Central Information Commission
Amarpal Singh vs Forensic Science Laboratory on 28 February, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/FOSCL/A/2023/103142
CIC/FOSCL/A/2023/102955
AMARPAL SINGH .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Forensic Science Laboratory,
GNCTD, Sector 14, Rohini,
Delhi - 110085 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 22-02-2024
Date of Decision : 27-02-2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The abovementioned Appeals have been clubbed together for decision as
these are based on identical RTI Applications of the same Appellant.
Relevant facts emerging from appeals:
RTI applications filed on : 22-08-2022
CPIO replied on : 22-09-2022
First appeals filed on : 06-10-2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 03-11-2022
2nd Appeals/Complaint dated : 12-01-2023
1
CIC/FOSCL/A/2023/103142
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.08.2022 seeking the following information:
"1. kindly provide me certified copies of notings and correspondence copies of the files pertaining to purchase of Video Measurement Set (VM 700T) & TG-700 from Tektronix (India) Pvt Ltd.
2. kindly provide me certified copies of logs books of the Instruments VM 700T and TG 700. I will pay the extra fee required for the photocopies of the certified copies."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 22.09.2022 stating as under:
"It is to inform you that, we haven't received the proper reply from concerned division, therefore, we are unable to provide the information at present."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.10.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 03.11.2022 directed the PIO to reconsider the RTI application of the applicant as per RTI Act, 2005 and accordingly provide the information to the applicant.
In compliance with the FAA's Order, the CPIO vide letter dated 24.11.2022 replied as under:
"It is to inform you that, the desired correspondence/file is not traceable in the concerned division, therefore, we are unable to provide the information at present, you will be replied as soon as the correspondence/file will be available."
CIC/FOSCL/A/2023/102955 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.08.2022 seeking the following information:2
"1. please provide me certified copies of notings & correspondence of the file pertaining to purchase of UFED physical pro-ruggedized Kit (File no F.3(21)/FSL/Pur/2009).
2. please provide me certified copies of notings and correspondence of the file pertaining to the purchase of High-speed Forensic workstation F.3(34)/FSL/Pur/2009.
3. please provide me certified copies of notings and correspondence of the file related to the purchase of 06 UFED with cloud analyzers in the year 2021 for Computer Forensic division of FSL Delhi.
4. please provide me certified copies of logbooks related to above instruments."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 22.09.2022 stating as under:
"It is to inform you that, we haven't received the proper reply from concerned division, therefore, we are unable to provide the information at present."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.10.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 03.11.2022 directed the PIO to reconsider the RTI application of the applicant as per RTI Act, 2005 and provide the information to the applicant.
In compliance with the FAA's Order, the CPIO vide letter dated 24.11.2022 replied as under:
"It is to inform you that, the desired correspondence/file is not traceable in the concerned division, therefore, we are unable to provide the information at present, you will be replied as soon as the correspondence/file will be available."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant set of Second Appeals.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Present in person.3
Respondent: Dr. S. K. Paul, S.S.O. and PIO present in person.
Appellant pleaded that the information has been deliberately not furnished by the PIO despite been the custodian of records.
Respondent submitted that the information as sought by the Appellant has not been received by them from the concerned division, despite repeated reminders. Further, he submitted that even if he gathers the relevant information, it may be noted that the detail of averred purchases attracts the applicability of Section 8 (1)(d) of the RTI Act. Nonetheless, he agreed to share the requisite information to the Appellant after accessing the same from their concerned division.
Decision:
At the outset, the Commission observes from a perusal of records that the instant RTI Application has been casually handled by the Respondent which is not in the spirit of RTI Act. The plea of the Respondent with respect to facilitating the requested information to the Appellant upon receipt of the same from their concerned wing and on the other hand, his claim for denial for information during the hearing under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act appears to be contradictory in nature and cryptic because no explanation has been offered for invoking exemption clause. Moreover, the Respondent even after receipt of hearing notice of the Commission did not even bother to gather the information as sought for by their Purchase Division now. Here, it is also noteworthy that the then CPIO at the first instance should have applied his mind and should have invoked Section 5(4) of the RTI Act for seeking the assistance of the concerned record holder in order to render due assistance to the RTI Applicant instead of giving vague assurance to furnish information at a later stage. The conduct of the Respondent causes unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information which is in violation to the provisions of the RTI Act.
The Commission takes a serious view of this lapse and hence, the present PIO, Mr. S. K. Paul, S.S.O. along with deemed PIO (custodian of the information) are show caused as to why maximum penalty under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed on them. The written explanations of both the PIOs 4 must reach the Commission by uploading it on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link- paper-compliance/add within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Meanwhile, the Respondent is directed to provide a point-wise reply along with relevant information against each RTI Application to the Appellant by accessing the same from the actual custodian by invoking Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, within three weeks of receipt of this order. First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of this direction.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (R K Rao) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181827 Date: 27-02-2024 5