Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs Delhi Development Authority on 22 July, 2019
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DDATY/A/2018/148484-BJ
Mr. Akshay Kumar Malhotra
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Dy. Director (H), Office of the Dy. Director (Hort.) - 10
Delhi Development Authority C.S.C. 656
Sanjay Enclave, Jahangir Puri, New Delhi - 110033
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 19.07.2019
Date of Decision : 22.07.2019
Date of RTI application 20.04.2018
CPIO's response 15.05.2018
25.06.2018
Date of the First Appeal 20.05.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 25.06.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 02.08.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points relating to three parks of DDA in Shalimar Bagh, the total area of the park (within boundary walls of the park), lawn area with sown grass saplings / grass roots / grown and maintained by DDA, lawn area where grass was grown naturally and not through sown grass saplings / grass roots by DDA and issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 15.05.2018, furnished a point-wise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the CPIO's response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 25.06.2018, directed the PIO to supply the copy of reply dated 25.06.2018 and to fix physical inspection on any mutually agreed date and time and disposed of the Appeal.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 12
Appellant: Mr. Akshay Kumar Malhotra;
Respondent: Mr. Fulwar Singh, Dy. Dir. (Hort.), Mr. Harswarup, Dir. (H) NW & FAA and Mr. A. K. Jain, EE, ND-5;
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 15.07.2019, wherein it was stated that he was not given reasonable time to prepare and arrange for his visit to CIC for the 2nd Appeals / Complaints, as the Notice of hearing was not received till 15th July, 2019, and that he got the information of hearing date(s) only through SMS on his mobile on 15th July, 2019 evening/late afternoon from CIC, when the CIC Registry was arranging to send the Notice of Hearing through Speed Post and which, actually, might be delivered in next 2-3 days time i.e. by 17th or 18th July, 2019, whereas the hearing was scheduled for 19th July, 2019 in the start of day at 1100 AM. Hence, practically, he was not given a single day. The DR to IC-BJ vide note dated 15.07.2019 mentioned that all the notices had been sent to the Complainant/ Appellant by email and the background for late issuance of notice of hearing was also explained to him. The Appellant at the outset expressed his concern over the lack of adequate time to prepare for the hearing. Nonetheless, the Commission sought the convenience of the Appellant to deliberate the issues listed for hearing today and offered adjournment of hearing if so desired, in all the matters but the Appellant agreed to discuss and argue each of the matters to be heard as scheduled. The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that false and misleading information was provided to him. He categorically contested that the information relating to break-up of total area such as lawn area/ shrub area/ hedge area / wood area/ flower bed area/ sweeping area etc. etc. was not provided to him. Moreover, the order of the FAA dated 25.06.2018 had also not been fully complied with by the CPIO. Summarizing the text of his arguments, he drew the attention of the Commission to the irresponsible and negligent attitude of the Respondent Public Authority in dealing with the RTI applications filed by the public that pertained to the larger public interest. Consequently, being aggrieved with repeated denial of information sought by him, he inter alia prayed for imposition of penalty / disciplinary action against the CPIO / FAA, compensation / cost to him, issuance of affidavit by the CPIO regarding the non-availability of the information and a direction to sensitize the officials in the Public Authority to deal with RTI applications in accordance with the law. In its reply, the Respondent submitted that a point-wise available information had already been provided to the Appellant which was contested by him stating that the information relating to break-up of total area such as lawn area/ shrub area/ hedge area / wood area/ flower bed area/ sweeping area etc. etc. of above parks were not provided within the stipulated time frame as prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005.
It was also submitted that inspection of records was also facilitated to the Appellant in compliance with the order of the FAA which was not availed off by him. The Appellant objected to the aforementioned submissions and stated that he did not wish to avail inspection of records apprehending harassment by the officers in the Public Authority during his earlier visits with regard to RTI matters. On being queried by the Commission if he had approached the VC, DDA/ Pr. Commissioner, DDA/ CVO / CVC/ CBI / PMO etc. regarding his grievance pertaining to corruption within the Public Authority, the Appellant replied in the affirmative but submitted that no satisfactory response was received, till date. It was argued that as an informed and empowered citizen, he was particularly concerned about the upkeep of such public places and the expenditure incurred on it. He further emphasized that as per his understanding there was real and palpable corruption within the Public Authority since the funds granted to the Public Authority Officials for maintenance of park was being misutilized and that his submissions were beyond a mere allegation of corruption.
Page 2 of 12The Appellant argued that although the information sought may not be relevant today but it reflected the recalcitrant attitude of the Respondent Public Authority towards sharing information meant for the larger public interest. It was categorically submitted that the maintenance of public parks was the responsibility of the DDA and that the public representatives had full right and authority to seek information relating to total area of the park (within boundary walls/ lawn area where grass was grown naturally and not through sown grass saplings/ walking/jogging track area/ flower bed area etc. etc. The Commission was in receipt of another written submission from the Appellant dated 18.07.2019, wherein with regard to the Complaints filed by him it was prayed to take punitive measure/ disciplinary measure against the CPIO u/s 20 (1) and (2) respectively; initiate inquiry u/s 18 (2) regarding failure of CPIO/ FAA to provide information; direct public authority to submit evidence/ statement by way of affidavit u/s 18 (3); issue direction/ instruction to the CPIO that the Government Circulars were followed by Public Servants also. A reference was also made to the OM No. 10/1/2013-IR dated 06.10.2015 issued by the DoP&T with a prayer to try the CPIO for disciplinary proceedings for not adhering to the aforementioned OM. With regard to his Second Appeals, the Appellant/ Complainant prayed to direct the CPIO and FAA to provide him complete and updated information, exercise Section 19 (8) (a) (v) of the RTI Act, 2005 to direct the Public Authority to give adequate training to its officers so that they were capable enough and could diligently discharge their responsibilities as CPIO and FAA, compensate him u/s 19 (8) (b), impose penalties u/s 19 (8) (c), allow him inspection of concerned files u/s 2 (j) (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the RTI Act, 2005 and certified copies of the same free of cost as per Section 7 (6) of the RTI Act, 2005. A reference was also made to the OM No. 10/1/2013-IR dated 06.10.2015 issued by the DoP&T with a prayer to try the CPIO for disciplinary proceedings for not adhering to the aforementioned OM.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 17.07.2019 wherein it was submitted that the Applicant had been complaining via different modules of complaints redressal such as PGMS, CPGRAM, LG listening post & RTI etc. since last 03 years on regular basis on the same parks i.e. (1) Distt. Park, Motey Wala Bagh at Shalimar Bagh (2) Distt Park Ram Sawroop Thakur Dass wala Bagh at Shalimar Bagh (3) NHP AA / AB-Block at Shalimar Bagh. A reference was drawn towards the earlier order of the Commission dated 07.04.2018 wherein the Commission noted that the RTI filed by the Complainant were humongous in nature. It was further submitted that the Applicant was a desperate RTI activist who on regular basis filed RTI applications to various departments. Furthermore, it was submitted that more than 100 RTIs and Appeals and various complaints via different channels had been dealt with by the Respondent Public Authority. Moreover, during hearing of First Appeal, the Applicant always remained absent and forwarded the e-mail messages stating his dissatisfaction regarding the reply just 5 minutes before the hearing time. Furthermore, he submitted that the Applicant was deliberately sending complaint e-mails followed by trails of e- mails and was filing RTI regarding the same issue. This issue was already discussed with him earlier and that vide letter dated 21.05.2018 and other correspondences request was made to the Applicant objecting against such practice. Thus, it was stated that the Appellant/Complainant had deliberately used RTI and its procedure as a tool for harassment of government employees.
The Commission noted that similar subject-matter had been heard and adjudicated by it in File No(s). CIC/DDATY/A/2017/185661; CIC/DDATY/A/2017/185667;
CIC/DDATY/A/2017/185668 DATED 07.04.2018.
Page 3 of 12The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, 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."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged Page 4 of 12 to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission observed that the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates time limits in its various provisions relating to responding to RTI Applications, transfer of applications, filing and disposing of first appeal to ensure that a culture of information dissemination is strengthened so that a robust functioning of the democracy gets established. This was recognised by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
Furthermore, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25 (Del.) had held as under:
"The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only. The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore, there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the Act and the legislative intention, we see no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration."
Moreover, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vivek Mittal v. B.P. Srivastava, W.P.(C) 19122/2006 dated 24.08.2009 had upheld the view of the CIC and observed ".....that a CPIO cannot escape his obligations and duties by stating that persons appointed under him had failed to collect documents and information. The Act as framed, castes obligation upon the CPIOs and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, necessary consequences follow".
Page 5 of 12Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
The Commission also felt that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency Page 6 of 12 and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
The Commission observed that the issues raised by the Appellant in his RTI application pertained to the larger public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term "Public Interest" held:
"22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)]."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of "public interest', which is stated as under:
"Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."
In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :
Page 7 of 12Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government...."
The Commission observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) Page 8 of 12 whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017.
With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. (delivered on:
01.06.2012) wherein it was held:
" 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 showcause 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 ful fill 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."
Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC & Ors. WP(C) 3114/2007 is 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 respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Page 9 of 12 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."
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009 Date of decision: 04.03.2010 (State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and another); had held as under:
"3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty. If there is a delay and it is explained, the question will only revolve on whether the explanation is acceptable or not. If there had been a delay of a year and if there was a Superintendent, who was prodding the Public Information Officer to act, that itself should be seen a circumstance where the government authorities seemed reasonably aware of the compulsions of time and the imperatives of providing information without any delay. The 2 nd respondent has got what he has wanted and if there was a delay, the delay was for reasons explained above which I accept as justified."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had 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."
The Commission also observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain v. V.P. Pandey, CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 4785/ 2017 dated 10.10.2017 adjudicated on the correctness of an order of the Commission dated 17.04.2017 whereby the Respondent was cautioned to exercise due care in future and to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished to the RTI applicants. It was decided that:
"2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the CIC had accepted that there was a delay in providing the necessary information to the petitioner, the CIC had not imposed the penalty as required under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is well settled that imposing of the penalty is a discretionary measure. In Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 a division bench of this Court had considered the question whether the levy of penalty was discretionary and held as under..........
3. In this case it is apparent that the CIC had in its discretion considered that a order cautioning the CPIO would be sufficient. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of discretion."Page 10 of 12
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of R.K. Jain v. CIC and Anr. in W.P.(C) 4152/2017 dated 10.10.2017 had held as under:
"5. The question whether the CIC had the discretion to restrict the penalty or whether penalty as provided under Section 20 of the Act is mandatory, is no longer res integra. The said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 and the relevant extract of the said decision is set out below....
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the CIC. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties even though technically speaking the RTI applications had been replied by the CPIO, however, taking into consideration the issues of larger public interest highlighted by the Appellant during the course of hearing, the Commission instructs the FAA to re-examine the RTI application and provide a clear, cogent point-wise response to the Appellant in the larger public interest as also suo moto disclose the information in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 22.07.2019
Page 11 of 12
Copy to:
1. Mr. Shripal, Pr. Commissioner (Personnel, Horticulture and Landscape), Block 'B', Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi 110023
2. Mr. Harswarup, Dir. (H) NW & First Appellate Authority, Office of the Dy. Director (Hort.) - X, Delhi Development Authority C.S.C. 656, Sanjay Enclave, Jahangir Puri, New Delhi - 110033 Page 12 of 12