Copy of order for the funds given to Municipal Councilors
19 Jul, 2012Background
The appellant sought information regarding orders by which concurrence was given for the funds to Municipal Councilors, such as the copies of estimate, work order, copy of justification for delay, copy of quality control report, third Party Test Check, copy of measurement book and final payment bills etc. The Public Information Officer invited the appellant for inspection of the records, stating that the information sought by him was voluminous and it would take time and labour to trace the record and prepare the required information. He also informed that the photocopy of any record desired by the appellant will be provided to him after depositing the necessary fees as per the RTI Act. No information was provided to the appellant, despite the orders of the First Appellate Authority (FAA) who had directed for disclosure of complete information.
Proceedings
The Central Information Commission (CIC) directed the PIO to provide the complete information as per records to the appellant. 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 PIO to give reasons as to why penalty should not be levied on him. Under section 20(2), the Commission recommended disciplinary action against the PIO stating that even after repeated reminders, the PIO persistently refused to give the information. During the hearing the appellant stated that he had received the complete information after a delay. The PIO stated that the responsibility for the delay in providing the information could be assigned to the Assistant Engineer (AE), the Assistant Accountant-II and two accountants of the Public Authority. The Accountant claimed that he tried to get the information from the dealing assistants but could not get it.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that the information which was to be provided was with the accounts branch and that it was the responsibility of the Accounts Officer to ensure that the work was done and the FAA’s order was implemented. As the Accounts Officer failed to give evidence before the Commission that he made any efforts to obtain the information as per the order of the FAA, the Commission imposed the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the Accountant 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 for a delay of more than 100 days.
Citation: Mr. Harish Kumar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi in Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2012/000181/17713Penalty
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/489
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission