Central Information Commission
Praveen Kumar vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 26 April, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली,New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/ADDDM/C/2018/172253
Shri Praveen Kumar ...निकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO/SDM (Punjabi Bagh),New Delhi ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Through: Sh. Kuldip Singh- Tehsildar
representing Sh. Nishant Bodh - SDM,
Punjabi Bagh
Date of Hearing : 14.10.2020
Date of Decision : 14.10.2020
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.08.2018
PIO replied on : Nil
First Appeal filed on : 11.09.2018
First Appellate Order on : 25.10.2018
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 10.12.2018
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 07.08.2018 seeking information on 5 points from PIO/SDM/Punjabi Bagh:
1. Where the file of Case No. 433/RA/SDM/PB/2o11/6179, decided on 02.11.2012 by the SDM/RA (Punjabi Bagh), is available for inspection.
2. From where I can get the certified copy of the complete file of the case no. 433/RA/SDM/PB/2o11/6179 decided on 02.11.2012 by the SDM/RA (Punjabi Bagh) and where I have to apply for the same.
3. What are the formalities and fee for applying the certified copy of the file of the above mentioned case?
4. In how many days the certified copy is made available.
5. Can I get the copy of the complete file of the case no. 433/RA/SDM/PB/2o11/6179 decided on 02,11.2012 by the SDM/RA (Punjabi Bagh) under Right to Information Act against the payment of required fee, if yes, then kindly provide the same.
Having not received any reply from the PIO, Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 11.09.2018 which was decided by the FAA/ADM-West vide order dated Page 1 of 6 25.10.2018 directing the PIO to provide reply. Aggrieved by non-compliance of the FAA's order, the Complainant filed a direct complaint in this Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing is held through audio conference, scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are duly represented for hearing and on being questioned by the Commission, the representative of the PIO/SDM, Punjabi Bagh is unable to justify non-compliance of the FAA's order.
Decision:
While adjudicating the instant Complaint, it is evident that PIO/SDM, Punjabi Bagh failed to provide information to the complainant, despite FAA's specific directions. It is beyond doubt that there has been violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, without any reasonable cause. The PIO/SDM, Punjabi Bagh has neither attended the hearing nor sent any submission justifying non- supply of information in this case, till date. Accordingly, it is directed that Show Cause Notice be issued on PIO/SDM, Punjabi Bagh - Sh. Nishant Bodh for causing deliberate obstruction to the flow of information in contravention of the provisions of the RTI Act, without any justifiable cause. Reply of the Show Cause by the Noticee-PIO/SDM, Punjabi Bagh must reach the Commission atleast one week prior to the scheduled hearing of the Show Cause case, failing which the case will be decided on the basis of facts available on record.
The case is disposed off as such.
Page 2 of 6
Adjunct Proceedings
Date of Show-Cause Hearing : 26.04.2022
Date of Order : 26.04.2022
Written submission has been received from Mr. Nishant Bodh, PIO, O/o. SDM (PB), vide letter dated 02.11.2020, as under:Page 3 of 6
Relevant facts emerging from hearing:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. Nishant Bodh Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 02.11.2020, for perusal before the Commission and duly taken on record.
Written submission has been received from PIO, vide letter dated 25.04.2022, as under:Page 4 of 6
Decision:
In light of the aforesaid submissions made by PIO during hearing as well as written submissions dated 02.11.2020 & 25.04.2022, submitted by PIO, the Commission rules out any malafide intention on his part. Commission do not find it expedient to initiate any further action against him.
The law with respect to inflicting penalties under the RTI Act is well settled. In Bhagat Singh vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. (03.12.2007 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/8756/2007; the Delhi High Court read 'malafide' on part of PIO to deny disclosure of information as a sine qua non for imposition of penalties specified under the RTI Act, 2005. It was observed that:
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 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.
In the facts of the present case, the Commission accepts the explanation tendered by the then PIO and finds no reason to disbelieve him. There is nothing on record to suggest that he acted malafidely or failed to exercise his due diligence. The penalty proceedings are dropped. Noticee stands discharged.
The show-cause proceeding is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Page 5 of 6 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभितसत्याभितप्रभत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 6 of 6