CIC: There has been callousness on the part of the PIO but it cannot be said that he acted out of any malice or with intent to deny the information sought by the appellant; Imposition of penalty on the PIO therefore, would not be justified
6 Apr, 2016
Dated 18.01.2015
ORDER
1. Shri Narender Singh filed an application dated 13.05.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), South West District, Delhi Police seeking information on five points regarding details of his and his son’s arrest, including
(i) at what time, date and name of place, he and his son were arrested by police officers/officials (Name & designation under FIR No.614/2013.
(ii) at what time & date, he and his son were referred for MLCs to DDU Hospital with police officers (name & designation)
(iii) at what time & date he and his son came from DDU Hospital with the police officers (name & designation)
(iv) at what time he and his son were sent to P.S. Dwarka, Sector9 in lockup with the police officers (name & designation) and
(v) at what time he and his son were picked up from P.S. Dwarka Sector9 in lockup by the police officers (name & designation) for court appearance.
2. The appellant filed second appeal before the Commission on the ground that the CPIO did not reply to his application and that the FAA did not respond to his appeal. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the concerned authority in Delhi Police to provide the desired information to him.
Hearing (03.12.2015):
3. The appellant Shri Narender Singh and the respondent Ms. Niyati M Kashyap, ACP, Delhi Police were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted the no information has been provided to him by the respondent in response to his RTI application. The appellant further submitted that the respondent in response to his first appeal dated 13.05.2014 had informed that his RTI application dated 13.05.2014 has not been received in the O/o of CPIO, South West District. The appellant further submitted that a copy of the RTI application dated 13.05.2014 was also enclosed with the appeal filed with the FAA.
5. The respondent submitted that the RTI application was not received in CPIO, South West District, Delhi Police. Hence, no Information could be provided to the appellant.
Interim Decision:
6. The Commission perused the records. The Commission observes that the RTI application dated 13.05.2014 had been sent by speed post (ED337687492IN) to SHO/PIO, South West District. Further, the first appeal filed by the appellant had been received by the FAA. However, no information was provided to the appellant. Therefore, the CPIO, South West District, Delhi Police is liable for imposition of penalty in terms of provision 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, 2005.
7. The CPIO, South West District, Delhi Police is hereby directed to submit an explanation both by post and through email at do.icsbcic@ gov.in before the Commission, on or before 01.01.2015, explaining why action 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 should not be initiated against him.
8. The CPIO, South West District, Delhi Police is further directed to appear before the Commission on 18.01.2015 at 1.30 p.m. along with a copy of his written explanations.
9. The CPIO, South West District, Delhi Police is also directed to inform if there is/are other person(s) responsible for knowingly not providing complete information to the appellant and if so to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission on 18.01.2015 at 1.30 p.m. along with his/ their written explanations.
10. The Commission further directs the CPIO to provide information to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Hearing (18.01.2016):
11. The appellant Shri Narendra Singh and the respondent Shri Lokesh Kumar, SI were present in person.
12. The appellant submitted that information as sought has not been provided to him. He further submitted that information has been suppressed deliberately on account of malafide intentions of the respondent.
13. The respondent, Nupur Prasad (PIO, SouthWest District, New Delhi) submitted a written explanation dated 28.12.2015 to the show cause notice stating that the appellant filed the first appeal on 13.06.2014 on the ground that the reply of his RTI application dated 13.05.2014 which was sent to SHO/PIO P.S. Dabri, South West District has not been received from the concerned authority within stipulated time of thirty days. The respondent further submitted that on scrutiny of the records of RTI Cell/SWD, no RTI application dated 13.05.2014 of the appellant was found received in the office of CPIO/SWD. As such the reply was sent to the appellant by the FAA vide letter dated 15.07.2014. The respondent concluded his submission by stating that it was an error devoid of any mensrea or ill motive and the fallacy first in point of time occurred due to the RTI application addressed to the SHO Dabri, though no record is available with the SHO Dabri in respect of the same. He further submitted that as per the order of the Commission, point wise information/reply has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 22.12.2015.
Decision:
14. The Commission observes that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 01.06.2012, in the matter of Registrar of Companies and Ors. v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg and Anr. W.P.(C) 11271/2009 has held as under:
“61….. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e. where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed….”
In the present case, there has been callousness on the part of the CPIO but it cannot be said that the CPIO acted out of any malice or with intent to deny the information sought by the appellant. Imposition of penalty on the CPIO therefore, would not be justified. Thus, the Commission directs that the show cause notice against the respondent be dropped.
15. The Commission directs the respondent that an affidavit should be filed, deposing that the information as available till the date of hearing has been provided to the appellant and that no information has been suppressed, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant.
16. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
17. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Narender Singh v. Delhi Police in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/002243/SB