Central Information Commission
Mr.Kantilal Premji Bheda vs Ministry Of Communications And ... on 17 September, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No.CIC/LS/A/2011/004250/BS/0828
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Kantilal Premji Bheda
2nd floor, Plot no.23,
Navyug Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd,
V.Mehta Road, J.V.P.D Scheme,
Vile Parle(W), Mumbai-400056
Respondent : CPIO & Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices
Department of Posts Mumbai City North Division, Azad nagar Mumbai-400053.
RTI application filed on : 25/01/2011 PIO replied : 08/02/2011 & 21/02/2011 First appeal filed on : 14/03/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 04/05/2011 Second Appeal received on : 09/06/2011 Information Sought:
Appellant has sought the copy of the report of the fresh inquiry conducted on 22/12/2010 by IP of the office of CPIO.
Reply of the CPIO:
Appellant was requested to pay Rs 4/- towards the photocopy charges for 2 papers vide letter dated 08/02/2011. Subsequently the information was denied claiming section 8(1)
(j) of RTI Act.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information has not been provided.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA upheld the decision of the CPIO.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information has not been provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Shri Kantilal Premji Bheda through videoconferencing. Respondent: Mr. S J Datir CPIO through videoconferencing.
The appellant stated that an enquiry was conducted by the respondent on his complaint and he had requested for a copy of report and the CPIO had demanded a fee of Rs.4/- for supply of information, but in spite of payment of charges no information has been furnished to him. The CPIO contended that the information relates to personal information and hence exemption was claimed under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. On being queried the CPIO was unable to give any reasoned justification for denial of information.
Decision Notice:
The CPIO vide his letter dated 08/02/2011 demanded a fee of Rs.4/- for supply of document(s) which was deposited by the appellant on 17/02/2011. Subsequently, the CPIO changed his stand and tersely denied information claiming exemption under section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act vide letter 21/02/2011.
In the case at hand it cannot be said that the information requested is unrelated to public activity. The CPIO has neither been able to show how the information sought falls under the category of "personal information" nor is he able to give any satisfactory reason for denial of information. Sans these considerations the stand of the CPIO cannot be sustained.
The Commission directs the CPIO to furnish the information requested by the appellant in his RTI application dated 25/01/2011 within 7 days of receipt of this order.
By not furnishing the complete, correct and timely information the concerned CPIO has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. However, before imposing any such penalty, we would like to give an opportunity to the CPIO to explain whether he had any reasonable cause for not providing complete, correct and timely information to the appellant. Accordingly, we direct the concerned CPIO, who had received the RTI application, to furnish his written explanation as aforesaid by 17/10/2012. In case he fails to provide any satisfactory reply the Commission will proceed to impose penalty on him.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner September 17th, 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PS)