Central Information Commission
Shri Hira Lal Barman vs Pr. Ag (Audit), Kolkata on 19 June, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000323
Dated, the 19th June, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Hira Lal Barman
Respondents : Pr. AG (Audit), Kolkata
This matter came up for hearing on 11.06.2009 pursuant to Commission's notice dated 15.05.2009. Both parties were present.
2. Appellant's RTI-application dated 11.11.2008 comprised a request for the certified copy of the Audit Report on the accounts of Katwa College under the Directorate of Public Instructions in the Department of Higher Education, Govt. of West Bengal, which was conducted by the Accountant General on 25th and 26th in the year 2007. The RTI-application did not mention the month of the year to which these two dates ⎯ 25 and 26 ⎯ pertained.
3. CPIO & Sr.Audit Officer (Admn-I), sent a requisition to the appellant, dated 05.12.2008 to deposit Rs.2/- towards the photocopying charges of the above-mentioned document, which appellant deposited on 10.12.2008.
3. Through CPIO's communication dated 13.01.2009, appellant was informed that no information could be furnished to him as disclosure of this category of information was under review by the Central Information Commission and the decision regarding whether to disclose this information could be taken only after the CIC's direction.
4. According to the appellant, he filed his first-appeal against the CPIO's communication before the Appellate Authority / Principal Accountant General (Audit), West Bengal on 09.01.2009. The AA gave no disposal to appellant's first-appeal. However, the CPIO sent to the appellant his communication dated 13.01.2009 as mentioned above.
5. Appellant has further pointed out that all correspondence with him, no matter whether it was relating to the reply from the CPIO or Appellate Authority's response to his first-appeal, was made to him by a Senior Audit Officer, who was the designated CPIO. According to the appellant, the Appellate Authority being a statutory authority under the AT-19062009-07.doc Page 1 of 3 RTI Act was obliged to give a proper disposal to appellant's RTI first-appeal, which he failed to do. CPIO, after collecting the fee from the appellant for providing the photocopy of the Audit Report, suddenly changed his mind and informed appellant that the requested information could not be provided as a similar matter was pending before the CIC.
6. Appellant, therefore, demanded that penalty be imposed on the CPIO for his failure to provide him the information within the time stipulated under the RTI Act and action be initiated against the Appellate Authority for dereliction of duty. He also demanded compensation for the detriment suffered by him due to the inaction of both these officers.
7. Shri R. Srinivasan, Director (Legal) representing the respondents pointed out that there had been some error of judgement by the CPIO and the Appellate Authority because of their belief that the disclosure of Audit Reports had to await CIC's decision in a similar matter. He also regretted the fact that CPIO first collected the fee for disclosure of the requested information and then informed appellant that information could not be provided. This, according to the respondents, was attributable to the confusion in the ranks about whether the information should be disclosed or it should await CIC's decision in this matter.
8. It is also the submission of the respondents that appellant's RTI-application used expressions which needed to be interpreted properly. He had asked for an Audit Report, which was found to be actually a request for an Inspection Report. Further, he mentioned the dates of 'audit' but mentioned no month. These infirmities in the RTI-application of the appellant naturally resulted in confusion which was compounded by the respondents' lack of clarity about whether to await CIC decision or to disclose the information without it.
9. Respondents, therefore, urged that the delays which occurred in this matter and the confusion in the minds of the Appellate Authority and the CPIO came within the reasonable cause provision under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
10. Respondents informed Commission that in reconsideration of the entire matter, they had brought a copy of the Inspection Report relating to the matter brought to the respondents' notice through AT-19062009-07.doc Page 2 of 3 RTI-application dated 11.11.2008, to be handed over to the appellant at the hearing before the Commission.
11. A copy of the Inspection Report was handed over to the appellant and was acknowledged by him.
12. Given the context of this entire case, I do not think this merits initiation of penalty proceeding. The Appellate Authority is, however, warned to ensure that due attention is paid to the first-appeals filed by petitioners and a decision is properly given under his own signature. He will have to be aware of the fact that he acts as an arm of the RTI Law and, therefore, is a statutory authority within the meaning of the Act. The methodology of making decision must be in consonance with the Appellate Authority's position as a statutory body.
13. The CPIO & Sr. Audit Officer (Admn.I) is also warned that he must refrain from indulging in actions unbecoming of responsible officer. It was not open to him to first ask the appellant to deposit the fee corresponding to the information and then intimate to him that information could not be provided till CIC takes a decision in a similar matter. His actions clearly revealed a lack of application of mind and poor judgement. Appellate Authority could have applied corrective to the CPIO but chose not to do so and thereby compounded the problem.
14. It is such actions of the Appellate Authority and the CPIO which lead to wholly avoidable appellate action under the RTI Act. Even the minimal application of mind obviates unnecessary processes in disclosing information.
15. As all information has now been disclosed to the appellant, the matter before the Commission is ordered to be closed.
16. Appeal disposed of with the above directions.
17. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AT-19062009-07.doc Page 3 of 3