9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1015 - Commission - Indian LawsExemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act - Held that - The Commission observes that the CPIO has wrongfully claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as the same would not be applicable since no inquiry was pending and hence, the question of investigation on inquiry does not arise. The Commission further observes that though the CPIO has provided misleading and incorrect information to the appellant there was no malafide intent on the part of the CPIO. In view of this, the CPIO is cautioned to be more careful in future, so that such lapses do not recur. The CPIO is also directed to ensure that the provisions of the RTI Act are implemented in letter and spirit.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of information under RTI Act based on false claim of pending investigation. 2. Allegation of deliberate obstruction of information with malafide intent. 3. Error of judgment by CPIO leading to wrongful exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Denial of information under RTI Act based on false claim of pending investigation The appellant filed an RTI application seeking specific information related to an alleged pending investigation before the Competent Authority. The CPIO denied the information citing exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, claiming the matter was under investigation. However, it was revealed that no such investigation was pending as confirmed by the Deputy Registrar/CPIO of CESTAT, Bangalore. The CPIO's response was deemed false and illegal, leading to the appellant's appeal against the denial of information. Issue 2: Allegation of deliberate obstruction of information with malafide intent The appellant alleged that the CPIO deliberately obstructed the information sought with malafide intent. The appellant argued that the CPIO's actions were intentional and aimed at preventing the disclosure of information rightfully requested under the RTI Act. This accusation raised concerns about the transparency and accountability of the information dissemination process under the Act. Issue 3: Error of judgment by CPIO leading to wrongful exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act The respondent CPIO admitted to an error of judgment in interpreting a communication regarding a show cause notice as an indication of a pending inquiry. This misinterpretation led to the wrongful application of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act to deny the requested information. The First Appellate Authority acknowledged the error and directed the CPIO to be more cautious in the future to avoid similar mistakes. Decision: The Central Information Commission found that the CPIO's claim of exemption under Section 8(1)(h) was wrongful as no inquiry was actually pending. While the CPIO provided misleading information, the Commission noted there was no malafide intent involved. The CPIO was cautioned to be more diligent in the future to prevent such errors and ensure compliance with the RTI Act. The appeal was disposed of with directions for free provision of the decision copy to the concerned parties.
|
