2014 (1) TMI 1463 - Commission - Indian Laws

Request for documents - Right to information - Delay in furnishing information - Held that - delay has been caused by the CPIO Shri S.K. Verma inasmuch as the appellant s RTI application dated 19-9-2011 was acted upon by him only on 11-11-2011 when he permitted the appellant to inspect the records. Thereafter, in compliance with the direction of the FAA, Shri S.K. Verma, CPIO, vide his letter dated 6-2-2012 requested Shri Mohinder Singh, Asstt. Registrar to provide File No. 32(15)/CESTAT/Enquiry Committee/Admn./2011 (including all part files) to him so that he could give date for inspection to the appellant. The Asstt. Registrar, Shri Mohinder Singh, vide letter dated 26-3-2012 requested the appellant to inspect the file on 29-3-2012 but he declined inspection on that day on the grounds that the file was under submission. That in fact he submitted the file to Registrar on 23-3-2012 and the file had not been received back. Shri Mohinder Singh, Asstt. Registrar, therefore is prima facie responsible for failing to make available the file for inspection to the appellant in spite of initially offering file for inspection and thereafter failing to get back to the appellant and allowing inspection. Both the CPIOs are prima facie responsible for delay in providing information to the appellant - Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues: Delay in providing information under RTI Act, Responsibility of CPIO and Asstt. Registrar, Penalty proceedings under RTI Act

In this case, the appellant filed an RTI application requesting inspection of specific files and documents. The CPIO initially permitted inspection but failed to provide the requested records promptly. Despite directions from the FAA, there were delays in making the files available for inspection. The Asstt. Registrar also failed to ensure timely access to the files. The appellant alleged connivance between the CPIO and the Asstt. Registrar, leading to the present appeal before the Commission. The Commission found that both CPIO and Asstt. Registrar were responsible for the delays. They were directed to show cause why a penalty of Rs. 250 per day should not be imposed on them for the delay in providing information. Separate show cause notices were to be issued to the CPIO and the Asstt. Registrar for their actions.

The Commission noted that the CPIO caused delays by acting on the RTI application only after a significant period had passed since its submission. Despite subsequent directions, there were further delays in providing access to the requested files. The Asstt. Registrar, after initially offering the file for inspection, failed to follow up and ensure its availability to the appellant. Both officials were held responsible for the delays in providing information. As a result, they were directed to explain why a penalty should not be imposed on them for their actions under the RTI Act. The Commission emphasized the importance of timely and efficient handling of RTI requests to uphold transparency and accountability in governance.