Central Information Commission
Adarsh Tripathi vs Banaras Hindu University on 25 April, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 305, 3rd Floor, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka,
New Delhi-110067, website:cic.gov.in
Appeal No.:-CIC/BANHU/A/2017/115482-BJ-Penalty
Appellant : Mr. Adarsh Tripathi,
Respondent : Mr. K. M. Tripathi,
Dy. Director/CPIO,
Yog Sadhna Kendra (Centre for Yoga),
Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasi - 221005 (UP)
Date of Hearing : 24.04.2018
Date of Decision : 25.04.2018
Date of RTI application 11.05.2016
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 25.06.2016
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 08.03.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding whether the certificate mentioned in the RTI application was issued by the Respondents, if yes, then details of the date of its issuance, if not, copy of the register and issues related thereto.
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The reply of the CPIO/ FAA, if any is not on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. K. M. Tripathi, Dy. Director, Yog Sadhna Kendra (Centre for Yoga) through VC;
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. Mr. S. K. Srivastava, Network Engineer NIC studio at Sant Ravidas Nagar confirmed the absence Page 1 of 4 of the Appellant. The Respondent while tendering his unconditional apology for not replying to the RTI application submitted that the information sought being more than 25 years old was not available on their record. It was explained that the matter essentially related to verification of the participation certificate issued to one Shri Afsar Bind for completing a four week part time course. On being queried regarding the date of furnishing the response to the RTI application, no specific and satisfactory response could be provided.
The Commission was appalled to learn about the manner in which the RTI application was dealt with and the abysmal condition of record keeping within the Public Authority and felt that the information was provided on receipt of notice of hearing from the Commission after a protracted delay. This was against the spirit of the RTI Act 2005 which was enacted to ensure speedy and timely disclosure of information in order to promote transparency and accountability within a Public Authority.
The RTI Act, 2005 stipulates time limits in its various provisions relating to responding to RTI Applications, transfer of applications, filing and disposing of first appeal to ensure that a culture of information dissemination is strengthened so that a robust functioning of the democracy gets established. This was recognised by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mujibur Rehman vs Central Information Commission (W.P. (C) 3845/2007)(Dated 28 April, 2009) wherein it was 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 also observed that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of R.K. Jain v. V.P. Pandey, CPIO, CESTAT, New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 4785/ 2017 dated 10.10.2017 adjudicated an order of the Commission dated 17.04.2017 whereby the Respondent was cautioned to exercise due care in future and to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished to the RTI applicants. It was decided that:
Page 2 of 4"2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although the CIC had accepted that there was a delay in providing the necessary information to the petitioner, the CIC had not imposed the penalty as required under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is well settled that imposing of the penalty is a discretionary measure. In Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash: ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 a division bench of this Court had considered the question whether the levy of penalty was discretionary and held as under..........
3. In this case it is apparent that the CIC had in its discretion considered that a order cautioning the CPIO would be sufficient. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such exercise of discretion."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court in the matter of R.K. Jain v. CIC and Anr. in W.P.(C) 4152/2017 dated 10.10.2017 had held as under:
"5. The question whether the CIC had the discretion to restrict the penalty or whether penalty as provided under Section 20 of the Act is mandatory, is no longer res integra. The said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Bhushan v. R.A. Haritash:
ILR (2012) 4 Delhi 657 and the relevant extract of the said decision is set out below....
6. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the CIC. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
The Appellant was not present to contest the submission of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission instructs the Respondent to provide a self contained response to the Appellant within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Keeping in view the facts of the case and submission made by both the parties and in light of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts, the Commission finds that as per the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, this is a fit case for levying a penalty of Rs. 1,000/- on Mr. K. M. Page 3 of 4 Tripathi, Dy. Director/CPIO, for not providing the information to the Appellant within the stipulated time frame.
The Prof. Upendra Pandey, Honorary Director, is directed to recover the amount of Rs 1,000/- from the salary of Mr. K. M. Tripathi, Dy. Director/CPIO on receipt of this order and remit the same by way of Demand draft drawn in favour of "Pay and Accounts Officer, CAT" payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri S. P. Beck, Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar, Central Information Commission, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
The Commission further instructs the Respondent Public Authority 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 Appeal stands disposed with the above direction.
(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar Copy to:
1- Prof. Upendra Pandey, Honorary Director, Yog Sadhna Kendra (Centre for Yoga), Banaras Hindu University,Varanasi - 221005 (UP) 2- Shri S. P. Beck, Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar, Central Information Commission, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
3- DR to CR-II, Central Information Commission, CIC Bhavan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.Page 4 of 4