Information regarding functioning of the CESTAT & information was sought - PIO: RTI application was not received by him - FAA: trace the application & the postal order; furnish the information - CIC: enquiry ordered to pinpoint responsibility for delay
18 Apr, 2014Information regarding the functioning of the CESTAT & copies of certain documents was sought - PIO: RTI application was not received by him - FAA: trace the application & the postal order, furnish the information - Appellant: information given by the PIO is not complete and correct on many counts - CIC: Registrar of the CESTAT to inquire into the matter and identify the officer(s) who are responsible for causing delay in providing the information
ORDER
1. The present proceeding relates to the decision passed by the High Court of Delhi in J.K. Mittal v. Central Information Commission and Anr.; W.P. (C) No. 6755/2012; date of decision 28.10.2013 directing the Commission to dispose of the complaint dated 04.04.2012 (registered in the Commission as complaint No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000336) of the Complainant, Shri J.K. Mittal in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act.
2. The facts giving rise to the present complaint are that the Complainant filed an RTI application dated 14.02.2012 before the CPIO, CESTAT, R.K. Puram, New Delhi seeking certain information, interalia, regarding the functioning of the CESTAT. He also wanted to obtain certified copies of certain documents, including the advisory issued by the CESTAT/Ministry of Finance.
3. Since the Complainant did not receive any response from the CPIO within the time limit as specified in section 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: of the RTI Act, he proceeded to file the instant complaint (dated 04.04.2012) before the Commission under section 18 of the RTI Act.
4. Acting on this complaint, the Commission issued an order dated 19.07.2012, interalia, directing that in case no reply has been given by the CPIO to the Complainant’s RTI request dated 14.02.2012, CPIO should furnish a reply to the Complainant within two weeks of receipt of the order and in case the CPIO has already given a reply to the Complainant, he should furnish a copy of his reply to the Complainant within one week of receipt of the order. The Complainant was also advised to file an appeal under section 19(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act before the Appellate Authority if he is not satisfied with the reply furnished by the CPIO.
5. The Complainant however, being aggrieved by the order of the Commission, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi challenging the Commission’s order dated 19.07.2012.
6. The High Court of Delhi disposed of this writ petition by an order dated 28.10.2013 directing the Commission to dispose of the complaint of the Complainant in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act.
7. Pursuant to the above order of the High Court of Delhi, the complaint was taken up for hearing on 21.02.2014 when the Respondents were present through Shri Rajender Prasad, Accounts Officer, CESTAT and Shri Kripa Shankar, Assistant Registrar, CESTAT.
8. During the hearing, the Complainant, while reiterating his complaint against nonsupply of information by the CPIO within the time limit as specified in section 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: of the RTI Act, informed the Commission about the developments which had taken place after he had filed the instant complaint before the Commission. He stated that after filing the instant complaint before the Commission, he had also separately approached the First Appellate Authority under section 19(1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub¬section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority: Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. of the RTI Act seeking the disclosure of information. The First Appellate Authority decided his appeal vide an order dated 25.05.2012 wherein he, while recording the CPIO’s statement that the RTI application of the Complainant was not received by him, observed/directed as follows: “6. There is a need to trace the application along with the postal order 92E 443634 stated in the appeal to be enclosed to the application. It is seen that there is no mention about the postal order in the application. The photocopy of the application enclosed to the appeal shows counterfoil of Postal order as an interpolated document on the photocopy of application acknowledged by CESTAT. There is a possibility that the postal order was not enclosed and that has resulted in the application getting stuck somewhere. It may be found whether there is any proof of encashment of postal order 32E 443634 by CESTAT. The CPIO who is also the Deputy Registrar is directed to conduct the necessary investigation and recommend action against erring officers. 7. It is more important to furnish the information called for without further delay. The CPIO may urgently collect the information when the effort to trace the postal order is in progress. If the case is that the postal order has not been received as enclosure to the application, the position may be informed to the appellant as early as possible at any rate not later than 15 days from receipt of this order. 8. The information needed by the appellant is already on record as annexure to the appeal. The CPIO is directed to gather information within 15 days of receipt of this order and furnish if the postal order is already received, and if not received, ask the appellant to submit necessary fees.”
9. The Complainant stated that even the above directions of the First Appellate Authority were not complied with by the CPIO within the time limit prescribed by the First Appellate Authority in his order. According to him, the CPIO replied to his RTI application only on 13.08.2012 that is after more than two months of the date of the order of the First Appellate Authority. He also complained that even now the information/reply given by the CPIO is not complete and correct on many counts. His specific complaint was that although he had requested for “certified copies” of documents, none of the documents supplied by the CPIO has been certified.
10. The Respondents, on their part, submitted that since the application fee was not enclosed with the original RTI application of the Complainant, no reply could be sent to the Complainant initially. As for the late compliance of the order of the First Appellate Authority, they explained that the order of the First Appellate Authority was received by the CPIO only on 12.06.2012, after which the reply was sent to the Complainant on 13.08.2012.
11. The Complainant refuted the Respondents’ statement that no application was enclosed with his original RTI application and asserted that he did enclose the application fee with his original RTI application. He argued that moreover this issue had already been examined by the First Appellate Authority in his order dated 25.05.2012 wherein he directed the CPIO to conduct the necessary investigation and recommend action against erring officers in this connection. However, despite the specific direction of the First Appellate Authority, no investigation seems to have been conducted by the CPIO. However, the fact that following the order of the First Appellate Authority his RTI application was registered in the CESTAT and a response has been furnished to him by the CPIO shows that the Respondents had received the application fee with his original RTI application.
12. He further argued that even if it is assumed that the Respondents had not received the application fee with the original RTI application, it was their duty to render reasonable assistance to him by intimating this fact to him. They however even failed to do so.
13. The Complainant also, while wondering as to how the order of the First Appellate Authority reached the CPIO so late when both were sitting in the same building, argued that even if the said order of the First Appellate Authority was received by the CPIO only on 12.06.2012, as stated by the Respondents hereinabove, there has been a further delay of around 2 months at the level of the CPIO in complying with the order of the First Appellate Authority.
14. He thus requested the Commission to impose penalty on the CPIO/officer(s) responsible for causing delay in providing the information to 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. of the RTI Act.
15. Since the order dated 25.05.2012 of the First Appellate Authority and the reply dated 13.08.2012 of the CPIO were subsequent developments in the instant matter and they were not available in the records of the Commission, the Commission advised the Complainant to file copies of these documents before the Commission.
16. The Complainant accordingly submitted copies of these documents to the Commission vide letter dated 24.02.2014.
17. On consideration of the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of records, the Commission is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter.
18. The High Court of Delhi in UOI v. Vishwas Bhamburkar; W.P. (C) 3660/2012 & CM 7664/2012; date of decision 13.09.2012; has held: “Whether in a particular case, an inquiry ought to be made by the Commission or by the officer of the department/office concerned is a matter to be decided by the Commission in the facts and circumstances of each such case.”
19. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the Commission considers it appropriate that the Registrar of the CESTAT, inquires into the matter and identify the officer(s) who are responsible for causing delay in providing the information to the Complainant and submit a report to the Commission. The Registrar, CESTAT, Shri A. Mohan Kumar is accordingly hereby directed to inquire into the matter and submit a report to the Commission. This report should include the complete chronology of events relating to the processing of the Complainant’s RTI application (right from the date of its filing till the date of its disposal by the CPIO) in the CESTAT along with the name(s) of the officer(s) who are responsible for causing delay in providing the information to the Complainant and the period of delay occurred at the level of the each officer.
20. The Registrar, CESTAT, Shri A. Mohan Kumar should submit his report to the Commission within 2 weeks of receipt of this order.
(Sushma Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri J.K. Mittal v. Customs Excise & Service Tax in Case No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000336