Show cause notice to PIO for not providing any reply within stipulated time - PIO is the nodal officer of the University who acquires information from different wings of the University - No intentional delay or dilatory tactics - Explanation accepted
5 Nov, 2023ORDER
1. The Commission while hearing the captioned complaint deemed it expedient to call explanation from the then PIO on account of an apparent lapse on his part to furnish information. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced hereinafter:
“In view of the above, the Commission deems it expedient to direct the Registry of this Bench to issue Show Cause notice to the then CPIO, for showcasing such lackadaisical approach and cavalier conduct by not providing any reply to the Complainant within stipulated time frame as per the provisions of RTI Act and the then CPIO shall explain in writing as to why action should not be initiated against 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. and 20(2) 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 and persistently, failed 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 recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. of the RTI Act for the foregoing reasons, written explanation of the then CPIO should reach the Commission within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The present CPIO shall serve a copy of this decision to the then CPIO. The present CPIO is directed to ensure that under all circumstances, written submissions of the concerned CPIO should reach the Commission within the prescribed time frame from the date of receipt of this order, failing which ex-parte action will be initiated by the Commission against the concerned CPIO”
2. In compliance of the aforesaid directions, an explanation filed by then PIO, dated 09.01.2023 is on record and same is produced herein below:
Sir,
CPIO is the nodal officer of the University for transmitting required information to the applicant. It may be appreciated that CPIO acquires information from different wings of the University as supplied by the concerned officer. In the instant case, the matter processed and communicated by CPIO as obtained from other wings of the University. There was no intentional delay or dilatory tactics on the part of CPIO. It may be noted that the said information has already been obtained by undersigned and communicated to the applicant vide No. RTI/17/Jan/2023 dated 06.01.2023.
3. In light of the aforesaid submissions, the noticee rules out any malafide intention on his part. Commission do not find it expedient to initiate any further action against him.
4. The law with respect to inflicting penalties under the RTI Act is well settled. In Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. (03.12.2007 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/8756/2007; the Delhi High Court read ‘malafide’ on part of PIO to deny disclosure of information as a sine qua non for imposition of penalties specified under the RTI Act, 2005. It was observed that:
17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.
5. In the facts of the present case, the Commission accepts the explanation tendered by the then PIO and finds no reason to disbelieve him. There is nothing on record to suggest that he acted malafidely or failed to exercise due diligence. The penalty proceedings are dropped. Noticee stands discharged.
Heeralal Samariya
Information Commissioner
Citation: Nirupam Deb v. Assam University, CIC/ASUVR/C/2021/643616; Date of Decision: 10.11.2022