Central Information Commission
Varun Krishna vs Spmcil Corporate Office on 6 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 Nos. CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636088
CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636385,
CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636071,
CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636073,
CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636069 &
CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636070
Varun Krishna ...निकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Security Printing And Minting ...प्रनतवािी/Respondent
Corporation Of India Limited
(SPMCIL), New Delhi.
Relevant dates emerging from the complaint(s):-
RTI(s): 12-11-2018, 22-
FA : Not on Record Complaint(s) : 30-11-2018
08-2018 & 11-11-2018
CPIO : 10-09-2018 & 20-
FAO : Not on Record Hearing : 31-07-2020
11-2018
ORDER
1. The complainant, Mr. Varun Krishna has filed these complaints u/Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005 on the premise of violation of the provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 by the CPIO, Security Printing And Minting Corporation Of India Limited (SPMCIL), Corporate Office, New Delhi. Therefore, these complaints involving identical grounds are being disposed of by way of this common single order.
2. For the sake of brevity, the timelines of the RTI applications and the relating transfer letters are being reproduced as under:-
Complaint Nos. RTIs Transfer letters/reply(s) 12-11-2018 20-11-2018 CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636088 Page 1 of 7 22-08-2018 10-09-2018 CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636385 11-11-2018 20-11-2018 CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636071 12-11-2018 20-11-2018 CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636073 12-11-2018 20-11-2018 CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636069 12-11-2018 20-11-2018 CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636070
3. The facts of the RTI applications are being quoted as follows:-
CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636088 "(i) Subject matter of information: The applicant's for his RTI Reg No.50042 is alleged by PIO Mr. V. Ramulu Dtd 10.11.18 (Copy Enclosed) by LYING that it is a repeated application implying that reply has been provided.
(ii) The period to which information relates: From the inception of RTI Act to Current Date
(iii)Description of Information required: Please provide certified copies of the following information by Speed/Registered Post:
1. Documentary proofs proving that demanded information at Sno 1 from RTI No. 50042 is already replied by PIO.
2. Grounds available in records based upon which PIO has lied in the reply Dtd 10.11.18 along with Name, and designation of the controlling authority to whom complaint can be filed."
CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636385 "a) Subject matter of information: Pertaining to File Noting N/3 Dtd 14.6.18 (as per self contained note obtained from unit) where it is mentioned in Para comment (a) that:
It is pertinent to mention here that his firm M/s Aerographic Papers Ltd, Nagpur has been blacklisted by BRBNMPL. [Copy enclosed]
b) The period to which information relates: Date of self-contained note TO 14.6.18.
c) Description of Information required: Please provide certified copies of following information:
1. Provide the copy of self contained note received by unit mentioned in File noting N/3 Dtd 14.6.18.
2. Copy of proof based upon which blacklisting information about firm was furnished in self contained note.
3. Proof that the status of firm stands Blacklisted on i. Date of preparing self contained note ii. Date of File noting N/3 i.e. 14.6.18.Page 2 of 7
4. If information of Sno 3 does not exists, then provide Names and Designations of the officials accountable for furnishing false information in Self contained note and File noting N/3 Dtd 14.6.18"
CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636071 "(i) Subject matter of information: The applicant's RTI Reg No.50034 (Copy Enclosed) is rejected to accept by PIO Mr. V. Ramulu Dtd 10.11.18 by LYING that it is a repeated application and the reply has already been provided against RTI Dtd 13.9.18.
(ii) The period to which information relates: 13.9.18 to Current Date
(iii)Description of Information required: Please provide certified copies of the following information by Speed/Registered Post:
1. Highlighted reply of RTI Dtd 13.9.18 proving that demanded information from RTI No. 50034 i.e. Daily progress report is already provided."
CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636073 "(i) Subject matter of information: The applicant's for his RTI Reg No.50042 is alleged by PIO Mr. V. Ramulu Dtd 10.11.18 (Copy Enclosed) by LYING that it is a repeated application implying that reply has been provided.
(ii) The period to which information relates: From the inception of RTI Act to Current Date
(iii)Description of Information required: Please provide certified copies of the following information by Speed/Registered Post:
1. Documentary proofs proving that demanded information at Sno 2 from RTI No. 50042 is already replied by PIO."
CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636069 "(i) Subject matter of information: The applicant's for his RTI Reg No.50042 is alleged by PIO Mr. V. Ramulu Dtd 10.11.18 (Copy Enclosed) by LYING that it is a repeated application.
(ii) The period to which information relates: From the inception of RTI Act to Current Date.
(iii)Description of Information required: Please provide certified copies of the following information by Speed/Registered Post:
1. Documentary proofs proving that demanded information at Sno 1 from RTI No. 50042 was a repeated application."
CIC/SPMCO/C/2018/636070 "(i) Subject matter of information: The applicant's for his RTI Reg No.50042 is alleged by PIO Mr. V. Ramulu Dtd 10.11.18 (Copy Enclosed) by LYING that it is a repeated application.
(ii) The period to which information relates: From the inception of RTI Act to Current Date.
Page 3 of 7(iii)Description of Information required: Please provide certified copies of the following information by Speed/Registered Post:
1. Documentary proofs proving that demanded information at Sno 2 from RTI No. 50042 was a repeated application."
4. The complainant filed these complaints 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:
5. The complainant, Mr. Varun Krishna attended the hearing through audio conferencing. Mr. V Balaji, AGM(HR) participated in the hearing representing the respondent through audio conferencing. The written submissions are taken on record.
6. 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 applications beyond the stipulated period of 5 days prescribed under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further requested the Commission to impose penalty on the concerned CPIO.
7. Mr. V Balaji, AGM(HR) appearing on behalf of the respondent regretted for the delay and assured the Commission of not repeating such a mistake in future. He submitted that the available information was supplied to the complainant and they did not have any intention to block the information. He further tendered his unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to the complainant on account of delay in transferring the RTI applications. He informed the Commission that Mr. P. K. Srivastava was the then CPIO.
Decision:
8. This Commission observes that the complainant has expressed his grievance regarding the delay in transferring the RTI applications 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 applications 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, Page 4 of 7 2005, this Commission refers to the decision dated 01-06-2012 of the Hon'ble Delhi High 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."
9. 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 Page 5 of 7 show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third 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."
10. 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."
11. 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.
12. However, Mr. P. K. Srivastava/the concerned CPIO is cautioned to be more meticulous in future and not to contravene the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
13. With the above observations, these complaints are disposed of.
14. 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:31-07-2020 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानित सत्यानित प्रनत) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. िमाग), Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक), (011-26105682) Page 6 of 7 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. Mr. Varun Krishna Page 7 of 7