acknowledging receipt of information in respect of point No. 4 to 7 of his RTI application, complained that no information with regard to the remaining points has been provided to him. He, therefore, requested to provide the remaining information free of cost to him.
Decision:
5. During the hearing, the representatives of the different districts of Delhi Police—to whom the Appellant’s RTI application was transferred by the APIO, PHQ— including Crime Branch, inform the Commission that the information in question (i.e. point Nos. 1 to 3 and 8 to 14 of Appellant’s RTI application) does not pertain to them. The Respondents, representing the CPIO, PHQ, state that the instant RTI application of the Appellant was transferred by the then CPIO/APIO, PHQ to PIOs of the 5 different districts including the Crime Branch. They, however, have no explanation as to why whole RTI application of the Appellant was transferred to the above mentioned PIOs while the most of the queries (i.e. point Nos. 1 to 3 and 8 to 14) pertained to PHQ only. It is however brought to the Commission’s notice, which the Appellant also agrees, that the information related to point no. 3 has been provided to the Appellant by the PIO, MCD, to whom this query was transferred by the PIO, Central District— one of the transferees of the instant RTI application.
6. Having heard the submission above and perused the records, the Commission observes that the CPIO/ PHQ has obstructed the supply of information to the Appellant by transferring the whole RTI application of the Appellant to the PIOs, who were not concerned with the subject matter of the queries. In fact, all the queries (barring point Nos. 4 to 7) of the Appellant’s RTI application evidently pertained to the PHQ only and that it was the PHQ that could have responded to them. However, it appears from records that the CPIO, PHQ had avoided to answer the RTI application of the Appellant and had simply transferred the same to the PIOs, who were not concerned with the matter. The CPIO, PHQ had not even bothered to read the contents of the RTI application of the Appellant before transferring it to the other PIOs which has now resulted in delayed supply of information to the Appellant.
7. Equally serious is the fact that the present CPIO, PHQ Shri K.K. Vyas, being summoned for the hearing through Commission’s notice dated 14.06.2013, failed to appear or to take note of the replies of the districts units who have stated in their replies that the queries pertained to PHQ itself and instead wrote to the Deputy Registrar of the Commission vide letter dated 17.07.2013 that the CPIOs of the Districts units were being instructed to present themselves for the hearing as the matter pertained to them The present CPIO has, therefore, also failed to provide information to the Appellant yet again.
8. In view of the above, the Commission now hereby directs the CPIO, PHQ, Shri K.K. Vyas to furnish the appropriate reply/ information to the Appellant corresponding to point Nos. 1 to 3 and 8 to 15 of his RTI application within 3 weeks of receipt of this order. No fee shall be charged to the Appellant for supply of information in view of the delay that has already occurred in the present matter.
9. The Commission also directs that show cause notices be separately issued to the then CPIO, PHQ, Shri Mangesh Kashyap and to the present CPIO, Shri K.K. Vyas asking them to show cause why penalty 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 should not be imposed upon them for prima facie delaying/obstructing the supply of information to the Appellant without any reasonable cause by transferring the whole RTI application to the PIOs, who were admittedly not related to the subject matter of RTI queries. A separate show cause notice to issue.
10. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
11. The habit of CPIOs, PHQ of routinely transferring RTI applications to the district units when queries clearly are to be answered by the PHQ itself is a serious malady of the RTI set up in Delhi Police Headquarters. District units of Delhi Police, sometimes thirteen at a time, crowd the Commission with the plea that they have ‘nil’ information to provide and that “it concerns the PHQ”. Besides denial of information to the petitioners, the wastage of time of senior officers of Delhi Police must also be a matter of concern to the Police Commissioner. A copy of this order may, therefore, also be sent to the head of the public authority viz., Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police for his information and necessary action.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Delhi Police in Case No.CIC/SS/C/2012/000024