Central Information Commission
Arani vs Geological Survey Of India on 14 September, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Decision No. CIC/YA/C/2016/900220 Dated 13.09.2017
Shri Arani Guha v. CPIO, GSI. Southern Region, Hyderabad
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI: 05.05.2016 FA: - Comp: 09.06.2016
CPIO: - FAAO: - Hearing: 13.09.2017
ORDER
1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Geological Survey of India (GSI), Southern Region, Hyderabad seeking information on five points pertaining to a letter bearing no. 1/Joining/AG/DDG_SU:AP/2016 dated 02.05.2016 including, inter-alia, (i) the action taken and notes given by HOD, GSISR on the said letter and (ii) the action taken by any other official of GSISR and SU:AP on the said letter.
2. The complainant filed a complaint before the Commission on the grounds that the information sought has not been provided to him either by the CPIO or by the FAA.
Hearing:
3. The complainant and the respondent, Shri N. Padmaiah, Director and CPIO, GSI, Southern Region, Hyderabad attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The complainant submitted that no specific reply in response to his RTI application dated 05.05.2016 has been provided to him by the respondent.
Page 1
5. The respondent submitted that the complainant had filed three RTI applications dated 30.04.2016, 04.05.2016 and 05.05.2016. The respondent further submitted that since the subject matter of all the three RTI applications was similar, a common reply dated 06.06.2016 was furnished to the complainant. In view of this, no specific response to the RTI application was sent. The respondent admitted that he had presumed, wrongly, that in case the complainant felt that the information provided was not specific enough, he would contact the CPIO or file an appeal with the FAA. The respondent tendered his unconditional apology for this lapse and requested the Commission to condone the same. The respondent further submitted that on receipt of the notice of hearing from the Commission, a separate reply pertaining to the RTI application dated 05.05.2016 has been provided to the complainant on 12.09.2017. On a specific query by the Commission, the respondent submitted that since a common reply was furnished to all the three RTI applications, he in good faith had returned the present RTI application dated 05.05.2016 to the complainant so that no fee is charged for providing information already furnished. Hence, there was no mala fide intention to deny information.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the respondent due to an error of judgment provided a common reply for three RTI applications, presuming that a common reply for all the three RTI applications is sufficient. However, it cannot be said that the CPIO had acted consciously and deliberately with a mala fide intention to provide incorrect or misleading information to the complainant. Further, no penalty can be imposed for wrong judgment. The Commission also in the case Shri Umapathy S. v. State Bank of India, Bangalore, CIC/AT/C/2010/ 001084 to 1129 dated 15.12.2010 has held that:
Page 2 "9.....when CPIO or an Appellate Authority takes a reasoned position about why he chooses not to disclose an information to an applicant, it cannot be described as obstruction of information or withholding it with mala fide intentions. It is possible that the contentions of the CPIO and the Appellate Authority be overruled by the CIC, but that alone cannot be the reason to penalise the CPIO or the deemed CPIOs. The CIC has been constituted to correct the error of judgement of the lower officers. There is no provision to impose penalty for wrong judgement. It needs to be noted that sometimes even the orders of superior appellate courts are overturned by higher judicial bodies. The process of reasoning is integral to any judicial process. No one can be faulted for reasoning in one way and not differently".
7. In view of the above ratio and in the absence of any mala fide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
8. The Commission would, however, like to counsel the CPIO, GSI, Southern Region, Hyderabad to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur and that the provisions of the RTI Act are implemented in letter and spirit.
9. With the above observations, the complaint is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Sudhir Bhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page 3 Addresses of the parties:
The Central Public Information Officer, Geological Survey of India, Southern Region, Auto Nagar, Hyderabad-500068.
Shri Arani Guha, Page 4