Central Information Commission
S Muthumalai vs Ut Of Andaman & Nicobar on 30 April, 2021
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No(s).:- CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/131194-UM+
CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/141971-UM+
CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/141378-UM+
CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/140890-UM+
CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/135008-UM+
CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/141814-UM+
CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/117525-UM+
CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/123769-UM
Mr. S Muthumalai
....अपीलकर्ता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनतम
CPIO,
O/o the Tehsildar, Port Blair,
UT of Andaman & Nicobar Island
प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.04.2021
Date of Decision : 30.04.2021
ORDER
RTI I: CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/131194-UM Date of RTI application 12.10.2018 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 21.11.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 25.04.2019 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 01.07.2019 Page 1 of 10 FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding certified copy of the mutation case allowed vide TPB order dated 01.02.2018 etc. Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide order dated 25.04.2019 directed the APIO / TPB to provide the documents as per law within 05 days. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information, free of cost as also to compensate him.
RTI II: CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/141971-UM Date of RTI application 12.03.2019 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 15.04.2019 First Appellate Authority's response 25.07.2019 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 30.08.2019 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information as under:-
"Certified copy of the mutation case No. 1561/2015 order passed on 05.06.2015- all proceeding, entries noting files, sale deed, form K J order copy."
Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide order dated 25.07.2019 directed the APIO / TPB to provide the documents as per law within 10 days. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information, free of cost as also to compensate him.
RTI III: CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/141378-UM
Date of RTI application 26.02.2019
CPIO's response Not on record
Page 2 of 10
Date of the First Appeal 13.04.2019
First Appellate Authority's response 25.07.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 26.08.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information as under:-
"Certified copy of the mutation case No. TPB's RC No. 1678/2017/TPB order passed by TPB on 29.08.2017- all proceeding, entire noting files, sale deed, form KJ order copy, form KJ."
Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide order dated 25.07.2019 directed the APIO / TPB to provide the documents as per law within 10 days. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information, free of cost as also to compensate him.
RTI IV: CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/140890-UM Date of RTI application 13.03.2019 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 15.04.2019 First Appellate Authority's response 25.07.2019 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 22.08.2019 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information as under:-
"Certified copy of the mutation case No. TPB RC No. 1941/07 and Dy. TPB order dated 12.08.2002- all proceeding, entire noting files, sale deed, form KJ, order copy."
Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide order dated 25.07.2019 directed the APIO / TPB to provide the documents as per law Page 3 of 10 within 10 days. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information, free of cost as also compensate him.
RTI V: CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/135008-UM Date of RTI application 11.03.2019 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 12.04.2019 First Appellate Authority's response 28.06.2019 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 22.07.2019 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information as under:-
"Certified copy of the mutation case No. 1361/2015 order passed on 28.04.2018 all proceedings, entire noting files, sale deed, Form KJ order copy."
Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide order dated 28.06.2019 directed the APIO / Tehsildar to provide the information to the Appellant as per law within 10 days. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information, free of cost as also to compensation him.
RTI VI: CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/141814-UM Date of RTI application 26.02.2019 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 05.04.2019 First Appellate Authority's response 25.07.2019 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 27.08.2019 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information as under:-
Page 4 of 10"Certified copy of the Mutation Case No. TPB's RC No. 4012/2017/TPB order passed by TPB on 19.03.2018 all proceeding entire noting files, order copy, sale-deed, form K.J."
Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide order dated 25.07.2019 directed the APIO / TPB to provide the documents as per law within 10 days. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information, free of cost as also to compensation to him.
RTI VII: CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/117525-UM Date of RTI application 23.10.2018 CPIO's response Not on record Date of the First Appeal 03.12.2018 First Appellate Authority's response 19.03.2019 Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 15.04.2019 FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information as under:-
"Certified copy of the order allowing joint Mutation in respect to the aforesaid land vide TPB's RC No. 438/2018/TPB dated 13.07.2018 (Survey No. mentioned in the RTI application) Govinda Nagar (Havelock) at Port Blair Tehsil."
Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 19.03.2019 directed the APIO / TPB to provide the documents as per law within 07 days. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information, free of cost, impose penalty and compensation to him.
RTI VIII: CIC/UTOAN/A/2019/123769-UM
Date of RTI application 23.10.2018
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 26.11.2018
Page 5 of 10
First Appellate Authority's response 25.04.2019
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 20.05.2019
FACTS
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information as under:-
"Certified copy of the order allowing mutation in respect to the aforesaid land vide RC No. 3190/2013/TPB dated 19.12.2013 Survey No. 257 area 7750 sq. meter, Govinda Nagar (Havelock) Village under Port Blair Tehsil, South Andaman."
Dissatisfied due to non - receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA vide order dated 25.04.2019 directed the APIO / TPB to provide the documents as per law within 05 days. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission with a request to provide correct and complete information, free of cost, impose penalty and compensation to him.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. S Muthumalai, through TC;
Respondent: Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Tehsildar through VC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI applications and submitted that no reply was received by him in all these RTI applications by the PIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, strict action should be taken against the erring PIO for not providing the information within the stipulated time frame. On being queried by the Commission regarding the larger public interest involved in disclosure of these information, the Appellant alleged malpractices / corruption in the working of the Respondent Public Authority and submitted that this constituted larger public interest. The Appellant further alleged that the Tehsildar is not empowered to mutate the property (numbers as mentioned in the RTI applications). The Respondent while tendering unconditional apology for the delay in furnishing replies, informed the Commission that the Tehsildar is duly authorized to mutate the lands as per the extant guidelines and that they have discharged their duties well within the power endowed by the prescribed law. On being further questioned by the Commission as to whether an inspection of Page 6 of 10 records could be offered to the Appellant in all these matters, the Respondent replied in the affirmative.
On perusal of the records, it is evident that no reply had been furnished to the Appellant in these matters. This amounts to disrespect for the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which is enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
The Commission felt that timely response is the essence of the RTI mechanism enacted to ensure transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities. In this context, the Commission referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it had been held as under:
"14.......The court cannot be unmindful of the circumstances under which the Act was framed, and brought into force. It seeks to foster an "openness culture" among state agencies, and a wider section of "public authorities" whose actions have a significant or lasting impact on the people and their lives. Information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for, unless the Act prohibits disclosure; they are not to be driven away through sheer inaction or filibustering tactics of the public authorities or their officers.
It is to ensure these ends that time limits have been prescribed, in absolute terms, as well as penalty provisions. These are meant to ensure a culture of information disclosure so necessary for a robust and functioning democracy."
The Commission observed that it is the duty of the CPIO to provide clear, cogent and pointed reply to the information seeker. In this context, a reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in J P Aggarwal v. Union of India (WP (C) no. 7232/2009 wherein it was held that:
" 7"it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO Page 7 of 10 within the department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought information. The PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be taken". The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the implementation of the Act."
8.............The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non- disclosure."
Furthermore, in OM No. 20/10/23/2007-IR dated 09.07.2009, while elaborating on the duties and responsibilities of the FAA, it was stated that:
"3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see that the justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at.
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain vs Union of India, LPA No. 369/2018, dated 29.08.2018, held as under:
"9................................ That apart, the CPIO being custodian of the information or the documents sought for, is primarily responsible under the scheme of the RTI Act to supply the information and in case of default or dereliction on his part, the penal action is to be invoked against him only.
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Respondent in responding to the RTI application within the prescribed time limit.
Page 8 of 10DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission while cautioning the CPIO to be alert and vigilant in handling the RTI matters within the stipulated time period, directs him to offer an inspection of records to the information sought in the RTI applications, the information being voluminous in nature, on any mutually convenient date and time strictly adhering to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Photocopies of the documents, if any, desired by the Appellant after inspecting the records could be provided following the provisions of the RTI Rules, 2012, after collecting the requisite photocopying charges.
The Commission also instructs the Head of the Department in the light of the utter neglect and lack of responsiveness in dealing with the RTI applications within the stipulated time frame, to convene periodic conferences/seminars to sensitize, familiarize and educate the concerned officials about the relevant provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 for effective discharge of its duties and responsibilities.
The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित एवं सत्यापित प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 30.04.2021 Page 9 of 10 Copy to:-
1. Mr. Suneel Anchipaka, Deputy Commissioner, O/o Deputy Commissioner, Port Blair, A& N Island 744101 Page 10 of 10