PIO: the earlier RTI application was in question form which was returned; later application clearly specifying the documents required was acted upon - Appellant: not interested in initiating any penalty proceedings - CIC: proceedings dropped
11 Dec, 2013CIC had directed the PIO to explain as to why a penalty should not be imposed upon him - PIO: the earlier application was in question form which was returned while the later application clearly specified the documents required and the same was acted upon - no intention to refuse any information - appellant submitted that he is not interested for initiating any penalty proceedings - CIC: penalty proceedings dropped
ORDER
Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal, hereinafter called the appellant/ complainant, has filed the present two complaint/ appeal dated 3.12.2013 and 3.6.2013 respectively before the Commission against the respondent Council for Advancement of People’s Action and Rural Technology (CAPART, New Delhi for denial of information in response to his two RTI-applications dated 15.11.2012 and 3.12.2012 respectively. The complainant/ appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Ms. Shachi Uppal, System Manager / CPIO and Shri C.S. Pandey, former CPIO.
2. The matter was heard by the Commission on 8.10.2013 and the Commission vide its order dated 8.10.2013 held as follows:
“Having heard the parties and perused the records, the Commission notes that the complainant in his RTI application had sought for factual information, which could have been provided to him by the then CPIO, Shri C.S. Pandey as per the records available with the public authority. He, however, chose not to do so, thereby caused obstruction to the supply of information to the complainant prima facie with malafide intention. The matter shall now be heard on 19.11.2013 along with appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001614”.
Consequently, a showcause notice of even number dated 15.10.2013 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. 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 was issued to the then CPIO Shri C.S. Pandey, CAPART with directions to explain as to why a penalty of Rs. 25000/- should not be imposed upon him.
3. The complainant/appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.11.2012 before the CPIO, CAPART, New Delhi seeking information on 21 points including - Is it true that some Committee was set up by CAPART with Ms. Beena Rao as its Chairperson to probe into affairs of certain Non-Government-Organizations (NGOs) which received grant from CAPART and/or through Union Ministry of Rural Development; copy of report; if yes provide a copy of report, is it true that Shri Anna Hazare was the Chairperson of Grant Committees for NGOs having been under scrutiny of the Committee chaired by Ms. Beena Rao; provide copy of correspondence/documents/file noting etc. on appointment of Shri Anna Hazare as Chairperson for Grant Committees for NGOs; was some explanation sought from Shri Anna Hazare on basis of findings of the said report and so on.
4. In his written submissions filed by Shri C.S. Pandey, the then CPIO, CAPART before the Commission, states as follows:
That while acting as CPIO and dealing with the application of the complainant, he did not have any intention to refuse any information or to obstruct access to any public record available with CAPART.
The CPIO examined the application dated 15.11.2012 under RTI filed by the complainant and on the basis of understanding and import of section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act, came to the conclusion that the information was couched in question form not covered within the ambit of information as defined u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of the RTI Act. However, the CPIO while returning the said application along with IPO clearly mentioned in his letter dated 27.11.2012 that the complainant may resubmit the application specifying the documents needed which is available in material form, if the applicant desired to do so” which demonstrates that the CPIO did not have any intention of refusing the information sought or the access to any record. In fact, the CPIO returned the application in original enabling the complainant to obtain information/ documents by clearly specifying the material sought for.
Thereafter the complainant filed another application dated 3.12.2012, which was received on 6.12.2012 and accordingly the CPIO started soliciting required information/ material from different divisions of CAPART as the information/documents sought by the said application pertained to different divisions which is clear from letter dated 13.12.2012. The CPIO addressed to all HoDs and Officer in charge, Erstwhile RCs CAPART by the CPIO followed by several other reminders.
That finally, the CPIO vide letter dated 4.1.2013 supplied the information as received from different divisions of CAPART as enclosures in response to the said RTI application;
That a comparison of the RTI applications dated 15.11.2012 and 3.12.2012 filed by the complainant would show that the earlier application was in question form while the later application dated 3.12.2012 clearly specified the material/information sought for on the basis of which the CPIO acted immediately.
That the complainant thereafter filed an appeal to the FAA alleging supply of incomplete information. However, the CPIO in compliance with the directions of the FAA, provided further information to the appellant vide his letter dated 21.3.2013.
In view of above factual background and development, the CPIO is neither guilty of refusing information nor refusing access to any public record to the complainant.
5. The complainant/appellant during the hearing admits that he has received complete information from the respondent and is satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO. The complainant/appellant also requested the Commission that he is not interested for initiating any penalty proceedings against the CPIO 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. 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, as he has received complete information to his entire satisfaction.
6. In view of above submission of the CPIO and the complainant/ appellant, the Commission is of the view that complete information has been provided to the entire satisfaction of the complainant by the respondent. Hence, penalty proceedings 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. 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 against Shri C.S. Pandey, the then CPIO, CAPART are hereby dropped.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Council for Advancement of People’s Action & Rural Technology (CAPART) in Case No. CIC/SS/C/2013/000035 & CIC/SS/A/2013/0001614