9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 125 - Commission - Indian LawsRight to information - Appellant sought list of officers empanelled for appointment as member C.B.E. & C. for the year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 - Appellant further sought the inspection of all records, documents, files, notesheets, correspondence relating to the selection and appointment of members to the C.B.E. & C. from the year 2009 to 2011 - Delay in reports - Held that - Mr. V. Sreekumar, CPIO has prima facie caused a delay of more than 100 days in providing the information to the appellant. A separate show cause notice u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act would be issued to Mr. V. Sreekumar, who was the CPIO at the relevant time asking him to show-cause why a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed upon him - Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues:
1. Delay in providing information under the RTI Act 2. Request for penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act 3. Complaint against CPIO for obstructing information --- Issue 1: Delay in providing information under the RTI Act The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information regarding the empanelled officers for appointment as member C.B.E. & C. for specific years and inspection of related records. The CPIO provided information for one point but delayed the inspection process. The appellant raised concerns about receiving communication late and requested a mutually convenient date for inspection. The first appellate authority granted another opportunity for inspection within 15 days and directed the CPIO to provide the necessary information promptly. The Commission observed a delay of over 100 days in providing information, leading to the decision to issue a show cause notice to the CPIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for potential penalty imposition. --- Issue 2: Request for penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act The appellant, dissatisfied with the delay and alleged obstruction in accessing information, filed a complaint seeking a penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The appellant highlighted the delays in fixing inspection dates and receiving communication from the CPIO. The first appellate authority acknowledged the delays and granted additional time for inspection, emphasizing the need for timely provision of information. The Commission recognized the appellant's concerns and decided to initiate proceedings against the CPIO for potential penalty imposition, considering the delay in providing the requested information. --- Issue 3: Complaint against CPIO for obstructing information The appellant lodged a complaint before the Commission, expressing dissatisfaction with the CPIO's handling of the RTI application. The appellant specifically mentioned delays in communication and fixing inspection dates, leading to difficulties in accessing the requested information. The appellant sought disciplinary action against the CPIO and compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. The Commission noted the appellant's grievances and decided to issue a show cause notice to the CPIO for potential penalty imposition, recognizing the need for prompt and efficient handling of RTI requests to ensure transparency and accountability in governance. --- This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of delay in providing information under the RTI Act, the request for penalty under Section 20, and the complaint against the CPIO for obstructing information, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the Commission.
|
