2014 (1) TMI 1244 - Commission - Indian Laws

Right to information - Incomplete and incorrect information in reply - Held that - A bare reading of the RTI application inclusive of all the paras leaves no matter of doubt that the appellant was seeking information about only one enquiry report under reference. Shri Victor James plea that contradictory information happened to be supplied in response to paras (A) and (F) of the RTI application due to possibility of the appellant seeking information on two distinct enquires appears to be an after thought and can not be accepted. It also appears to me that non-supply of copy of the enquiry report under reference has caused genuine detriment to the appellant inasmuch as he cannot tell the Bar that he has been exonerated of the allegations made against him by the Bangalore Bar Association. I am, therefore, not satisfied with the explanation given by the CPIO - penalty should be imposed on the CPIO - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Appellant's request for information under RTI application
- CPIO's response and actions
- First appeal filed by the appellant
- Second appeal filed before the Commission
- FAA's decision and reasoning
- CESTAT's objection to disclosure of information
- Commission's directives and observations

Appellant's Request for Information under RTI Application:
The appellant filed an appeal against the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, for providing incomplete and incorrect information in reply to his RTI application. The appellant sought information on various queries related to a CESTAT Inquiry Committee report. The CPIO provided partial information and later informed the appellant that CESTAT objected to disclosing the document mentioned in the RTI application.

CPIO's Response and Actions:
The CPIO initially provided partial information in response to the RTI application. Subsequently, the CPIO informed the appellant about CESTAT's objection to disclosing the document mentioned in the application. The appellant raised concerns about the CPIO's actions, alleging deliberate withholding of information and malafide intent to delay and obstruct the process.

First Appeal Filed by the Appellant:
The appellant filed a first appeal before the FAA, challenging the CPIO's response and actions. The FAA upheld the CPIO's decision for non-disclosure of information based on Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, stating that the process of enquiry was not concluded at that time.

Second Appeal Filed Before the Commission:
The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission, disputing the FAA's decision and alleging that the CPIO provided false and incomplete information intentionally. The appellant sought complete information and requested penalty imposition on the CPIO for not providing accurate information as per the RTI application.

FAA's Decision and Reasoning:
The FAA upheld the CPIO's decision for non-disclosure based on Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, stating that the enquiry process was not concluded. The FAA's decision was challenged by the appellant, highlighting discrepancies in the information provided and the alleged deliberate withholding of relevant details.

CESTAT's Objection to Disclosure of Information:
CESTAT objected to the disclosure of the document mentioned in the RTI application. However, no specific exemption provisions under the RTI Act were cited for withholding the information. The FAA cited Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without providing detailed reasons for non-disclosure.

Commission's Directives and Observations:
The Commission directed the CPIO to provide complete information to the appellant within a specified timeframe. Additionally, the Commission noted that the CPIO had provided misleading information and issued a show-cause notice to the CPIO for potential penalty imposition. The Commission also reviewed the appellant's concerns regarding the delayed disclosure of the enquiry report and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 on the CPIO for the non-supply of the report, causing genuine detriment to the appellant.

---