Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 18 August, 2020
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या/Complaint No. CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/637423
Varun Krishna ...निकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO, Security Printing And ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Minting Corporation Of India
Limited (SPMCIL), New Delhi.
2. CPIO, India Security Press,
(SPMCIL), Nashik.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint:-
RTI : 06-11-2018 FA : Not on Record Complaint : 28-12-2018
CPIO : 20-11-2018 FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 13-08-2020
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Security Printing And Minting Corporation Of India Limited (SPMCIL), New Delhi seeking following information:-
"a. Subject matter of information: Pertaining to Indian Tax Payer's Money spent on RTI Training in August 2017.
b. The period to which information relates: 1.8.17 to 31.8.17 c. Description of Information required: Please provide certified copies of following information:
i. Total amount of ACTUAL amount of Tax payer's money spent (including TA/DA, transportation, lodging, etc).Page 1 of 5
ii. Copy of presentation/ topics covered by the trainer during the training."
2. The CPIO responded on 20-11-2018. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. Hearing:
3. The complainant, Mr. Varun Krishna attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. V Balaji, AGM(HR) participated in the hearing representing the respondent(s) through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
4. The complainant submitted that he is pressing for action against the then CPIO u/Section 20 RTI Act, 2005 for delay in transferring the RTI application beyond the stipulated period of 5 days prescribed under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. In this regard, he requested the Commission to impose penalty on the concerned CPIO.
5. Mr. V Balaji, AGM(HR) appearing on behalf of the respondent(s) regretted for the delay and assured the Commission of not repeating such a mistake in future. He submitted that they did not have any intention to block the information, as they have already supplied the available information vide their earlier letters dated 25/27-07-2018 and 18-12-2018. He further tendered his unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to the complainant on account of delay in transferring the RTI application. He informed the Commission that the RTI application was transferred to the CPIO, India Security Press, Nashik on 20-11-2018. Decision:
6. This Commission observes that the complainant has expressed his grievance regarding the delay in transferring the RTI application but he has not been able to demonstrate as to how the CPIO had malafidely denied the sought for information. From the respondent's submissions, it is apparent that the available information was supplied to the complainant and thus, the CPIO has not acted in a malafide manner so as to deliberately block the provision of information. Imposition of penalty on the CPIO, therefore, would not be justified. Hence, it is not fit case to impose penalty on the CPIO. As regards the delay pointed out by the complainant, this Commission observes that though there is some delay in transferring the RTI application but it does not smack of any malafide intention on the part of the CPIO to obstruct the free flow of information. With regard to the situations governing imposition of penalty on the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, this Commission refers to the decision dated 01-06-2012 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Page 2 of 5 Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 titled as Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr., wherein, it was held as under:-
"61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to fulfill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute."
7. Similarly, the following observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors., WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:-
"17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third Page 3 of 5 respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued."
8. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr., WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20-03-2009 has held as under:-
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely. ...The preceding discussion shows that at least in the opinion of this Court, there are no allegations to establish that the information was withheld malafide or unduly delayed so as to lead to an inference that petitioner was responsible for unreasonably withholding it."
9. In light of the factual matrix of the case and the legal principles enunciated in the aforementioned case-laws, this Commission comes to the conclusion that the complainant has not been able to substantiate his contentions regarding malafide denial of information by the respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause. In view of this, no action under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 is warranted in this case.
10. However, the concerned CPIO is cautioned to be more meticulous in future and not to contravene the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
11. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
12. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज कु मार गुप्ता) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date:13-08-2020 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. िमाग), Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 4 of 5 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO, Security Printing And Minting Corporation Of India Limited (SPMCIL), Nodal PIO, RTI Cell, 16th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001.
2. The CPIO, India Security Press, (SPMCIL), D.M. (HR) & CPIO/ISP, Nashik Road, Distt-Nashik, Maharashtra-422101.
3. Mr. Varun Krishna Page 5 of 5