Central Information Commission
Mr.Rakesh Thakur vs Consumer Affairs, Food And Civil ... on 30 August, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000674/8686Penalty
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000674
Complainant : Mr. Rakesh Thakur
B-812, JJ Colony
Bawana, New Delhi-110039
Respondent : Mr. Ajit Singh,
APIO and Food and Supply Officer (Cir.-07)
Government of NCT of Delhi.
O/o Assistant Commissioner, North West,
Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department
Block C, Pocket C, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi - 110088
Facts arising from the Complaint:
Mr. Rakesh Thakur had filed a RTI application with the PIO/AC (NW), Dept. of Food & Supplies, GNCTD on 06/03/2010 asking for certain information. However on not having received the information within the mandated time, the Complainant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. On this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the PIO/AC (NW), Dept. of Food & Supplies, GNCTD, on 21/05/2010 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
Subsequently, the Commission received a copy of letter dated 18/06/2010 of the deemed PIO FSO Circle-07, Dept. of Food & Supplies vide which information has been provided to the Complainant. However, neither the FSO Circle-07 nor the PIO/AC(NW) has given any explanation for the delay in responding to the RTI Application dated 06/03/2010. There appears to be a delay of above 60 days in responding to the RTI Application dated 06/03/2010.
Decision dated July 23, 2010:
The Complaint was allowed "The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO/FSO Circle-07 and PIO/AC (NW) are guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action of Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act.
The deemed PIO and PIO/AC are hereby directed to present himself before the Commission on 30/08/2010 at 11.30 am along with their written submissions to show cause why penalty should Page 1 of 4 not be imposed and disciplinary action be not recommended against them under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, both the deemed PIO and PIO/AC may serve this notice to such person(s) who are responsible for this delay in providing the information, and direct them to be present before the Commission along with themselves on the aforesaid scheduled date and time. The deemed PIO and PIO/AC should also bring along proof of seeking assistance from other person(s), if any."
Relevant facts emerging at show cause hearing held on August 30, 2010:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Rakesh Thakur and Mr. Rajiv Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. Ajit Singh, APIO/FSO (C- 7);
Mr. Ajit Singh stated that the information sought in the RTI application dated 06/03/2010 was provided to the Complainant on 18/06/2010. On perusal of the papers, the Commission observed that information provided in respect of queries 1 to 8 of the RTI application was incomplete and unsatisfactory. Mr. Ajit Singh submitted that the then PIO/AC (NW) Mr. R. D. Sharma was the custodian of information in relation to queries 1 to 8 of the RTI application.
Further, Mr. Ajit Singh stated that the RTI application was received in his office on 06/03/2010. During that period, the work of review of BPL and AAY cards was going on in the circle office during which more than 600- 700 cardholders approached the circle office for review of their cards. Mr. Singh submitted that to provide the information sought, appeals of 59 applicants, whose BPL ration cards were not renewed by the department were required to be located. Further, the date on which the appeals were filed was also not given to the APIO and consequently there was a delay in providing the requisite information. Mr. Singh also stated that the office was understaffed.
The deemed PIO Mr. Ajit Singh, FSO(C-7) was asked to explain the reason for not providing the information on query- 9 & 10 which he held within the period of 30 days as required by the RTI Act. The RTI Application has been filed on 06/03/2010 and the information should have been provided to the complainant before 06/04/2010. Instead the information regarding query- 1 to 8 has not been provided so far and this should have been provided by the then PIO & AC(NW) Mr. R. D. Sharma. The respondent admits that information regarding query- 9 & 10 was held by him and states that he has provided this information on 18/06/2010. It is clear that Mr. Ajit Singh was responsible for providing the information on query-9 & 10 to the Complainant within 30 days i.e. 06/04/2010. Instead he admits that he provided the information only on 18/06/2010 to the Complainant.
The Commission asked Mr. Ajit Singh, FSO(C-7) to give the reasons for the delay. He states that he was understaffed and overloaded with work.
All persons charged with providing information under RTI Act are aware that if the information is not provided in time it would invite a personal penalty of Rs.250/- per day of delay. If an officer states that the did not provide information under RTI within the stipulate time because he was understaffed and busy with other work the Commission cannot accept this as reasonable cause for the delay. No rational person would neglect a job where there is a personal liability of Rs.250/- per and fulfill the other duties.
In view of this the Commission comes to a conclusion that there was no reasonable cause for not providing the information on query- 9 & 10 by the deemed PIO Mr. Ajit Singh, FSO(C-7).
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, "Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case Page 2 of 4 may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be."
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub- section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that the PIO or deemed PIO acted reasonably and diligently is clearly on the PIO.
Since no reasonable cause has been provided by Mr. Ajit Singh, Deemed PIO for the delay in providing the information the Commission imposes the penalty as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at the rate of Rs.250/- per day of delay. Since the delay has been for 72 days the Commission imposes a penalty of Rs.250 X 72 days = Rs.18000/- on Mr. Ajit Singh.
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Ajit Singh, Deemed PIO and Food Supply Officer (C-7). Since the delay in providing the correct information has been of 72 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Ajit Singh for Rs. 18,000/-.
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of Rs.18,000/- from the salary of Mr. Ajit Singh 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 amount may be deducted at the rate of Rs.4500/- per month every month from the salary of Mr. Ajit Singh and remitted by the 10 th of every month starting from October 2010. The total amount of Rs.18,000 /- will be remitted by January, 2011.Page 3 of 4
Further the present PIO/AC (NW) Mr. Ajay Arora is directed to provide the complete information in relation to queries 1 to 8 of the RTI application dated 06/03/2010 to the Complainant before September 20, 2010.
Furthermore, the Commission directs the then PIO/AC (NW) Mr. R. D. Sharma to appear before the Commission on 08 October, 2010 at 04.00PM along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The then PIO/AC (NW) Mr. R. D. Sharma is directed to produce before the Commission any relevant document that he may have relied on in his written submissions.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information who have not been included in this show cause notice, the then PIO/AC (NW) Mr. R. D. Sharma is directed to serve this show cause to them and direct them to appear before the Commission on 08 October 2010 along with him.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
August 30, 2010
1- The Chief Secretary
GNCT of Delhi
New Delhi
2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
3- The then PIO/AC (NW) Mr. R. D. Sharma through Mr. Ajay Arora, PIO & AC(NW);
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SP) Page 4 of 4