No reply in response to the RTI application was furnished, since a reply in to a similar RTI application had already been furnished - CIC: There was a delay of more than a year in transferring the RTI application - CIC: Show cause notice to both the PIO
25 Dec, 2017O R D E R
1. The appellant filed an online application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of New & Renewable Energy (MoNRE) seeking information on six points pertaining to one Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, including, interalia,
(i) the date of appointment of Shri Raj Kumar Sharma as the Retainer for legal matters of Sardar Swaran Singh National Institute of Bio Energy and
(ii) the name of the Competent Authority who had appointed Shri Raj Kumar Sharma as Retainer for legal matter of the Institute.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that he has not received any information/reply from either the CPIO or the FAA. The appellant stated that no documents have been provided regarding the appointment of Shri Raj Kumar Sharma; no advertisement was ever made in public domain for the appointment. The appellant requested the Commission to take legal action against the respondents for the illegal appointment of Shri Raj Kumar Sharma.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Raj Lalit Prasad attended the hearing through video conferencing. The respondent Ms. Alka Joshi, Dy. Secretary, MoNRE, New Delhi and Dr. Abhishek Gupta, Dy. Director, Sardar Swaran Singh National Institute of Bio-Energy were present in person.
4. The appellant submitted that no information was provided either by the CPIO or by the FAA within the stipulated period of time which tantamount to ‘deemed refusal’. Hence, action should be taken against the erring respondents 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.
5. The respondent (MoNRE) submitted that since the information sought pertained to Sardar Swaran Singh National Institute of Bio-Energy, the RTI application was transferred to CPIO, Sardar Swaran Singh National Institute of Bio-Energy vide letter dated 07.04.2017. On a query, the respondent could not explain as to why there was a delay in transferring the RTI application to the concerned public authority.
6. The respondent (Sardar Swaran Singh National Institute of BioEnergy) submitted that no reply in response to the RTI application was furnished to the appellant, since a reply in response to a similar RTI application had already been furnished to him. The respondent further submitted that subsequently, information was furnished to the appellant vide letter dated 13.11.2017.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, notes that no reply in response of the RTI application was given to the appellant by the respondent (Sardar Swaran Singh National Institute of Bio-Energy) within the stipulated period of time. The Commission also notes that there was a delay of more than a year in transferring the RTI application to the public authority concerned by the then CPIO, MoNRE. The Commission, thus, finds that information has not been provided by the respondent(s) to the appellant. The Commission, therefore, directs the Registry of this Bench to issue a Show Cause Notice to
(i) the CPIO, Sardar Swaran Singh National Institute of Bio-Energy and
(ii) the then CPIO, Ministry of New & Renewable Energy
for explaining as to 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. Ms. Alka Joshi, Dy. Secretary, MoNRE shall ensure that a copy of this order is served upon the then CPIO, MoNRE, New Delhi.
8. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
9. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava)
Information Commission
Citation: Raj Lalit Prasad v. Ministry of New & Renewable Energy in Decision No. CIC/MNRES/A/2017/105450 Dated 01.12.2017