2015 (2) TMI 594 - Commission - Indian Laws

Imposition of penalty - Obstruction in the disclosure of information to the appellant in response to RTI application - Held that - Commission notes that the FAA vide his order dated 1-2-2012, partly allowing the appeal held, as follows After receipt of reply from 3rd parties, the CPIO had also not informed about their decision to the appellant. This also appears to be due to oversight . Further to this, the FAA ordered The disclosure of information relating to the 3rd party, i.e. DOPT is allowed and its copy is enclosed with this order; and (iii) The disclosure of information relating to the other 3rd party i.e. the Supreme Court is not allowed, as disclosure of the information is exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1)(b), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. A copy of the reply received from the concerned 3rd party is enclosed for information of the appellant . Whereas, Shri Victor James, the then CPIO in his submissions dated 27-2-2014 and 9-4-2014 states that in response to Notice u/s 11 of the RTI Act the CPIO, Supreme Court of India vide letter dated 18-5-2011 denied disclosure of information to the appellant u/s 8(1)(b), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act to the appellant and the CPIO, Appointment Committee of Cabinet vide letter dated 17-11-2011 permitted disclosure of information and the CPIO had passed his order dated 18-11-2011 to disclose the information pertaining to ACC and not to disclose the information pertaining to Supreme Court of India. The contention of the CPIO is not borne out in view of the orders passed by the FAA as stated above. Moreover, the CPIO has not given any evidence with regard to dispatch of his letter dated 18-11-2011 to the appellant. The CPIO has failed to establish whether the said letter dated 18-11-2011 has been dispatched to the appellant. The third party information was only provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 15-2-2012 to the appellant only after the FAA s order dated 1-2-2012. Shri Victor James, the then CPIO has caused a delay of 89 days in providing third party information to the appellant. The FAA has also erred in directing the CPIO to charge photocopying charges at appellate stage, which is violative of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. The respondent public authority is directed to refund ₹ 68/ to the appellant. A penalty of ₹ 22,250/- (Rupees twenty two thousand two hundred fifty only) @ ₹ 250 x 89 days is imposed u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 upon Shri Victor James, the then CPIO presently posted as Director (Vigilance), East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi which shall be recovered in five monthly instalments of ₹ 4,450/- each from his pay and allowances from the month starting July, 2014 to November, 2014 - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in providing information.
2. Non-disclosure of third-party information.
3. Failure to adhere to RTI Act timelines.
4. Improper handling of fees and document requests.
5. Allegations of malafide intent by the CPIO.
6. Compensation for the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Providing Information:
The appellant argued that the CPIO caused an unwarranted delay of 181 days in supplying copies of inspected documents, which he requested on the day of inspection, i.e., 13-5-2011. The CPIO's failure to provide these documents despite repeated reminders was deemed deliberate and malafide, making him liable for a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission noted the delay and imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,250 on the CPIO.

2. Non-Disclosure of Third-Party Information:
The appellant contended that the CPIO failed to adhere to Section 11(3) of the RTI Act, which mandates a decision within 40 days when third-party information is involved. The CPIO delayed the decision by 157 days beyond the stipulated period, obstructing the appellant's access to information. The CPIO cited the Supreme Court's refusal to disclose certain information under Sections 8(1)(b), (e), and (j) of the RTI Act. However, the Commission found the CPIO's handling of third-party information unsatisfactory and noted a delay of 89 days in providing the information.

3. Failure to Adhere to RTI Act Timelines:
The appellant highlighted that the CPIO did not act within the timelines stipulated by the RTI Act. The CPIO's decision on third-party information was delayed, and the appellant was not informed about the decision promptly. The Commission acknowledged this delay and imposed a penalty on the CPIO.

4. Improper Handling of Fees and Document Requests:
The appellant argued that the CPIO harassed him by requesting a fee for supplying copies of inspected documents after 270 days, violating Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. The CPIO failed to send an intimation regarding the fee as required under Section 7(3). The appellant also claimed that the CPIO did not provide complete information even after the fee was paid. The Commission directed the public authority to refund Rs. 68 to the appellant and noted the CPIO's failure to handle the fee and document requests properly.

5. Allegations of Malafide Intent by the CPIO:
The appellant accused the CPIO of acting with malafide intent to harass him and obstruct the information. The CPIO's actions, including not providing complete information, delaying responses, and improper handling of fees, were seen as deliberate attempts to hinder the appellant's access to information. The Commission found merit in these allegations and imposed a penalty on the CPIO.

6. Compensation for the Appellant:
The appellant requested compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the harassment, inconvenience, and expenditure caused by the CPIO's conduct. The Commission did not explicitly address the compensation request in the order but directed the refund of Rs. 68 to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,250 on the CPIO for causing a delay of 89 days in providing third-party information and directed the public authority to recover the amount from the CPIO's salary. The Commission also ordered a refund of Rs. 68 to the appellant for the improper handling of fees. The CPIO's actions were found to be in violation of the RTI Act, and the Commission emphasized the need for timely and accurate responses to RTI applications.