PIO’s work does not end with mere transfer of RTI application
29 Sep, 2014There has been a debate whether the role of the Public Information Officer (PIO) is merely to act as a post office and whether his responsibility ends with forwarding the RTI application to the concerned department. The power of the Information Commission to impose penalty in cases where the first appeal has not been filed has also been discussed amongst legal quarters. The Delhi High Court has issued an order recently in the matter which sheds light on these issues.
Background
An application was filed under the RTI Act on 17.01.2011 with the Public Information Officer (PIO) of Railway Board seeking information relating to the Garib Rath trains in all zones of the Railways etc.. As no information was received, the applicant filed a complaint on 02.03.2011 (being No. F.No.CIC/AD/C/2011/000621) with the CIC under Section 18 of the Act. Thereafter, on 23.03.2011, the PIO transferred the RTI Application to RDSO, Lucknow. The respondent filed an appeal before the FAA on 18.04.2011 alleging that Railway Board itself was the custodian of information sought by him with respect of 10 points out of 11 and the PIO had transferred his application with a mala fide intention. As the RTI applicant did not receive any response from the FAA, he filed an appeal (being No.CIC/AD/A/2011/001870) before the CIC on 25.07.2011.
Multiple hearings were held in the case by the CIC
1. Vide an order dated 30.09.2011, the CIC disposed of the complaint of the respondent dated 02.03.2011.
2. The appeal filed by the respondent on 25.07.2011 was heard by the CIC, subsequently, on 20.10.2011 and by an order dated 20.10.2011, the CIC disposed of the appeal and directed the PIO to provide information to the respondent on the remaining queries.
3. Against the complaint of the RTI applicant (being No.CIC/AD/C/2012/000379) for non compliance of CIC order dated 20.11.2011, the CIC directed PIO to obtain information from the concerned departments and provide the same to the applicant, by an order dated 29.03.2012.
4. On 13.06.2012, the RTI applicant filed another complaint with the CIC and followed it up with a reminder dated 20.08.2012, alleging that the orders of CIC had not been complied with by petitioner no.2. It is in context of the aforesaid facts, that the CIC passed the impugned order dated 11.03.2013, once again directing PIO to provide the information sought for by the respondent and also imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/-.
5. The PIO sought a review of the order dated 11.03.2013 which was rejected by the CIC holding that the CIC does not have any power to review its decision.
Contentions of the PIO
A petition was filed challenging the orders dated 11.03.2013 and 04.04.2014 passed by the CIC wherein it was contended that:
1. the CIC erred in imposing penalty pursuant to proceedings that had been filed by the respondent directly before the CIC without approaching the First Appellate Authority (FAA). It was submitted that a direct appeal against denial of information by Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or a grievance with regard to non-supply of information could not be agitated before the CIC without first exhausting the remedies of appeal before the FAA. It was contended that, in these circumstances, the penalty imposed by CIC was without jurisdiction.
2. in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the PIO could not be held liable or responsible for not providing information since the PIO had forwarded the request of the respondent to the concerned departments. Reference was made to Section 6(3) of the RTI Act to contend that a PIO is required to transfer an application for information to the concerned authority and cannot be expected to pursue the matter thereafter.
The High Court ruled as under:-
1. 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 Act, the CIC can impose a penalty at the time of deciding any appeal or complaint. Section 18 of the Act enjoins the CIC to inter alia inquire into a complaint from any person who has been refused access to any information requested under the Act. In view of the unambiguous language of the provisions of the Act, the contention that CIC lacks the jurisdiction to impose a penalty on a complaint is ex facie without merit. The plain language of 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 Act indicates that it is not necessary that the penalty be imposed by the CIC only while considering an appeal; penalty can also be imposed by the CIC if on inquiry made pursuant to a complaint, it is found that a CPIO has not furnished the information in time or has knowingly given incorrect or incomplete information.
2. It is apparent that the CIC’s finding that PIO had failed to provide the necessary information and comply with the earlier orders is clearly warranted.
3. The plain language of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act indicates that the public authority would transfer the application or such part of it to another public authority where the information sought is more closely connected with the functions of the other authority. In this case, penalty has not been imposed with respect to queries which have been referred to another public authority, but with respect to queries that were to be addressed by the public authority of which petitioner no. 2 is a Public Information Officer. Section 6(3) of the Act cannot be read to mean that the responsibility of a PIO is only limited to forwarding the applications to different departments/offices. Forwarding an application by a public authority to another public authority is not the same as a PIO of a public authority arranging or sourcing information from within its own organisation. In the present case, undisputedly, certain information which was not provided to respondent would be available with the Railway Board and the PIO was required to furnish the same. He cannot escape his responsibility to provide the information by simply stating that the queries were forwarded to other officials.
Citation: Delhi HC in Ministry of Railways v. Girish Mittal in W.P.(C) 6088/2014 & CM Nos.14799/2014, 14800/2014 & 14801/2014
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2014/CIC/1467
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission