Central Information Commission
Mr.R K Jain vs Department Of Revenue on 26 August, 2013
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
File No.CIC/SS/A/2012/001846
( R.K. Jain -Vs- Department of Revenue )
Dated : 26.08.2013
The essential facts of this matter have been encapsulated in paras 02 to 07 of this Commission's consolidated order dated 23.7.2013 in File No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001846/LS and nine other files. These paras are reproduced below :-
"2. Vide RTI application dated 4.10.2011, the appellant had sought the following information :-
"(A) Please provide datewise details and inspection of records of complaints/references/representation received against Member, Vice Presidents and President of the CESTAT from 1.1.2010 till date and records of action taken thereon.
(B) Please provide details of the steps taken for appointment of President CESTAT and Member Judicial who was selected during the year 2010-11 and inspection of relevant records.
(C) Please provide inspection of all records, documents and notesheets for grant/sanction of addition funds/budget to CESTAT, during the Finance year 2009-2010 and 2010-11 including for Tour and Traveling allowance/expenditure.
(D) Please provide datewise details of the action taken in relation to four orders passed by CAT, Bangalore in August 2011 in the case of Shri S.K. Verma, Assistant Registrar, CESTAT. Please also intimate whether there is any decision or proposal to file appeal/petition against them if so, details and date of such decision/proposal. Please also provide copies of all the four said orders.
(E) Please provide dates and subject of letters received from Ms Jyoti Balasundram VP. CESTAT and Registrar CESTAT from 16.8.2011 till the date of providing information and copies of such letters and decision taken and replies sent thereto.
(F) Please provide Inspection of all records, documents, files, notesheets relating to information as referred to in clauses (A) to (E) above."
3. The CPIO had responded to it vide letter dated 1.12.20`11 providing parawise information to the appellant and also offering inspection of records. On appeal, the first Appellate Authority had also ordered the CPIO to arrange inspection of the relevant records by the appellant.
4. However, in the appeal memo filed before the Commission, the appellant contends as follows :-
(i) He filed the RTI application on 5.10.2011 but it was responded to by the CPIO on 23.11.2011 i.e. with a delay of 18 days.
(ii) As per the orders of CPIO, he had deposited fee of Rs. 42/- for taking 21 pages of documents but he was not required to pay any fee as the information was not offered to him within prescribed period of 30 days. He pleads for refund of Rs. 42/-.
(iii) He made payment of Rs. 42/- on 30.11.2011 but the CPIO provided him 21 pages of documents only on 28.1.2012 i.e. with delay of 59 days which could not be said to be a reasonable time.
5. The appellant contends that penal action should be initiated against the CPIO.
6. In view of the above, notice may be issued to Shri Victor James, Under Secretary, the then CPIO, to show cause why penalty @ Rs. 250/- per day should not be imposed on him for not responding to the RTI application within prescribed period of 30 days. The notice will be served through Shri S. Bhowmik, Under Secretary, present CPIO. The notice is returnable in 03 weeks time.
7. In addition to the above, the Pay & Accounts Officer, Department of Revenue, is hereby directed to remit an amount of Rs. 42/- to the appellant through Demand Draft in 05 weeks time."
3. During the hearing, the appellant submits that apart from delay of 18 days in responding to the RTI application, the CPIO had responded to para 4(a) of the RTI application dated 30.11.2011 and other paras were responded to by another letter of 1.12.2011, wherein inspection was offered to him on 9.12.2011 but this letter was received by him on the evening of 9.12.2011. Resultantly, he could take inspection at 1500 hrs. of 9.12.2011, as desired by the CPIO. The CPIO, thus, played a fraud on him. According to him, there is a constructive delay of 105 days.
4. On the other hand, Shri James would submit that the appellant did not avail the offer on 9.11.2011 for reasons beyond his control but he was offered inspection, again, which he took on 23.11.2011. It is, thus, his contention that he had no malafide intention of denying information to the appellant. He also contends that delay of 18 days needs to be condoned because of his busy schedule. He also submits that the appellant had raised very complex issues in the RTI application which had to be responded to with care and this, naturally took some time.
5. Even though the law contemplates imposition of penalty even for a single day's delay, yet this Commission cannot be oblivious of the attendant circumstances. First, there should be mala-fides on the part of CPIO in denying or delaying information. Secondly and more importantly, the work load of the concerned CPIO and the administrative exigencies under which he functions cannot be totally disregarded. On a thoughtful consideration of the matter, while disapproving the delay in responding to the RTI application, I am not inclined to impose any penalty on the CPIO. It would suffice if he is cautioned for future. The matter is decided accordingly.
Sd/-
( M.L. Sharma ) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
( K.L. Das ) Deputy Registrar Address of parties :-
1. The Under Secretary, AD.IC Section & CPIO, Department of Revenue, Room No.220-A, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Under Secretary AD.I Section & CPIO, Department of Revenue, Room No.220-A, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
1. Shri R.K. Jain, No. 1512-B, Bhishm Pitamah Marg, Wazir Nagar, New Delhi-110003.