Respondent: PIO had to take consent of the third parties in accordance with the procedure prescribed in section 11(1) and this process took some more time leading to unintentional delay - CIC: penal proceedings dropped in the case
15 Mar, 2014ORDER
The present appeal, filed by Dr. Nutan Thakur against Cabinet Secretariat was taken up for hearing on 18.02.2014 when the Respondents were present through Shri Vinay Srivastava, Director and Shri Sheo Nath Singh, Under Secretary & CPIO. The Appellant was however not present.
2. The Appellant through her RTI application dated 21.08.2012 (copy not enclosed with the present appeal) sought certain information with reference to a news article “Praful Patel, aide sunk Air India” published in the Indian Express (Lucknow edition). The information sought in this application (as recorded in the order dated 18.02.2013 of the Appellate Authority) is as under:
(i) Are the facts as published in the new article true (fully or partially) as per the available records? (ii) If yes, then what was the letter sent by Shi Sunil Arora to the Cabinet Secretary? Kindly provide a copy of this letter.
(iii) If yes, then what action has so far been taken in this matter?
(iv) Kindly provide a copy of all the pages of the Note sheet related with the allegations made by Sri Arora and the subsequent action taken in this regard.”
3. The CPIO vide his letter dated 19.10.2012 (copy not enclosed with the present appeal) sent an interim reply to the Appellant informing that her application is under process in terms of section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act.
4. Since the Appellant did not receive the information even after the expiry of the time specified in subsection (1) of section 7 of the RTI Act, she filed a complaint before the Commission.
5. Acting on this complaint, the Commission issued an order dated 23.01.2013, operative part of which reads as follows: “…we directed the Appellate Authority to enquire into the allegations made by the Complainant and after giving her an opportunity of hearing, to pass an appropriate order with a view to ensuring that the desired information is provided to the Complainant without any further loss of time. 3. We also direct the Appellate Authority to obtain explanation of the CPIO in writing for not providing the information in time and to forward the same to us along with his comments before 25 February 2013. We will decide on the imposition of penalty on the CPIO in terms 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. of the Right to Information (RTI) Act thereafter…”
6. The Appellate Authority accordingly examined the matter and passed an order dated 18.02.2013 (copy not enclosed with the present appeal). He concluded that “The perusal of the record and the protracted correspondence being undertaken by CPIO for completing the ‘Third Party’ consultation suggests that the process of consultation is still not complete. In view of the same, the final response to Dr. Nutan Thakur’s application dated 21st August 2012 could not be provided. The CPIO needs to complete the process of ‘Third Party’ consultation quickly and then take an appropriate decision as per the provisions of RTI Act on the RTI application of Dr. Thakur.” He according directed the CPIO to complete the process of Third Party consultation within a period of 30 days and provide final reply to the Dr. Nutan Thakur’s RTI application dated 21.08.2012. He also sent a copy of this order along with explanation given by the CPIO to the Commission.
7. Pursuant to the order of the Appellate Authority, the CPIO sent a reply dated 09.04.2013 to the Appellant which, to the extent relevant, reads as under: “The Ministry of Civil Aviation vide OM dated 03.04.2013 has intimated that some of the issues raised in the correspondence between the then Cabinet Secretary, the then Civil Aviation Secretary and Shri Sunil Arora, CMD, Indian Airlines are covered in the C&AG report, which is under examination by Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and disclosure of these documents may effect the objective examination of the PAC. Ministry of Civil Aviation has accordingly requested not to provide copies of these letters under RTI Act till the PAC submits its report. In view of this, it has been decided not to disclose the information in respect of remaining point of your application in terms of Section 8(1)(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; of the RTI Act.”
8. The Appellant then filed the present appeal (dated 08.05.2013) before the Commission challenging the Respondents’ decision.
9. During the hearing, the Respondents inform the Commission that they have since furnished the information to the Appellant vide letter dated 11.02.2014. As for the delay, they explain that the Appellant had originally filed her RTI application with the CPIO, Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi who, in turn, had transferred it to the Cabinet Secretariat vide letter dated 27.09.2012. Thereafter, the application was processed at the Cabinet Secretariat and an interim reply dated 19.10.2012 was sent to the Appellant informing her that the matter is under process in term of section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act. The final reply was sent to the Appellant on 09.04.2013 pursuant to the order dated 18.02.2013 of the Appellate Authority. They submit that the CPIO had immediately on receipt of the RTI application initiated action for compilation of the information. However, on account of the involvement of the third parties, the CPIO had to take consent/opinion of the third parties in accordance with the procedure prescribed in section 11(1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: of the RTI Act and then decide on the disclosure liability of the information in question in view of the replies of the third parties. This process took some more time and the final reply could not be furnished within the stipulated time period to the Appellant which they regret. They however mention that the delay caused in the matter was totally unintentional. They also produce before the Commission copies of the papers connected with the case i.e. the order of the Appellate Authority, CPIO’s reply, explanation given by the CPIO and the letter providing the information to the Appellant on 11.02.2014 for its perusal.
10. On consideration of the submission above and on perusal of records, the Commission does not see any deliberate attempt on the part of the CPIO to delay his response to the Appellant. Therefore, the penalty proceeding initiated against the CPIO is hereby dropped. As regards the disclosure of information, the Commission notes that the CPIO by his letter dated 11.02.2014 has since furnished the information to the Appellant which serves the purpose of the instant appeal. Therefore, no further action is warranted in the present matter which is hereby closed.
(Sushma Singh)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Dr. Nutan Thakur v. Cabinet Secretariat in Case No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000844SS