2014 (3) TMI 435 - HC - Indian Laws

Power of make inquiry for hiding the information sought under RTI Act - RTI Application seeking an authenticated photocopy along with the file notings of the Project Report for Development of Ayurvedic Health Resort and Herbal Garden at Vagamon, which was submitted by the Department of Tourism, Government of Kerala in December, 2005 - Held that - Since the Commission has the power to direct disclosure of information provided, it is not exempted from such disclosure, it would also have the jurisdiction to direct an inquiry into the matter wherever it is claimed by the PIO/CPIO that the information sought by the applicant is not traceable/readily traceable/currently traceable. Fear of disciplinary action, against the person responsible for loss of the information, will also work as a deterrence against the willful suppression of the information, by vested interests. It would also be open to the Commission, to make an inquiry itself instead of directing an inquiry by the department/office concerned. Whether in a particular case, an inquiry ought to be made by the Commission or by the officer of the Department/office concerned is a matter to be decided by the Commission in the facts and circumstances of each such case. The inquiry conducted by the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by the Commission on 17-4-2012 was not at all satisfactory. It is, therefore, directed that a thorough and meaningful inquiry in terms of the provisions of the directions of the Commission be carried out by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government within eight weeks from today and a copy each of the said report shall be provided to the Commission as well as to the respondent before this Court. - Decided against the petitioner / Union of India.

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-availability of Project Report sought under RTI application.
2. Discrepancies in information provided by PIO and Ministry of Tourism.
3. Legality of Central Information Commission's directive for inquiry.
4. Interpretation of powers of Central Information Commission under RTI Act.

Issue 1: The respondent filed an RTI application seeking an authenticated photocopy of the Project Report for Development of Ayurvedic Health Resort and Herbal Garden, which was not received by the Ministry of Tourism as per the PIO's response. The First Appellate Authority directed a thorough search for the report and related records within 15 days, but the respondent remained dissatisfied and appealed to the Central Information Commission.

Issue 2: The Central Information Commission, upon hearing, found discrepancies as the Ministry denied receiving the report despite confirmation of signatures by officials. The Commission directed an inquiry by the Ministry to ascertain the authenticity of the report, suspecting a conspiracy or intentional withholding of information. The Ministry's subsequent report confirmed the non-availability of the original project documents, raising questions about the thoroughness of the inquiry conducted.

Issue 3: The petitioner challenged the Commission's authority to direct an inquiry, arguing that the RTI Act does not explicitly empower the Commission to order departmental investigations. However, the Court emphasized that the Commission's powers extend to ensuring compliance with the Act, including directing inquiries to secure information disclosure, even if not explicitly listed in the Act.

Issue 4: The Court highlighted the importance of the RTI Act in promoting transparency and access to information, emphasizing that public authorities must make every effort to locate and share requested information unless exempted. It stressed the need for comprehensive investigations into missing information, holding responsible parties accountable to prevent willful suppression of data. The Court dismissed the writ petition, ordering a more thorough inquiry by a senior officer within eight weeks and directing dissemination of the judgment to all relevant authorities for guidance.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the case concerning RTI application, discrepancies in information, legality of directives, and the interpretation of the Central Information Commission's powers under the RTI Act.