2015 (4) TMI 1008 - Commission - Indian Laws

RTI application - whether the respondents have provided the required information to the Complainant or not? - Held that - As under Section 18(2) of the RTI Act, 2005, that there appears a reasonable ground to proceed further by making a proper inquiry in the matter. In view of this, the Commission feels that it would be appropriate and even justified to direct Shri Udai Singh Kumawat, Joint Secretary (Revenue), Department of Revenue, 46/North Block, New Delhi, to conduct an inquiry in the matter and identify the officers who are responsible for not providing the required information to the Complainant in the matter and submit an exhaustive report to the Commission, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order to enable the Commission to proceed in the matter further. Thus, Shri Udai Singh Kumawat, Joint Secretary (Revenue), is hereby directed accordingly. Further, Shri Udai Singh Kumawat, Joint Secretary (Revenue), Department of Revenue, may also depute the concerned learned First Appellate Authority and/or CPIO along with the exhaustive inquiry reports and also the complete record of the case, to present the case on behalf of respondents, before proceeding under Section 18 read with 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. In case of failure, the Commission will be left with no option but to proceed u/s 18 read with Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 on the basis of record made available in the case file

Issues:
1. Failure to provide information in response to RTI application.
2. Lack of records of First Appeal and First Appellate Authority orders.
3. Complaint filed regarding non-provision of information.
4. Inquiry into the matter under Sections 18 and 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.

Issue 1: Failure to provide information in response to RTI application
The complainant filed an RTI application seeking information on eight issues. The responses provided by the respondents indicated that the information sought did not pertain to their office, except for Issue No. 6. The Deputy Commissioner provided information only for Issue No. 6, stating that the other issues were not under their purview. The Commission questioned the Under Secretary regarding the provision of information, to which she mentioned that the application did not relate to her department but to another Public Authority. However, she failed to specify the exact name and designation of the concerned Public Authority.

Issue 2: Lack of records of First Appeal and First Appellate Authority orders
The record did not contain the First Appeal (FA) or the First Appellate Authority (FAA) orders. This absence raised concerns regarding the procedural compliance and the handling of the RTI application at different stages of appeals.

Issue 3: Complaint filed regarding non-provision of information
The complainant filed a complaint on 11-11-2014, requesting the Commission to take action under Sections 18 and 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The complainant sought an inquiry, summoning of respondents, and appropriate action against the responsible officer for failing to provide the requested information. The complainant emphasized the importance of ensuring compliance with the RTI Act and requested suitable measures to be taken against the responsible parties.

Issue 4: Inquiry into the matter under Sections 18 and 20 of the RTI Act, 2005
The Commission, after considering the complaint and submissions made by both parties, found reasonable grounds to initiate an inquiry under Sections 18 and 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. It was observed that the criteria for proceeding under these sections included providing incomplete, misleading, or false information, refusal of access, lack of response, unreasonable fee charges, or refusal to accept the application for information. The Commission directed a Joint Secretary to conduct an inquiry, identify responsible officers, and submit a detailed report within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in further action under the RTI Act. Additionally, the Joint Secretary was instructed to present the case along with relevant authorities for future proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of ensuring transparency and accountability in responding to RTI applications. It emphasized the need for proper handling of requests, adherence to procedural requirements, and taking appropriate actions against non-compliance with the RTI Act. The Commission's decision to initiate an inquiry underscored the significance of upholding the principles of the RTI Act, 2005 for promoting good governance and access to information.

← Previous Next →