9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Impugning penalty imposed by Central Information Commission (CIC) under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the petitioner.
Comprehensive Details: 1. The petitioner contested that the delay in providing information was due to Mr. S.C. Gupta, not him as the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the DDA. CIC imposed penalty on both the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Gupta. The petitioner argued that he promptly sought information and forwarded requests to Mr. S.C. Gupta, who caused delays. However, CIC found the petitioner failed to provide the information sought and merely forwarded a report without ensuring it addressed the query, deeming it a refusal of information. The petitioner did not address why the penalty was shared between him and Mr. S.C. Gupta. 2. The petitioner claimed his role as PIO was to forward requests and information received from officers to information seekers promptly, absolving him of liability for delays or incorrect information. This argument was likened to reducing the PIO's role to that of a Post Office, which the Act does not support. 3. The Act mandates PIOs to "deal with" requests and provide reasonable assistance to information seekers, not just act as intermediaries. The PIO is responsible for ensuring timely and accurate information disclosure, with Section 5(4) empowering them to seek assistance within the department. The PIO's role is pivotal in enforcing the Act's implementation. 4. The Court emphasized that designating a PIO implies responsibility for providing information, not just forwarding requests. The penalty was imposed on the petitioner for failing to analyze information received, blindly forwarding it without applying his own judgment. The PIO must independently assess and decide on information disclosure, not rely solely on subordinates. 5. Referring to previous judgments, the Court reiterated that PIOs must fulfill their obligations diligently, ensuring information seekers receive what they request without delays or evasive tactics. The Act places trust in the PIO's objectivity and decision-making, expecting them to act responsibly and not mechanically forward information. 6. The Court upheld the CIC's decision to equally apportion the penalty between the petitioner and Mr. S.C. Gupta, finding no fault in the order. Conclusion: The petition was dismissed as lacking merit, with no costs imposed.
|
