Central Information Commission
Maniram vs Ministry Of Information & Broadcasting on 6 March, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/YA/C/2014/900104/SB
Dated 02.03.2017
Complainant : Shri Maniram Sharma,
Behind Roadways Depot,
Sardarshahar, Distt. Churu,
Rajasthan-331403.
Respondent : Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting,
A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
Central Public Information Officer,
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block, New Delhi-110001.
Date of Hearing : 02.03.2017
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.02.2014
CPIO's reply : 17.02.2014
Complaint filed on : 19.02.2014
ORDER
1. Shi Maniram Sharma filed an application dated 15.02.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MoIB) seeking information on twenty two points pertaining to compliance of the guidelines issued by DoPT under Section 4 of the RTI Act.
2. Shri Maniram Sharma filed a complaint dated 19.02.2014 before the Commission on the grounds that although the information sought clearly pertains to the MoIB, CPIO, MoIB worngly transferred his RTI application to the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT). The complainant stated that the CPIO, MoIB has deliberately and malafidely denied the information by transferring his application without any just reason. The complainant CIC/YA/C/2014/900104/SB Page1 requested the Commission to directed the CPIO to comply with the guidelines dated 15.04.2013 issued by DoPT on proactive disclosure, impose penalty on the CPIO, MoIB under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for deliberately, malafidely and persistently obstructing the information and recommend disciplinary action against the CPIO, MoIB under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act and award appropriate compensation to him.
Hearing:
3. The complainant Shri Maniram was not present despite notice. The respondents Shri C. Ganesh Kumar, Under Secretary and CPIO, DoPT and Shri Taruna Doliya, Deputy Director, MoIB, were present in person.
4. The respondent (MoIB) submitted that since in his RTI application, it was not mentioned unambiguously that the complainant is seeking a compliance report of MoIB specifically, it was inferred that the information sought pertains to all the Public Authorities. The respondent further submitted that since the DoPT is the nodal agency which is entrusted with the responsibility of implementation of the RTI Act, it was presumed that the compliance reports of all the Public Authorities would be available with the DoPT. In view of this, the RTI application of the complainant was transferred to CPIO, DoPT under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
5. The respondent (DoPT) submitted that on receipt of the RTI application from MoIB an online reply dated 04.03.2014 was given to MoIB wherein, it was stated that the information is not compiled or maintained by DoPT and the information has to be provided by the Public Authority concerned to whom the RTI application is addressed and therefore, the RTI application was returned back to MoIB.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of respondents and perusing the records, observes that information should have been provided by the MoIB. However, the RTI application was incorrectly transferred to DoPT due to non-application of mind on the part of the CPIO, MoIB. The CIC/YA/C/2014/900104/SB Page2 Commission further observes that though there was lackadaisical approach in dealing with the RTI application, there was no malafide intent on part of the CPIO, MoIB to withhold the information and hence, it would not be appropriate to initiate penal proceedings against the CPIO, MoIB. Nonetheless, the Commission would like to counsel the CPIO, MoIB to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur and information is provided to the information seeker within the stipulated time. The Commission would also like to recommend Secretary, MoIB to organise awareness workshops on the RTI Act in order to enhance the understanding among the Staff regarding the key provisions of the RTI Act and the relevant rules and guidelines to enable them to implement the RTI Act effectively.
7. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer CIC/YA/C/2014/900104/SB Page3 CIC/YA/C/2014/900104/SB Page4