Central Information Commission
Shri I. K. Saini vs Central Information Commission (Cic) on 19 March, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2010/000041 dated 12.1.2010.
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant - Shri I. K. Saini
Respondent - Central Information Commission (CIC)
Decision announced: 19.3.2010
Facts:
By an application of 10.8.09 Shri I. K. Saini of NDSE-II, New Delhi applied to the CPIO, Central Information Commission, seeking the following information:
"Please provide the action taken report of the Hon'ble Information Commission regarding the request dated 6.8.09 vide the diary No. 42358/09/IC(SG) and the complaint dated 4.8.09 vide the diary No. 41944/09 IC(SG)."
To this, Shri I. K. Saini received a response dated 11.9.09 from CPIO Shri Dhirendra Kumar, Under Secretary informing him, as follows:
"The information is given in following para:
S. Details of reste and Action taken report
No. complaint
1. Diary No. 42358/09/IC (SG) Action taken, if any, will be intimated dt. 6.8.09 to you.
2. Diary No. 41944/09/IC (SG) Your request for a combined hearing dated 4.8.09. was not possible to accept and this was intimated to you orally several times.
Upon this, Shri Saini moved an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, CIC dated 22.9.09 pleading as follows:
"Repeated pleas and meetings with the CPIO for holding a combined hearing with non compliance of the above said CIC order involving the same respondent (Department of power) and the connected issues have gone unheeded. The CPIO was informed and he is fully aware of the fact that vested interests are intentionally harassing this applicant, with the objective to make relinquish all RTI matters. The reply of the CPIO is not in interest of Justice to the facts available on record, therefore, the proper 1 remedy of further hearing is prayed for an a copy of the provision of RTI Act, on the basis of which the reply (ATR) for the serial No. 2 is based, may please be provided."
Upon this, Shri Tarun Kumar, JS in his order of 20th October, 2009 allowed the appeal as below:
"4. I have gone through the First Appeal of the appellant as well as the reply of the CPIO. Vide his RTI application the appellant has asked for Action Taken Report of his two applications dated 16.8.08 / Dy. No. 42358/09 & dated 4.8.09 Dy. No. 41944/09. The CPIO seems to have replied to the RTI application more like a Designated Officer rather than the CPIO who is holder of information and has to give information as per record.
5. It is observed that the reply of the CPIO is not in accordance with the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the reply of the CPIO is off the mark and is as such set aside. The CPIO is directed to go through section 2(f), 2(i) 2(j) i.e. definition of Information Record and Right to Information of the RTI Act, 2005 and then send a precise reply as per record as defined under the RTI Act, 2005.
In compliance with the orders of Appellate Authority, however, CPIO Shri Dhirendra Kumar informed appellant Shri Saini as below:
"your Appeal cannot be admitted as it has been sent after the time period stipulated in the Right to Information Act, 2005. According to Sec. 19(6) of the RTI Act, a First Appeal should be disposed off within thirty days of the receipt of the First Appeal. Sec. 19(3) of the Right to Information Act 2005 stated that a Second Appeal should be filed within ninety days of receiving the order of the First Appellate Authority.
As your Second Appeal has been received after 120 days of the filing of the First Appeal, the same is being returned herewith."
Shri Saini has then moved a second appeal before us with the following prayer:
"Vide his order dated 20.10.09, the first appellate authority gave direction to the PIO to file a fresh reply to the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act of 2005 which has not been received till date or action initiated by the PIO although the PIO was visited on 20.11.09 and 27.11.09, the 2 matter was discussed but instead of adhering to the order of the first appellate authority to provide his reply as per the provision of the RTI Act 2005 the PIO has chosen to time bar a second appeal of this appellant against a different public authority / by quoting the relevant provisions of the RTI Act of 2005. Therefore, the actions of the PIO have nullified important objectives of this appellant in three second appeals.
In the circumstances of the case, the prayer of the first appeal is retreated. It is pressed for that the PIO may produce, "A copy of the provision of the RTI Act on the basis of which the reply (ATR) for the serial No. 2 is based" in his reply to the RTI application."
The appeal was heard on 19.3.10. The following are present:
Appellant Shri I. K. Saini Respondents Shri Tarun Kumar, First Appellate Authority Respondent Shri Tarun Kumar submitted that he had given explicit directions in this case, which he admitted do not appear to have been complied with.
DECISION NOTICE In cases of this nature which involve non-compliance of the decision of the First Appellate Authority, the practice in this Commission is to send the case back to the Appellate Authority of the concerned Department to implement its own decision through departmental action. However, in this case, the failure to comply with orders of the appellate authority has arisen from within this Commission itself. Under the circumstances, CPIO Shri Dhirendra Kumar is directed to provide the information with regard to the compliance of the directions of the Information Commission in case Nos. CIC/SG/A/2009/001742/4763 and CIC/SG/A/2009/001742 to appellant Shri I. K. Saini within ten working days of the date of receipt of this Decision Notice.3
CPIO Shri Dhirendra Kumar, US CIC will also appear before us personally on 30.4.2010 at 12.00 noon together with Appellate Authority Shri Tarun Kumar to explain why he should not be held liable for a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- for knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete and misleading to evade compliance with the orders of 20.10.09 of Appellate Authority Shri Tarun Kumar, Jt. Secretary.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 19.3.2010 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 19.3.2010 4