Central Information Commission
Chandranshu Mehta vs Sangeet Natak Akademi on 16 April, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SANAK/A/2019/120879-UM
Mr. Chandranshu Mehta
....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनतम
CPIO,
Sangeet Natak Akademi, Rabindra Bhawan,
Ferozeshah Road, New Delhi-110001
प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 15.04.2021
Date of Decision : 16.04.2021
Date of RTI application 10.02.2019
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 16.03.2019
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 06.05.2019
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information as under:-
Copy of the Action Taken with Noting on the Requester Complaint dated 03.12.2018 addressed to Smt. (Dr.) Rita Swami Choudhary, Secretary of the Sangeet Natak Akademi (SNA) vide Speed- Post Number (mentioned in the RTI application) dated 03.12.2018 with Sub: Representation against illegal Money Distribution by Smt. (Dr.) Rita Swami Choudhary.Page 1 of 8
Copy of the Action Taken with Noting on the Requester Complaint dated 03.12.2018 addressed to Shri R. K. Bhatt, Deputy Secretary (Finance & Accounts) and Drawing & Disbursing Officer (DDO) of the Sangeet Natak Akademi (SNA) vide Speed- Post Number (mentioned in the RTI application) dated 03.12.2018 with Sub: Representation against illegal Money Distribution by Smt. (Dr.) Rita Swami Choudhary.
Copy of the Minutes of Review DPC Meeting held on 23.10.2017 for considering antedating the promotion of Smt. Vinodi, to grade of Section Officer in the SNA.
Copy of the Minutes of DPC Meeting held on 25.06.2018 for the promotion of Deputy Secretary (Documentation), Deputy Secretary (Music), Library & Information Officer (L&IO) and Deputy Secretary (Administration).
Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide information within 07 days.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Chandranshu Mehta through Audio Conferencing; Respondent: Mr. Sanjay, Data Entry Operator (Unauthorized representative), on behalf of the CPIO Ms. Vinodi Sharma, CPIO & Deputy Secretary, through Audio Conferencing;
The Appellant reiterated the background of the case and submitted that false and misleading information was furnished by the CPIO. He further submitted that the CPIO is in a habit of also denying the information which is generic in nature as also comes within the purview of Section 4(1) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant further alleged that due to personal enmity, the information sought was never provided to him which contravenes the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated Nil which is taken on record wherein a copy of CPIO's reply dated 26th December, 2019 was attached for reference. The unauthorized representative of the Respondent, CPIO, while tendering unconditional apology to the Commission submitted that due to some unavoidable circumstances the CPIO could not appear before the Commission telephonically and that he has been nominated to attend the hearing in all the four matters listed for hearing today. The Commission however, noted with serious concern that no authorization has been sent by Ms. Vinodi Sharma, CPIO & Page 2 of 8 Deputy Secretary regarding authorizing any other representative on her behalf which is unpardonable. Even though Para 3(a) of notice of hearing dated 01.04.2021 specifically mentioned as under:-
"CPIO/PIO should personally attend the hearing; if for a compelling reason(s) he/she is unable to be present, he/she has to give reasons for the same and shall authorise an officer not below the rank of CPIO. The PIO fully acquainted with the facts of the case and bring complete file / file(s) with him."
It shows that Ms. Vinodi Sharma, CPIO & Deputy Secretary, has not gone through the notice of hearing dated 01.04.2021 sent by the Commission. Even if the CPIO has not gone through the notice of hearing, the Commission expects that being designated as a CPIO in the Respondent Public Authority, she must be aware of the fact that this is a quasi-judicial authority equivalent to other judicial system existing in the Country and that the decorum of the Court should be maintained by at least authorizing an equivalent officer in rank to CPIO or one rank below for appearing before the Commission.
Moreover, the Commission was only in receipt of an email from Ms. Vinodi Sharma, CPIO & Deputy Secretary, SNA, New Delhi, dated 13th April, 2021 at 03:57 PM requesting the Commission to allow her "online/virtual mode" hearing on 15.04.2021 and 16.04.2021 due to her old age and ill health, which was duly considered by the Commission on the same day. The lackadaisical attitude of Ms. Vinodi Sharma, CPIO & Deputy Secretary is unacceptable. The RTI Act as framed, makes it obligatory for the CPIOs to discharge their duties as enshrined under the RTI Act, 2005, and fixes responsibility in case there is failure or delay in supply of information. It is the duty of the CPIOs to ensure that the provisions of the Act are fully complied with and in case of default, be prepared to face the necessary consequences.
As regards the information sought by the Appellant, the unauthorized representative of the CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 26th December, 2019. On being queried by the Commission regarding the date of FAA's Order, the nominee of the CPIO feigned ignorance of the same. The Commission observes that almost after a delay of 10 months the RTI application of the Appellant was responded by the CPIO which contravenes the provisions of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.Page 3 of 8
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 09th April, 2021 which is taken on record.
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."
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of J.P Agrawal v. Union of India-2013(287) ELT25(Del.) 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.
8..............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."
Page 4 of 8The High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the matter of Block Development Officer, Paonta Sahib vs. State Information Commission and Anr., CWP No. 6072 of 2012 dated 27.06.2018 held as under:
"9. It is vehemently urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from vice of arbitrariness and, therefore, should be quashed and set aside. It was further argued that the petitioner on receipt of the application had transferred it to the concerned authorities and, therefore, there was no lapse on his part. He would also urge that the petitioner did not know the intricacies of the RTI Act and, therefore, he could not have been penalized.
10. I find no merit in the contention put-forth by the petitioner. It is more than settled that ignorance of law can be no excuse. Once the petitioner is designated as PIO, then all the more he is deemed to have knowledge and even otherwise the least that was required of him was to have acquainted himself thoroughly with the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, the explanation as sought to be put-forth by the petitioner at this stage clearly reflects the lackadaisical attitude of the petitioner. The only reasonable explanation for the cause of delay can be accepted and not lame excuses."
A reference can also be made to the decision of 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, wherein it was 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 Commission also noted that it should be the endeavour of the CPIO to ensure that maximum assistance should be provided to the RTI applicants to ensure the flow of information. In this context, the Commission referred to the OM No.4/9/2008-IR dated 24.06.2008 issued by the DoP&T on the Subject "Courteous behavior with the persons seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005" wherein it was stated as under:
Page 5 of 8"The undersigned is directed to say that the responsibility of a public authority and its public information officers (PIO) is not confined to furnish information but also to provide necessary help to the information seeker, wherever necessary."
The Commission thus 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.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission expressed its deep displeasure over the poor handling of the RTI matters in the public authority ignoring the spirit of the law as also the recalcitrant attitude of Ms. Vinodi Sharma, CPIO & Deputy Secretary of the Respondent Public Authority for not remaining present herself in the matters listed for hearing today even after being allowed to present herself in an "Audio conferencing / Telephonic conferencing" on a request due to COVID situation. The Commission therefore, directs the Secretary, Sangeet Natak Akademi, Rabindra Bhawan, New Delhi to examine the matter and fix responsibility and accountability on the concerned officials for not furnishing a clear, cogent and precise reply / information within the stipulated time frame prescribed in the RTI Act, 2005 and intimate the same to the Appellant / Commission within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The Commission further instructs the Respondent, CPIO to provide complete point wise information to the Appellant as sought in the RTI application viz. the copy of ATR along with the copy of Minutes of the Meeting in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 strictly within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission failing which penal action under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 could be initiated.Page 6 of 8
It is appalling to note that the FAA has also not acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in this case and therefore is advised to be alert and cautious in the implementation of the RTI Act, 2005 with due diligence and care.
The Commission also instructs the Respondent Public Authority 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.
The Appeal stands disposed with the above directions.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत एवं सत्यानपत प्रनत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 16.04.2021 Page 7 of 8 Copy to:-
1. Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001 (For information and to take strict action against the recalcitrant attitude of Ms. Vinodi Sharma, CPIO & Deputy Secretary, Sangeet Natak Akademi, Rabindra Bhawan, Ferozeshah Road, New Delhi, in implementation of the RTI Act, 2005, in letter and spirit).
2. Secretary, Sangeet Natak Akademi, Rabindra Bhawan, Ferozeshah Road, New Delhi-110001 Page 8 of 8