Central Information Commission
Mr.Gaurav Bhardwaj vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 14 September, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No: CIC/LS/A/2011/001708/BS/0821-Penalty
Relevant facts emerging from the appeal
Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Bharadwaj
Kothi no. 265 Sector 16-A,
Faridabad-121002, Haryana
Respondent : CPIO,
BSNL O/o Suptd Engineer (Civil), Civil Circle, Rohtak-124001.
RTI Applications filed on : 03/01/2011 CPIO Replied on : 12/01/2011 First Appeal Filed on : 19/01/2011 First Appellate Authority Order : No order. Second Appeal Received on : 23/03/2011 Information Sought:
The appellant has filed 5 RTI applications on 03/01/2011 and sought information regarding civil contractors (1) Kishor Kumar & Sons c/o Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, (2) Mr. Hira Lal Civil Division, Faridabad, (3) Sh. Achchan, (4) Mr. Ram Manohar & (5) Mr Anjay Malhotra.
The appellant requested for providing the correct payee address so that he can re-submit the corrected IPOs.
Reply of CPIO:
The applications of the appellant were returned on the ground that fee of RTI is not in order due to incorrect address of the payee on the postal order and to submit the said applications with correct payee address.
Grounds of First Appeal:
Neither the correct address of payee nor any information has been provided. FAA Order:
No order passed.
Grounds of Second Appeal:
Neither the correct address of payee nor any information has been provided. Relevant Facts emerging during hearing held on 14/08/2012: The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar PIO through videoconference "The appellant stated that the CPIO had returned the postal order with the reason "in correct address of the payee", however, the correct address of the payee was not advised and added that even after sending a reminder dated 20/01/2011 the CPIO did not advise how the postal order could be corrected. The PIO stated that he could not furnish information requested as the corrected postal orders were not received."
Interim Decision Notice dated 14/08/2012:
"It is seen from the records produced before the Commission by the appellant that he had enclosed 05 separate Postal Orders addressed to "AO, BSNL.......Rohtak" alongwith his 05 RTI applications dated 03/01/2011, but the APIO vide his letter dated 12/01/2011 returned all the postal orders stating that "the RTI fee received alongwith the applications is not in order due to incorrect address of the payee on the postal order." The APIO however did not indicate the "correct payee address" though he was bound to render reasonable assistance to the appellant as provided under Section 5(3) of the RTI Act. It is also seen from the records that the appellant addressed a letter dated 20/01/2011 to the CPIO Shri Tikam Singh, Superintending Engineer, BSNL Civil Circle, Rohtak requesting him to intimate the "correct address of the payee" however no reply was given. Even the appellant's letter dated 19/01/2011 addressed to Shri A. K. Mittal, Appellate Authority, BSNL Civil Zone, Ambala Cantt elicited no response.
The DoPT vide office OM No. 1/4/2009-IR dated 05/10/2009 has issued consolidated updated guidelines on the RTI Act to help all stake holders in dealing with RTI matters. These guidelines are readily available on the DoPT's website. Para-12 'FOR Public Authorities' extracted below reads as:-
Acceptance of Fee "12. According to the Right to information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2005 as amended by the Right to information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006, an applicant can make payment of fee in cash or by demand draft or banker's cheque or Indian Postal Order payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority. The public authority should ensure that payment by any of the above modes is not denied or the applicant is not compelled to draw IPO etc. in the name of any officer other than the Accounts Officer. If any public authority does not have any Accounts Officer, it should designate an officer as such for the purpose of receiving fee under the RTI Act or rules made there under."
All the postal orders enclosed with the RTIs were in the name of AO, BSNL and the CPIO could not have refused the same in terms of the above guidelines. Further, by not rendering reasonable assistance to the Appellant the CPIO has violated provisions of Section 5(3) of the RTI Act.
The Commission directs the CPIO to furnish the complete and correct information as requested by the Appellant in his 05 RTI applications dated 03/01/2011 to him before 10/09/2012.
The concerned CPIO by refusing to accept the RTI applications in violation of laid down guidelines and not providing complete and correct information has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. However, before imposing any such penalty, we would like to give an opportunity to the concerned CPIO to explain whether he had any reasonable cause for refusing to accept the RTI applications. Accordingly, we direct the concerned CPIO, who had refused the RTI applications, to appear before the Commission on 14/09/2012 at 03.30 pm alongwith his written explanation as aforesaid.
Matter is accordingly adjourned to 14/09/2012."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 14/09/2012:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. Tikam Singh, Addl. CE(C) & CPIO, Mr. Raj Kumar & Mr. Sunil Kumar PIO The CPIO & Addl. Chief Engineer(C) Mr. Tikam Singh has given his written submissions stating that the appellant Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj was working as a contractor of BSNL Civil division Faridabad for many years and he was well aware that the address of account officer is AO (cash) BSNL Civil division Faridabad. Further, he has filed various RTI applications on 18/07/2011 & 22/07/2011 which were duly accepted by his office and that the appellant may be asked to deposit the requisite fee as per the RTI Act so that the information sought can be supplied to him.
During the hearing the CPIO stated that the IPOs submitted by the appellant were in the name of AO BSNL Civil Circle Rohtak instead of AO BSNL Civil Division Faridabad. However, it is seen from records that the CPIO in his letter dated 12/01/2011 had informed the appellant that the RTI fee receipt is not in order due to incorrect address of payee on the IPO but no correct payee address was informed, even the appellant's letter dated 20/01/2011 to the CPIO Mr. Tikam Singh, Superintending Engineer, BSNL Civil Circle, Rohtak requesting him to intimate the "correct address of the payee" remained unreplied. The CPIO Mr. Tikam Singh was unable to give any satisfactory reply and admitted that refusal on his part to receive the RTI applications was not in accordance with the RTI rules. As regards non-supply of information the CPIO pleaded that the information sought is very voluminous and there was acute shortage of staff and hence the same could not be furnished.
It is noted that the IPOs filed by the appellant alongwith the five RTI applications dated 03/01/2011 were in accordance with the RTI rules. The refusal of the said RTI applications by the CPIO Mr. Tikam Singh is a gross violation of the RTI Act. Furthermore, even after the Commission's direction dated 14/08/2012 to provide complete & correct information before 10/09/2012, no information has been furnished to the appellant till date.
The Commission hereby directs the CPIO to furnish the complete information to the appellant or if the appellant so desires, allow him to inspect the relevant records relating to his five RTI applications dated 03/01/2011 after fixing a mutually convenient time and date with him before 14/10/2012.
Information is required to be furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7, the Commission is obliged to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty for each day of delay till the information is furnished subject to a maximum of Rs 25,000/-. The burden of proving that denial of information was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.
In view of the above-said, since no reasonable cause has been offered by the CPIO Mr. Tikam Singh for refusing to accept the said five RTI applications and also not furnishing complete, correct & timely information even after the Commission's direction he has rendered himself liable for imposition of maximum penalty (i.e. Rs. 25000/-) in terms of the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Penalty Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this as a fit case for levying of penalty and directs the CGMT BSNL Haryana Circle Ambala to ensure that the amount of Rs.25,000/- is deducted from the salary of the CPIO Mr. Tikam Singh in 10 equal monthly installments of Rs.2500/- and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066.
The matter is disposed of accordingly.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner September 14, 2012 CC to:
CGMT BSNL Haryana Zone, CGMT Complex, Mall Road, Ambala Cantt - 133001 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MT)