Central Information Commission
Bablu Chatterjee vs Ministry Of Culture on 30 January, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/SH/C/2016/000277
Bablu Chatterjee v. PIO, National Library
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 07.03.2016, CPIO reply - 22.03.2016, FAO - Nil, Second appeal filed on
29.06.2016, Hearing on 29.01.2018;
Proceedings on 31.08.2017: Complainant absent. Public authority represented by Ms. Gopa
Ghish, CPIO. Directions and show cause issued.
Proceedings on 29.01.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by Ms. Gopa Ghosh
form NIC Kolkata
Date of Decision - 30.01.2018: Penalty Imposed
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The Govt. Audit during their inspection on the accounts of the office of the director General, National Library, Kolkata for the period from 01.02.2014 to 31.03.2015 raised three queries related to the Audit. The appellant sought inspection of the files of three audit queries containing file notings from initiation after receiving those queries up to the latest position ending with curative action, if any, with letters, certified copies of documents. The CPIO replied on 22.03.2016 that the files sought are under process of examination by the Competent Authority and attract exemption from disclosure of information under section 8 (1) (i) and as the information also includes personal information, attracts exemption under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act. The FAA rejected the grounds taken by the CPIO and directed the CPIO to affix a date and facilitate inspection to the appellant before 12.05.2016.
2. The Commission's order dated 04.09.2017:
2. The CPIO has denied information invoking Section 8(1)(i) which is available only to the cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers. Following is the text of section 8(1) Not withstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen: -
(a) to (h) .....
CIC/SH/C/2016/000277 Page 1
(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:
Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:
Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;
3. Thus the proviso to this exception facilitates disclosure of decisions, reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete and over. This means material relating to cabinet decision cannot be given until the matter is complete and over. The appellant is not asking about any cabinet decisions. He is simply asking for inspection of the files of the said three audit queries containing file notings from initiation after receiving those queries up to the latest position ending with curative action, if any, with letters, certified copies of documents.
4. The CPIO cannot claim the exemption under Section 8(1)(i), which is available only for cabinet decisions related matters. How can audit objection be considered as cabinet paper? It is nothing but non-application of mind and rigid mental frame against RTI of the people. Even he cannot invoke Section 8(1)(j) exception regarding private information, because the personal reference in audit objection is related public activity and is in public interest because it relates to good governance, which cannot be denied. This was the conclusion of the First Appellate Authority also. The direction of the FAA was not complied with.
5. The Commission directs the CPIO to facilitate inspection of files sought and provide certified copies of papers selected by him including audit objection along with action taken on the objections raised by the audit, free of cost, before September 22, 2017.
6. The Commission directs the CPIO to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for illegally denying the information, before September 22, 2017.
Decision :
3. Mr. Parthasarathy Das, CPIO as on 07.03.2016 i.e. date of filing of RTI, sent his response to the show-cause issued by this Commission on 15.09.2017.
Mr. Das explained that:
"Being a non-ministerial professional officer is not an administrative officer and therefore not the custodian of files. The undersigned, in absence of regular Administrative officer at the National Library is discharging an additional responsibility of CPIO (Administration). As the undersigned is not conversant with detailed legal interpretation of various sub-sections of the RTI Act, 2OO5, I humbly accept my ignorance in invoking the exceptions CIC/SH/C/2016/000277 Page 2 unknowingly. The information sought by the information seeker will be supplied by the present CPIO (Administration), Dr. Gopa Ghosh in compliance of the CIC order."
4. The appellant had filed an RTI on 07.03.2016 and Mr. Parthasarathy Das, CPIO replied on 22.03.2016 denying the information sought by invoking section 8 (1) (i) and (j) of the Act. The First Appellate Authority rejected the grounds taken by the CPIO and directed the CPIO to facilitate inspection to the appellant on or before 12.05.2016. Mr. Parthasarathy Das did not comply with the orders of the First Appellate Authority. After this Commission issued a show-cause notice, Mr. Das replied that he was not conversant with the provision of RTI Act.
5. Assuming that Mr. Das is not conversant with the provision of the Act, it is not known why he did not comply with the orders of the Appellate Authority, who categorically rejected the grounds taken by CPIO for denial of information and directed the CPIO to facilitate inspection. The appellant was facilitated inspection on 05.09.2016, only after Ms. Gopa Ghosh took charge as CPIO in August 2017.
6. The CPIO has invoked section 8 (1) (j) and (i) without any reason or application of mind as accounts and Audit of a public office cannot be held as personal information or cabinet information under any circumstances. When the CPIO has quoted two provisions under the Act for denial of information, it is hard to believe that he is not conversant with RTI Act.
7. The Commission holds Mr. Parthasarathy Das, CPIO as on 22.03.2016, liable for denial of information on illegal grounds within thirty days and for non- compliance of orders of the Appellate Authority. The Commission imposes maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 upon Mr. Parthasarathy Das. The Appellate Authority is directed to recover the amount of Rs.25,000/- from the salary payable to, Mr. Parthasarathy Das, CPIO by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of 'PAO CAT' New Delhi in 5 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment should reach the Commission by 29.03.2018 and the last instalment should reach by 29.08.2017. The Demand Draft should be sent to Shri S.P. CIC/SH/C/2016/000277 Page 3 Beck, Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar, Room No. 505, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
Sd/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/SH/C/2016/000277 Page 4