Central Information Commission
Dinesh Kumar Saini vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 31 December, 2018
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.CIC/ADDDM/A/2017/126304
Sh. Dinesh Kumar Saini, ....अपीलकताग/Appellant
House No.-J-60,StreetNo.-38,
Rajapuri, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO/ Sub-DivisionalMagistrate-Dwarka,
O/o. The Addl. District Magistrate -S/W, .... प्रनतवादीगण /Respondent
(Government of NCT of Delhi),
South-West District,
Old Terminal Tax Building,
Kapashera,NewDelhi-110037
Through:- None
Date of Hearing : 24.12.2018
Date of Decision : 31.12.2018
Information Commissioner : Shri BimalJulka
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06.11.2016
PIO replied on : -
First Appeal filed on : 27.01.2017
First Appellate Order on : 20.02.2017
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 21.04.2017
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 06.11.2016, the Appellant sought some information with regard to status of application of empanelment as Authorized Collection Centre for generation and distribution of e-stamp certificate of lower denomination below Rs. 501/- as per the application of Sh. Dinesh Kr. Saini dated 10.09.2015 and 14.04.2016.
Having not received any information from PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal. FAA/ADM(South West) vide letter dated 20.02.2017 directed the PIO to furnish the information to the Appellant within 10 days. Feeling aggrieved over non compliance of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Only the Appellant remained present during the hearing, to the exclusion of the Respondent. The Appellant has reiterated the facts of the case including non- compliance of the FAA's specific orders.
The Commission observed that the RTI Act, 2005 stipulates time limits in its various provisions relating to responding to RTI Applications, transfer of applications, filing and disposing of first appeal to ensure that a culture of information dissemination is strengthened so that a robust functioning of the democracy gets established. This was recognised by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities"
whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers. It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 it has held that:
"The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure."
A reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) wherein it was held as under:
7."it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only. The Appellate Authority is not the custodian of the information or the document. It is only a statutory authority to take a decision on an appeal with regard the tenability or otherwise of the action of the CPIO and, therefore, there is a conscious omission in making the Appellate Authority liable for a penal action under Section 20 of the RTI Act and if that be the scheme of the Act and the legislative intention, we see no error in the order passed by the learned writ Court warranting reconsideration."
Decision The absence and complete conduct of the Respondent-PIO from the Office of SDM-Dwarka is complete violation of the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and totally unacceptable. The query raised by the Appellant addresses larger public interest while the continuous silence on the part of the PIO is demonstrative of the deliberate and intentional violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and obstruction in the flow of information by the PIO. The non-adherence to the FAA's order adds to the breach on the part of the PIO.
Under the circumstances, the Commission hereby directs Registry of this Bench to issue SHOW CAUSE NOTICE upon the PIO/s, SDM office (Dwarka), who held office between November 2016 till date. The Noticee/s shall explain why penal action should not be initiated against him/them, for causing the intentional contravention of the Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and defiance of the orders of the FAA. Explanation from the Noticee must reach the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order, failing which ex-parte orders shall follow.
The FAA/ADM(SW) is directed to initiate an Enquiry against the PIO for non-compliance of the specific directions issued vide order dated 20.02.2017. Upon completion of the Enquiry, Report shall be submitted before the Commission, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
The Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover Dy. Registrar 011-26180514 /राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर, उप-पंजीयक