Central Information Commission
Harish Chugh vs National Institute Of Technology, ... on 14 September, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/NITKS/A/2017/144694-BJ
Mr. Harish Chugh,
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
National Institute of Technology,
Thanesar, Kurukshetra-136119
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 13.09.2018
Date of Decision : 14.09.2018
Date of RTI application 21.03.2017
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 22.04.2017
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 30.06.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding employees who were drawing pension, certified copies of NIT Pensioner list, copies of all NIT Pensioner drawing family pension after death, list of employees who have submitted succession certificate and whether their pending dues were cleared or not and other issues related thereto.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAAs order, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.Page 1 of 4
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Harish Chugh through VC;
Respondent: Mr. G. R. Samantaray, DR/CPIO through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that no information was provided in accordance with Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. While admitting the delay in furnishing information, the Respondent cited technical problems with the Software where the Appellant had submitted online application. It was argued that the technical issues could not be resolved within a specified time period and therefore, the Appellant was replied on 28.08.2018 clubbing the original response of the CPIO and FAA. The Appellant acknowledged the receipt of the said letter. In respect of points 04 & 05, it was admitted that certain rectification in the reply was to be made which would be done in due course as it pertains to the personal grievance of the Appellant. Nonetheless, it was observed by the Commission that the explanation offered by the Respondent was incorrect and untenable.
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."
With regard to imposition of penalty, the Commission referred to Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 which stipulates that penalty could be imposed by the Commission against the CPIO in an appeal/ complaint proceeding, if the information sought was not provided within the stipulated time period without any reasonable cause. During the hearing, the CPIO was unable to give any reasons for the delay in providing the information. The Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Page 2 of 4 R.K. Jain v. V.P. Pandey, CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 4785/ 2017 dated 10.10.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the CIC had accepted that there was a delay in providing the necessary information to the petitioner, the CIC had not imposed the penalty as required under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is well settled that imposing of the penalty is a discretionary measure. In Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 a division bench of this Court had considered the question whether the levy of penalty was discretionary and held as under..........."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of R.K. Jain v. CIC and Anr. in W.P.(C) 4152/2017 dated 10.10.2017 had held as under:
"5. The question whether the CIC had the discretion to restrict the penalty or whether penalty as provided under Section 20 of the Act is mandatory, is no longer res integra. The said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 and the relevant extract of the said decision is set out below....
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the CIC. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information. Moreover, it was also observed that in Appeal No.:-CIC/NITKS/A/2017/130217-BJ dated 22.06.2018 and CIC/NITKS/A/2017/603080-BJ dated 22.06.2018 a penalty of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on Mr. G. R. Samantaray, DR/CPIO, for not providing the information to the Appellant within the stipulated time frame.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and submission made by both the parties and in light of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court, the Commission finds that as per the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission would caution the CPIO to be alert and vigilant in dispensing the information within the stipulated time period. It was observed that in previous matters dealt by the Commission such as in Appeal No.:-
CIC/NITKS/A/2017/130217-BJ dated 22.06.2018 and CIC/NITKS/A/2017/603080-BJ dated 22.06.2018, a penal action had been taken against the CPIO.Page 3 of 4
The Commission further instructs the Director, to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
Furthermore, it is appalling to note that the FAA had also not acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore is advised to be alert and cautious in the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 with due diligence and care.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 14.09.2018
Copy to:
1. The Secretary, D/o Higher Education, M/o HRD, 127-C, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001
2. Dr. Satish Kumar, Director, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, Haryana-136119 (with the instruction to conduct seminars conferences in respect of the awareness regarding the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 which was far from satisfactory in this institute.)
3. Dr. Surinder Deswal, Registrar National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, Haryana-136119
4. Dr. Rajender Kumar, Dean and First Appellate Authority, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, Haryana-136119 Page 4 of 4