Central Information Commission
R K Jain vs Department Of Revenue on 25 July, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi-110066, website:cic.gov.in
Appeal No.:-CIC/SS/A/2012/000682-BJ
Appellant : Mr. R. K. Jain
1512-B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg
Wazir Nagar, New Delhi-110003
M. 9810077977
Respondent : CPIO & Assistant Registrar
Customs Excise & Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal, West Block No. 2,
R K Puram, New Delhi-110066
Date of Hearing : 23.06.2017
Date of Decision : 19.07.2017
Date of filing of RTI applications 09.06.2011
CPIO's response 01.01.2011
Date of filing the First appeal 20.07.2011
First Appellate Authority's response 16.09.2011
Date of diarised receipt of second appeal by the 29.06.2015
Commission
Date of Earlier decisions of the Commission 29.10.2014 and
12.12.2014
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 02 points regarding copies of monthly pendency statement for reserved orders to be pronounced for period from 01.04.2009 till date of RTI application for all Delhi Benches, month wise pendency details of orders dictated in Open Court but written orders not issued within 30 days for the aforementioned period, etc. Dissatisfied on not receiving any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 16.09.2011 allowed inspection of relevant files. In compliance to the order of the FAA, the CPIO and Asst. Registrar (S. K. Verma) vide its letter dated 01.01.2011 allowed inspection of files on 14.11.2011 between 04:00 P.M. and 05:00 P.M in the respective branches of the Tribunal.
This matter was initially heard by the Commission (IC-YA) on 29.10.2014 and 12.12.2014 wherein the Commission vide its order dated 12.12.2014 directed the Appellant to furnish his counter submissions against the written submission of Mr. S.K Verma, AR/ CPIO, CESTAT dated 12.12.2014. Subsequently, the Designated Officer (IC-YA) vide its communication dated 27.07.2016 transferred the matter to the Registry of IC-SB for fresh hearing and decision in the matter. Thereafter, the Registry of IC-BJ was in receipt of the instant file in PDF form which was created by the authorised section of the Commission on 15.05.2017.
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:Page 1 of 7
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. V. P. Pandey, CPIO & Assistant Registrar, CESTAT, New Delhi (M: 9811559708); Mr. Mohinder Singh, Dy. Registrar, New Delhi (M: 9891944636) and Mr. S. K. Verma, Asst. Registrar, Kolkata (M: 9911127800) through VC;
The Commission is in receipt of a letter from the Appellant dated 20.06.2017 wherein it was stated that he could not attend the hearing before the Commission and the matter in hand may be decided on the material on record. It was contended that Shri S. K. Verma CPIO and Shri Mohinder Singh CPIO had deliberately and malafidely delayed and denied information with a view to cause obstruction of the same.
The Commission noted that Mr. Mohinder Singh, Dy. Registrar, CESTAT, Delhi was the CPIO at the time when RTI application was filed and therefore the Commission sought a written submission from him for providing his explanation in the instant matter. Thereafter, Mr. Mohinder Singh vide his written submission dated 04.07.2017 submitted that the instant RTI application no.11/3397 was filed by the Appellant on 10.06.2011 when he was the CPIO at CESTAT, Delhi but the said RTI application was diarised by the diary clerk only on 01.08.2011, at the time when Mr. S.K Verma was designated as a CPIO, CESTAT, Delhi w.e.f. 28.07.2011 and therefore he was not authorised and responsible for its disposal. Explaining the background of the case subsequent to the filing of the RTI application, it was informed that the instant RTI application was disposed by the then CPIO, Mr. S. K. Verma vide common letter dated 18.08.2011 by which 90 RTI applications including the instant one (CPIO ID No. 06-98/2011) were decided by him. Aggrieved by the response of the then CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide its order dated 08.11.2011 had directed the CPIO to provide separate response to different RTI applications and also to specify reasons for any denial of information. Dissatisfied by the order of the FAA, the Appellant as well the CPIO had approached the Commission. The Commission vide File no. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 & 1477 dated 13.03.2013 rejected the Appeal of the CPIO and directed him to comply with the order of the FAA within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of its order. It was further informed that the instant RTI application (with CPIO ID No. 06-98/2011) was dealt by the Commission in its order in File no.
CIC/SS/A/2012/000781-YA and in File no. CIC/SS/A/2012/000791-YA and in File no. CIC/SS/A/2012/000792-YA dated 08.09.2015 wherein the Commission had discharged the then CPIO of any liability for causing obstruction to information under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. It was therefore prayed that since the matter in issue had already been heard and adjudicated by the Commission in its order dated 08.09.2015, the instant matter should be dealt by the Commission accordingly.
Mr. S. K. Verma, another Respondent in this matter reiterated the contents of his written submission dated 12.12.2014 and stated that the Appellant had filed an RTI application dated 10.06.2011 which was registered with the office of the CPIO as RTI ID no. 06-98/2011. In addition to the submission put forth by Mr. Mohinder Singh, Dy. Registrar, CESTAT, Delhi, the Respondent informed the Commission that he had rejected 90 RTI applications filed by the Appellant through a common order (date of Page 2 of 7 dispatch 11.08.2011) by following the observations of the Commission in the matter of Kishur J. Aggarwal and noticing that the Appellant was misusing the tool of the RTI Act, 2005 to further his commercial gains thorough his publication business. With respect to furnishing of information, it was explained that he had sought the assistance from the deemed CPIOs under Section 5(4) r/w Section 5(5) on 01.11.2011 to inspect the relevant records on 14.11.2011 and the said letter was delivered to the Appellant on 09.11.2011. Accordingly, the inspection of the relevant records was undertaken by the Appellant on 14.11.2011. It was further submitted that the CPIO, Mr. Naresh Kumar, in compliance with the order of the Commission had finally provided the requisite information to the Appellant vide letters dated 09.05.2013, 16.04.2013, 26.04.2013 and 03.05.2013. However, the Appellant yet again filed a First Appeal before the FAA in the said matter which was disposed off by the FAA vide its order no. 18/13 dated 22.05.2013 and allowed to withdraw the First Appeal filed by the Appellant. Therefore, it was submitted that since the First Appeal was already withdrawn by the Appellant, the Second Appeal pending before the Commission becomes infructuous and therefore was liable to be dismissed.
Reliance was also placed on the decision of the coordinating Bench of the Commission in File no. CIC/SS/A/2012/000781-YA, in File no. CIC/SS/A/2012-000791-YA and in File no. CIC/SS/A/2012/000792-YA dated 08.09.2015 wherein, the Commission had not imposed any penalty on him and moreover directed the Complainant to provide a list of the pending complaints and appeals arising out of response provided by the Respondent. A further reference was drawn on the above mentioned decision of the Commission wherein it was held as under:
"From the above, the facts are clear. The appellant/complainant filed 90 RTI applications from 10.06.2011 to 04.08.2011, i.e. within a period of approx. 55 days. Shri S.K. Verma, erstwhile CPIO rejected all the 90 application by a common order dt. 18.08.2011 contending that the appellant is a habitual petitioner and seeks to cripple the normal functioning of the authority. He has further contended that the officials in the department cannot perform their statutory functions as they are busy dealing with innumerable RTI applications filed by the appellant/complainant and that CESTAT has, in the past, given information running into more than 2 lakh pages of information to the appellant and has allowed inspection of records more than 200 times. The CPIO has also stated that he was appointed as CPIO only on 27.07.2011 and that the RTI application received till then were diarised by 01.08.2011. The FAA's order dt. 08.11.2011, which dealt with all the 90 RTI applications together affirmed the CPIO's contention, yet directed him to provide information to the appellant/complainant, after rechecking the issues involved therein. This order of the FAA was challenged by the CPIO before the Commission, during the pendency of which he was bound to comply with the FAA's order, as per his contention. The Commission in its order in file no. CIC/SS/A/2012/001477 (second appeal filed by Shri S.K. Verma on 17.02.2012, against the FAA's order dt. 08.11.2011), vide order dt. 13.03.2013 rejected the CPIO's appeal and directed him to comply with the FAA's order dt. 08.11.2011, after which the CPIO has provided information to the appellant, in due time.
In view of the above, neither can the CPIO be held liable nor any malafide can be attributed to him for:-Page 3 of 7
(a) not providing information in compliance of the FAA's order dt. 08.11.2011, which he had challenged before the Commission; and
(b) providing the information to the appellant, from time to time, after the Commission's order dt. 13.03.2013.
No further action is required to be taken in the abovementioned cases."
The Respondent further submitted that several and voluminous numbers of RTI applications/First Appeals/Complainants filed by the Appellant against different regional branches of the Respondent Public Authority with the sole intention to cripple the normal functioning of CESTAT and due to shortage of staff, the Tribunal was facing great hardship in coping up with the administrative/judicial work of CESTAT. It was submitted that CESTAT, till date had provided information running into 2 lakh pages and had allowed several inspection of records which showed that the Respondent Public Authority had never caused any obstruction of information to the Appellant. A further reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. In Civil Appeal no. 6454/2011 wherein it was held as under:
"The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquillity and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritizing information furnishing, at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
The Respondent, during the hearing, in addition to his written submission, informed the Commission that the instant RTI application with RTI ID no. 06-98/2011 had already been dealt by the Commission in its decision in File no. CIC/SS/A/2012/000781-YA, in File no. CIC/SS/A/2012-000791- YA and in File no. CIC/SS/A/2012/000792 dated 08.09.2015 and therefore he requested the Commission to drop the penalty proceedings against him in light of the decision of the Commission mentioned above.
The Complainant vide his counter written reply dated 27.06.2015 in response to the submission of the Respondent (Mr. S.K Verma) dated 12.12.2014 had contested to the submissions made by the Respondent and stated that complete information/response had not been provided to him, till date despite the order of the FAA in this regard. It was informed that thought he had filed the RTI application on 10.06.2011, the same was diarised at the office of the CPIO, CESTAT on 01.08.2011, after the delay of 50 days and only after he had approached the FAA with his First Appeal against the deemed refusal of providing information to him. In compliance with the order of the FAA dated 16.09.2011, the Respondent (Mr. S. K. Verma) provided inspection of concerned files to him on 14.11.2011 but such files/records were not complete and non-paginated and therefore Page 4 of 7 complete inspection facility could not be availed by him. A further request was made to the CPIO to provide another date for inspection of complete files/records. But despite several reminders, the Respondent did not provide for the same. Therefore, he had approached the Commission with a complaint against the Respondent. In the meanwhile, the Respondent fixed 12.01.2012 as the date of next inspection but no substantial efforts were made by the Respondent to provide proper inspection of complete records. It was further asserted that the Respondent had malafidely delayed in responding to his reminders for providing inspection, as per the order of the FAA and had caused obstruction to information and therefore was liable for penal and disciplinary proceedings under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005. A strong objection was also raised against the then CPIO, Mr. Mohinder Singh, who had deliberately caused delay of more than a month in registering his RTI application and therefore prayed imposition of penalty against him as well under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act,2005.
It was further informed that in spite of complying with the order of the FAA, the Respondent went on for a second Appeal against the said order of the FAA before the Commission, wherein the Commission in Decision no. CIC/SS/A/2012/000802 and CIC/SS/A/2012/001477 dated 13.03.2013 had rejected the Second Appeal filed by the Respondent in toto and furthermore dismissed the allegations made by the Respondent against the frivolous RTI applicants made by him. It was further argued that the allegations made by the Respondent regarding his malicious intention in filing numerous RTI applications to obstruct the working of the Respondent Public Authority was baseless and devoid of any merit.
It was also informed that he had due apprehensions regarding various irregularities, manipulations and corrupt practices ongoing in the CESTAT and the act of the CPIO in denying information to him had been exhibiting miscarriage of justice. A reference was made to the FAA order no. 24/2015 dated 10.04.2015, wherein the FAA had recorded the illegal and financial irregularities of the Respondent, Mr. S. K. Verma in a matter of submitting a forged rent receipt of Rs. 10,000/- to the Respondent Authority.
The Complainant vehemently opposed to the contention raised by the Respondent regarding the shortage of staff in the delay caused in providing information and referred to the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Dy. Commissioner of Archives v. State CIC and observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ICAI v. Shaunak H.Satya (Civil Appeal no. 7571 of 2011). He made strong objection to the submissions of the Respondent in context of providing information to the Complainant in other RTI applications and stated that no evidence or details of such RTI applications had been provided by the Respondent to substantiate his stand. It was also stated that reliance placed by the Respondent on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. was not applicable in the instant matter because the information sought by him was to expose the corrupt and irregular practices in CESTAT and such disclosure of information could not amount to oppression or intimidation of honest officials. A reference was further placed on a decision of the Commission in File no. CIC/SA/C/2014/00469 to substantiate his claim further.
Page 5 of 7On perusal of the records and the written submission of both the parties, the Commission observed that a similar matter had already been dealt by the afore-said decision of the Commission wherein it was held as under:
"As no consolidated list mentioning the RTI applications, out of the 90 RTI applications filed by the complainant (from 10.06.2011 to 04.08.2011), which have been heard by this Bench or by any other Bench of the Commission till date; along with a list of those that have not been heard till date, has been received till date, the Commission is constrained to deal all such appeals/complaints, separately, despite the issue remaining the same. .......The Commission in its order in file no. CIC/SS/A/2012/001477 (second appeal filed by Shri S.K. Verma on 17.02.2012, against the FAA's order dt. 08.11.2011), vide order dt. 13.03.2013 rejected the CPIO's appeal and directed him to comply with the FAA's order dt. 08.11.2011, after which the CPIO has provided information to the appellant, in due time.
In view of the above, neither can the CPIO be held liable nor any malafide can be attributed to him for:-
(a) not providing information in compliance of the FAA's order dt. 08.11.2011, which he had challenged before the Commission; and
(b) providing the information to the appellant, from time to time, after the Commission's order dt. 13.03.2013.
No further action is required to be taken in the abovementioned cases."
Furthermore, with regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 10806 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision:
02nd December, 2011 (Gurcharan Singh vs. State Information Commission, Punjab & Ors.) wherein it was held as under:
"Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the State Information Commission has no where held that the petitioner withheld any information deliberately or willfully. Nonfurnishing of satisfactory explanation would not ipso- facto mean that the petitioner withheld the information with a motive or mala-fidely. That being so, the harsh penalty imposed vide the impugned order dated 10.05.2011 [Annexure P-8] is uncalled for and the same is set aside but with a stern warning to the petitioner to be careful in future and ensure that as and when an application is received under the Act, he shall be obligated to act upon promptly and in any case within the stipulated period."
Similarly, THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH in Civil Writ Petition No.6504 of 2009 (Date of decision: 04.03.2010) (State of Punjab and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Punjab and another); had held as under:
3. The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty. If there is a delay and it is explained, the question will only revolve on whether the explanation is acceptable or not. If there had been a delay of a year and if there was a Superintendent, who was prodding the Public Information Officer to act, that itself Page 6 of 7 should be seen a circumstance where the government authorities seemed reasonably aware of the compulsions of time and the imperatives of providing information without any delay. The 2 nd respondent has got what he has wanted and if there was a delay, the delay was for reasons explained above which I accept as justified.
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission and Anr. WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:
"Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely."
The Complainant could not satisfy the Commission or substantiate his claims further regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause.
The Commission observed that the Respondent had discharged his responsibility as a CPIO, for the time period for which he was appointed the CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi and that he could not be made solely responsible for the delay caused, till date in providing the complete information to the Complainant even for the time period for which he was not the CPIO, CESTAT. The Commission accepts that there was a delay in complying with the order of the FAA, but that delay caused on behalf of the Respondents was not malafide and devoid of any ill intention for causing obstruction to information.
DECISION:
Considering the facts of the case and written submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decision of the Commission in File no. CIC/SS/A/2012/000781-YA, in File no. CIC/SS/A/2012-000791-YA and in File no. CIC/SS/A/2012/000792 dated 08.09.2015, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this matter.
The CPIO however, is warned to be extremely careful and vigilant in handling RTI petitions in future, failing which the Commission would initiate penal action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Page 7 of 7