Central Information Commission
Shri P.C. Sekhar vs The New India Assurance Company Limited on 22 July, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/C/2007/00288
Dated, the 22nd July, 2008.
Complainant/ : Shri P.C. Sekhar
Appellant
Respondents : The New India Assurance Company Limited
This complaint originates from a second-appeal petition filed by Shri P.C.Sekhar (appellant-cum-complainant) on 07.08.2007 for deemed-refusal of his RTI-application dated 11.04.2007 and his first-appeal dated 14.05.2007. The Commission took cognizance of the second-appeal and heard both parties at the hearing held at the Commission on 18.10.2007. Subsequently, the appeal-part was remitted to the AA, Shri A.R.Sekar with the direction to the AA to give a hearing to the appellant and, pass a speaking order.
2. As regards the complaint-part, the Commission issued notices dated 30.10.2007 to the CPIO, Shri N.K. Singh; the AA, Shri A.R. Sekar; and the head of the public authority, viz. the CMD, The New India Assurance Company to show cause as to why the penalty under Section 20(1) should not be imposed on the CPIO and why a compensation of Rs.10,000/- should not be awarded to the complainant for the failure of the respondents to attend to the complainant's RTI-correspondences.
3. On receipt of the replies from the respondents, a hearing was conducted by the Commission on 17.01.2008, in which both parties were present. Subsequently, on the Commission's direction to file his rejoinder on the respondents' show-cause replies, the complainant submitted a long rejoinder (dated 21.02.2008), which runs into over 250 pages.
4. From a perusal of the written submission of the appellant, the Commission is at a loss to understand as to how it relates to the delay that had occurred in providing the information to the complainant in response to his RTI-application dated 11.04.2007.
5. The subject-matter of the notice for complaint was only the delay in providing the information because all substantive issues were taken into consideration in appeal, which was remitted to the Appellate Authority, vide Commission's earlier order dated 30.10.2007.
Page 1 of 36. Commission noted that the appellant herein is an ex-employee of the respondent-public authority, viz. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., and is engaged in a legal proceeding against the respondents in the Delhi High Court in the matter of non-acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement under the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the public authority.
7. The chronology of events in the present RTI-proceeding is as follows:-
Event Date
RTI-application was filed before the CPIO 11.04.2007
First-appeal was filed before the AA 14.05.2007
Second-appeal/complaint filed before the Commission 07.08.2007
A hearing was held at the Commission 18.10.2007
Appeal-part remitted back to the AA 30.10.2007
Complaint proceedings
Show-cause notices were issued to the CPIO, the AA 30.10.2007
and the CMD
Replies from the CPIO, the AA and the CMD received 27.11.2007
in the Commission
Show-cause hearing held at the Commission 17.01.2008
Appellant was asked to file his rejoinder on the written 29.01.2008
submissions
Rejoinder of the appellant received in the Commission 21.02.2008
A hearing was held at the Commission 29.05.2008
8. The CPIO, in his written-submission, has stated that since the appellant had filed 5 RTI-applications, all dated 11.04.2007, and that the requested information had to be collected from various departments of the Head Office of the public authority, it lead to some confusion and eventually the present appeal was missed through oversight. The AA and the CMD have covered the same grounds as the CPIO.
9. The sum-total of the respondents' submission is that it was due to oversight that the present RTI-application of the complainant was never attended to by them.
10. Commission finds the respondents' submission unacceptable mainly due to the fact that as a public authority, the respondents are expected to exercise due diligence in attending to each RTI-application that is filed before them.
11. Since the fact of delay / default by the CPIO in providing the requested information to the complainant in this case is established, it is directed that the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act be imposed on the CPIO, Shri N.K. Singh, Deputy Page 2 of 3 General Manager. The penalty amount shall be recoverable from Shri N.K.Singh in 6 monthly installments (i.e. 5 installments of Rs.4,000/- each and the last installment of Rs.5,000/-) from his pay bills starting September-2008.
12. The head of the public authority, viz. the CMD shall ensure that the recoveries are made as directed and intimate the recoveries to the CIC after each monthly installment is recovered.
13. The head of the public authority, viz. the CMD, The New India Assurance Company shall pay to the complainant, Shri P.C.Sekhar, a compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the detriment suffered by Shri Sekhar due to the failure of the CPIO and the AA in disposing of the complainant's RTI-application dated 11.04.2007 and the first-appeal dated 14.05.2007 respectively. The compensation amount shall be paid to the complainant within 1 week of this order. The CMD shall report compliance to the Commission within 1 week of having effected the payment.
14. Complaint is disposed of with these directions.
15. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties.
Sd/-
( A.N. TIWARI ) INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Authenticated by -
Sd/-
( D.C. SINGH ) Under Secretary & Asst. Registrar Page 3 of 3