Four RTI applications about the transfer of members of CESTAT - PIO replied that files are under submission - CIC: the PIO could have offered inspection as and when the files were returned to him intermittently - penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the then PIO
4 Oct, 2013FACTS
Appellant R.K. Jain present.
The Public Authority is represented by Shri Victor James, the then CPIO presently working as Director(V), EDMC.
2. A coordinate bench of the Commission vide order dt.9.1.13 in case Nos.CIC/SS/A/2012/001117, 1118, 1119 & 1120 had passed the following order:
Shri R.K. Jain, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed the present four appeals each dated 17.12.2011 before the Commission against the respondent Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi for denial of information in reply to his four RTI applications dated 16.8.2011,16.6.2011,4.7.2011 and 12.8.2011. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri S. Bhowmik, Under Secretary.
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001117
1.1. The appellant has through his RTI application dated 16.8.2011 sought information on the following four queries:
“(A) Please provide copies of CESTAT Transfer order dated 9.8.2011 and relieving order dated 12.8.201 received by Department of Revenue and all subsequent correspondence in this respect;
(B) Please intimate the date, time and mode of receipt of aforesaid orders;
(C) Please provide datewise details of the action taken on the aforesaid orders; and
(D) Please provide inspection of all records, documents, files and notesheets relating to information sought in clauses (A) to (C) above”.
The CPIO vide letter No. R20011/32/2011Ad. IC dated 19.9.2011 informed the appellant that the file No. 26/2/2009Ad. IC in which the recent transfer orders in CESTAT were dealt was under active consideration of the Department and was not free for inspection now. Therefore, the requisite information cannot be provided at this stage. 1.2. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 28.9.2011 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. R.20011/32/2011Ad. IC (CESTAT) dated 14.11.2011 while upholding the reply of the CPIO, held that the appellant had sought inspection of the file under various other RTI applications also. When the file became available, the appellant was informed accordingly by the CPIO and he inspected the file on 20.10.2011 and 27.10.2011 but the inspection remained incomplete. Although opportunity for inspection of the file was open to the appellant, he did not come for competition of inspection of the file thereafter. This inspection was undertaken under another RTI application No.RTI3699/ 2011 filed by the appellant himself for inspection of the same file.
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001118
2. The appellant has through his RTI application dated 16.6.2011 sought information on the following three queries:
“(A) Please provide copies of the letter No. F26/2/09Ad. IC dated 1.9.2010 and 11.3.2010;
(B) Please provide copies of all note sheets and correspondence pages of File No. 26/2/09Ad. IC; and
(C) Please provide inspection of all records documents, files, correspondence, note sheets in relation to the information sought in (A) and (B) above”.
The CPIO vide letter No. R20011/26/2011Ad. IC (CESTAT) dated 14.7.2011 informed the appellant that the file No. 26/2/2009Ad. IC was under submission for past few days and would not be available perhaps for quite some days. Therefore, the appellant would be informed/ invited for inspection as and when the file was available for this purpose.
2.1 Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 4.10.2011 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. R.20011/26/2011Ad. IC(CESTAT) dated 14.11.2011 while upholding the reply of the CPIO, held that the appellant had sought inspection of the file under various other RTI applications also. When the file became available, the appellant was informed accordingly by the CPIO and he inspected the file on 20.10.2011 and 27.10.2011 but the inspection remained incomplete. Although opportunity for inspection of the file was open to the appellant, he did not come for competition of inspection of the file thereafter. This inspection was undertaken under another RTI application No.RTI3699/ 2011 filed by the appellant himself for inspection of the same file.
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001119
3. The appellant has through his RTI application dated 4.7.2011 sought information on the following four queries:
“(A) Please provide information and copies of application/intimation regarding availing leaves including station leave for the dates Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar has been on leave while on tour to Goa during 16.3.2009 till 30.6.2011 as per the attached list of protocols received at Goa Airport by Customs Department and on leave during tours shown in list of Protocol messages made to Delhi Airport for Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar;
(B) If station leave for the dates mentioned in attached lists have not been applied by him while he was on said tours, please provide information as to action taken against him, and if no action is taken please also provide information as to the name and designation of the authority responsible for taking such action;
(C) Please provide datewise details of various leaves, including Earned Leave, LTC, Station Leave has been applied and availed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar from 16.3.2009 till the date of providing information; and
(D) Please provide inspection of all and complete records, files and documents in which information as referred to in clauses (A) to (C) are contained”.
The CPIO vide letter No. R20011/28/2011Ad. IC (CESTAT) dated 1.8.2011 informed the appellant that the file No.26/2/2009Ad. IC was under submission and therefore it is not possible to furnish the relevant information at this stage.
3.1 Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 4.10.2011 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. R.20011/28/2011Ad. IC (CESTAT) dated 14.11.2011 while upholding the reply of the CPIO, held that the appellant had sought inspection of the file under various other RTI applications also. When the file became available, the appellant was informed accordingly by the CPIO and he inspected the file on 20.10.2011 and 27.10.2011 but the inspection remained incomplete. Although opportunity for inspection of the file was open to the appellant, he did not come for competition of inspection of the file thereafter. This inspection was undertaken under another RTI application No.RTI3699/ 2011 filed by the appellant himself for inspection of the same file.
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001120
4. The appellant has through his RTI application dated 12.8.2011 sought information on the following five queries:
“(A) Please provide datewise details of applications received for leave including LTC from Shri R.M.S. Khandeparkar from March 2009 till date;
(B) Please provide dates on which Shri R.M.S.Khandeparkar was on leave or from March 2009 till date and type of leave;
(C) Please provide dates for which Shri R.M.S. Khandeparkar applied post facto sanction for leave including in June 2011, July 2011 and August 201;
(D) Please provide copies of all leave applications received from him since 2009; and
(E) Please provide inspection of all records, documents, files and notesheets relating to information sought in clauses (A) to (D) above”.
The CPIO vide letter No. R20011/31/2011Ad. IC (CESTAT) dated 15.9.2011 informed the appellant that the relevant file was under submission and therefore the CPIO is not in a position to furnish a reply at this stage. 4.1 Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 14.11.2011 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. R.20011/31/2011Ad. IC(CESTAT) dated 14.11.2011 while upholding the reply of the CPIO, held that the appellant had sought inspection of the file under various other RTI applications also. When the file became available, the appellant was informed accordingly by the CPIO and he inspected the file on 20.10.2011 and 27.10.2011 but the inspection remained incomplete. Although opportunity for inspection of the file was open to the appellant, he did not come for competition of inspection of the file thereafter. This inspection was undertaken under another RTI application No.RTI3699/ 2011 filed by the appellant himself for inspection of the same file.
5. During the hearing the respondent CPIO filed his written submissions in which he states that during the year 2011, a total of 63 RTI applications were received by the then CPIO Incharge of Ad. IC Section. Out of these 53 were filed by Shri R.K. Jain. He had filed appeal before the FAA in 35 cases. A total of 282 letters were received from Shri Jain in connection with his RTI applications. During the year 2012 a total of 85 RTI applications were received by the then CPIO. Out of these 65 were from Shri R.K. Jain. Having high regards for the provisions of the RTI Act, these figures are being placed before the Commission just to give an idea about the time and efforts put in by the then CPIO in providing information to the appellant. It may, at times, not only result in hampering the CPIO to attend his regular duties but also jeopardize the functioning of the whole Unit to deal with other important administrative matters.
6. The appellant states during the hearing that he inspected the relevant files and found that the files were made available long after when the information become irrelevant for the appellant. Moreover the limited pages which were shown for inspection which did not relate to the information sought through his four aforementioned RTI applications. The appellant submits that the CPIO is the custodian of files being Under Secretary of the concerned Section. The CPIO vide letter No. R.20011/17/2011Ad. IC dated 11.8.2011 provided copies of 18 pages of notes and 53 pages of correspondence portion from file No. 26/2/2009IC. Therefore, it is the submission of the appellant that it is clear that the concerned file was in the custody of the then CPIO at least in the month of August, 2011, whereas the inspection was allowed only in October, 2011.
7. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission observes that there is merit in the contention of the appellant. The then CPIO has not only caused a delay in providing files for inspection but has also failed to reply to the specific queries of the appellant in response to his aforementioned four RTI applications. The CPIO cannot simply take the plea that the file is under submission and deny information to the specific queries of the appellant. The timeline for providing information under the RTI Act has to be maintained by the CPIO. The Commission hereby directs the present CPIO to provide requisite information on the specific queries of the appellant as sought for through his aforementioned four RTI applications within four weeks of receipt of this order. In so far as inspection of the relevant file is concerned, the CPIO states that he has no objection in providing entire files for inspection to the appellant. In view of the submissions of the CPIO, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO to provide an opportunity to the appellant for inspection of the said files on a mutually convenient date and time within two weeks of receipt of this order. After inspection of the said files, the CPIO will provide identified documents to the appellant, free of cost within two weeks of receipt of such request from the appellant 8. The Commission observes that the then CPIO (Shri Victor James) has primafacie caused a delay of more than 100 days in providing information to the appellant on the specific queries, on the pretext that the file was under submission, in response to his aforementioned four RTI applications. Moreover, there is also primafacie, a delay in allowing inspection of the concerned files. A separate showcause notice 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. of the RTI Act would be issued to Shri Victor James, the then CPIO, asking him to showcause why a penalty of Rs.25,000/ should not be imposed upon him.
3. I have heard the parties. I have also perused the material on record. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant had filed four RTI applications in all of which he had sought information about the transfer of members of CESTAT ordered by the then President, CESTAT.
4. The details of RTI application and response of the CPIO in regard thereto need to be brought on record. CIC/SS/A/2012/001117 Date of RTI application : 16.8.11 CPIO’s response dated 19.9.11 is extracted below: ‘With reference to your RTI application No.RTI/11/3639 dated 16.8.2011, it is stated that the F.No.26/2/2009Ad. IC in which the recent transfer orders in CESTAT were dealt is under active consideration of the Department and is not free for inspection now. Therefore, the requisite information cannot be provided at this stage’. CIC/SS/A/2012/001118 Date of RTI application : 16.6.11 CPIO’s response dated 14.7.11 is extracted below: ‘Please refer to your above stated RTI application. You are hereby informed that the relevant file (F.No.26/2/2009.Ad.IC) is under submission for past few days and will not be available perhaps for quite some days. Therefore, you will be informed/invited for inspection as and when the file will be available for this purpose.’ CIC/SS/A/2012/001119 Date of RTI application : 4.7.11 CPIO’s response dated 1.8.11 is extracted below: ‘With reference to your RTI application Nos.RTI/11/3555 dated 472011, it is stated that the relevant file on the subject matter (F.No.26/2/2009Ad. IC) is under submission and therefore it is not possible to furnish the relevant information at this stage.’ CIC/SS/A/2012/001120 Date of RTI application : 12.8.11 CPIO’s response dated 15.9.11 is extracted below: ‘With reference to your RTI application Nos.RTI/11/3635 dated 1262011, and No.RTI/11/3634 dated 1282011, it is stated that the relevant file is under submission and therefore, this Division is not in a position to furnish a reply at this stage.’
5. The contents of the RTI applications referred to in order dated 9.1.13 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Commission need not be repeated. The focus of all these RTI applications is the leave, including LTC and Station Leave, availed by Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, the then President, CESTAT and the matters related therewith. It is pertinent to mention that in response to all the RTI applications, Shri Victor James has taken the stand that files are under submission. It is clear that the CPIO has responded to all these RTI applications within the prescribed time but has not disclosed any material information within the prescribed time for the reason that files are under submission to the superior authorities.
6. In the written representation, CPIO has taken the stand that requisite information could not be supplied to the appellant in response to the RTI applications in the prescribed time as the files were under submission and as soon as the files came back to him, he had offered inspection to the appellant. The explanation of the CPIO in case Nos.CIC/SS/A/2012/001117, 001118 and 001119 is as follows: “As regards delay in furnishing information, it is submitted that the appellant continued inspection of the file after issue of the order by the FAA on 14.11.2011. Although the appellant is complaining of delay in providing information, it was seen that the appellant was in no hurry to inspect the files. The inspection which commenced on 20.1011 was completed on 17.11.11. The dates for inspection was the choice of the appellant and not the CPIO. The CPIO simply cooperated with the appellant in the process of inspection of the file. The appellant took almost one month to complete inspection. If he was genuinely interested in the information sought through his RTI applications as made out in the present appeal, he could have completed inspection of the file in one or two days.”
7. The explanation of the CPIO in case No.CIC/SS/A/2012/001120 is as follows: “From the above, it is clear that the file was repeatedly under submission in the month of August, 2011. However, the Section managed to prepare photocopies of certain pages of the file and supply to the appellant on 11th August, 2011 in connection with an earlier RTI application. The CPIO could not have cooperated more with the appellant in the month of August, 2011 as made out by the appellant.”
8. However, it is the appellant’s contention that the files could not be under submission all the time when he was seeking information in response to four different RTI applications. All his queries were simple and limited in scope. CPIO could have responded to them easily when the files returned to him intermittently. It is also his contention that as he was seeking information about the then President, CESTAT, CPIO was deliberately and intentionally stonewalling disclosure of information for extraneous reasons and that if the CPIO was sincere and diligent in performing his duties, he would have offered inspection of the relevant files when they returned to him intermittently. He, therefore, pleads for imposition of maximum penalty on the CPIO.
9. It is pertinent to mention that CPIO was not directly working under the President, CESTAT. He had no senior subordinate relationship with the President. The compulsions, if any, of the CPIO in stonewalling disclosure of information are not available on record. At the same time, the stereotype response of the CPIO in regard to all the four RTI applications that files are under submission and, therefore, information cannot be supplied does not seem to be convincing. I am, therefore, inclined to accept the appellant’s submission that CPIO could have given inspection of the relevant records to the appellant as and when the files returned to him intermittently. It would, thus, appear that CPIO has not exercised due diligence in the matter. Delayed information is no information. It loses its sanctity and usefulness. If any piece of information is disclosable under the law, it has to be done within the prescribed time frame. Any delay on the part of CPIO in this regard renders him liable to penal action.
10. However, while deciding this matter, I cannot be oblivious of the fact that appellant had filed a huge number of RTI applications which were to be replied to by the CPIO. A bit of delay here and there cannot be malafide in all the cases and needs to be condoned. But the present case is not one where delay in supply of information/inspection can be condoned in entirety. As mentioned above, the CPIO’s bland response to all the four RTI applications that file is under submission, is not convincing. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it would be fit and proper to impose penalty of Rs. 5,000/on Shri Victor James, the then CPIO. The Commissioner, East Delhi Municipal Corporation is hereby directed to recover an amount of Rs.5,000/from the salary of Shri Victor James, Director (Vigilance) and have a Demand Draft made in favour of ‘PAO CAT’. This Demand Draft should be sent to Shri Pankaj K.P.Shreyaskar, Director, Central Information Commission, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066. The Demand Draft should reach the Commission in 05 weeks time from the receipt of this order.
(M.L.Sharma)
Information Commissioner
Citation: R.K.Jain v. Department of Revenue in File No.CIC/SS/C/2013/000022/LS