2009 (7) TMI 924 - Commission - Indian Laws

Right to Information - Penalty - Mala fide denial of information - Strictures against RTI appellate authority

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of information under RTI Act
2. Application of Section 24(1) of the RTI Act
3. Allegations of collusion among officers
4. Conduct of the Appellate Authority
5. Request for penalty and disciplinary action

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information related to the withdrawal of an appeal before the Delhi High Court. The CPIO denied the information, stating it was beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellate Authority upheld this decision, citing Section 8(1)(e) and Section 24(1) of the RTI Act. The Central Information Commission (CIC) found these decisions flawed, emphasizing that the queries were specific and fell within the Act's provisions. The CIC directed the CPIO to provide the requested information and allow the appellant to inspect relevant records.

2. The Appellate Authority applied Section 24(1) of the RTI Act to withhold information originating from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The CIC criticized this decision, noting that the Appellate Authority should have consulted the DRI before denying the information. The CIC found the application of Section 24(1) unwarranted in this case and directed the CPIO to provide the requested information without such restrictions.

3. The appellant raised concerns about collusion between certain officers and a third party, leading to the withdrawal of the appeal. The CIC acknowledged the appellant's suspicions and emphasized the public interest in understanding the decision-making process that affects revenue and public integrity. The CIC highlighted the importance of transparency and ordered the disclosure of information related to the case.

4. The CIC criticized the Appellate Authority's conduct, particularly the unnecessary remarks made in the order. The CIC emphasized the need for impartial and professional behavior from statutory authorities under the RTI Act. The CIC directed the CPIO to provide the information promptly and ensure the appellant's right to access records and documents.

5. The appellant requested penalties and disciplinary actions against the CPIO and the Appellate Authority. After reviewing the case, the CIC decided not to initiate specific proceedings but advised both officials to handle RTI applications impartially and in compliance with the RTI Act. The CIC closed the complaint at its level and emphasized the importance of adherence to the Act's provisions in dealing with information requests.

By addressing the issues raised in the judgment, the CIC affirmed the importance of transparency, public interest, and adherence to the RTI Act's provisions in handling information requests and disciplinary matters.