2013 (3) TMI 78 - Commission - Indian Laws

RTI application to sought information of the appointment of the Indirect Tax Ombudsman - Appellant objected that CPIO of the Cabinet Secretariat had transferred his RTI application to his counterpart in the office of the Establishment Officer in the Department of Personnel and Training, though very belatedly - Held that - As far as the Appellate Authority is concerned, he was wrong in not giving an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant when he had asked for it specifically. The CPIO in the office of the Establishment Officer had provided some information to the Appellant but had not given access to the file noting in the said file, thus without the file noting, it is not clear to him what action the authorities had taken on his complaint. No reason has been assigned for not showing the file noting or for not giving it to the Appellant. Therefore, direct the CPIO in the office of the Establishment Officer to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days from today the photocopy of the file noting from the relevant file from which some other records had already been given to him earlier.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in transferring RTI application.
2. Failure to provide opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.
3. Non-disclosure of file noting by CPIO.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking information about the appointment of the Indirect Tax Ombudsman. The CPIO of the Cabinet Secretariat transferred the application to the office of the Establishment Officer in the Department of Personnel and Training after a significant delay. The Appellate Authority endorsed this action without giving the Appellant an opportunity of hearing, as requested. The Central Information Commission noted the delay in transferring the application, which violated the RTI Act's provisions. The CPIO was found liable for penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the CPIO to explain why the penalty should not be imposed, considering the circumstances, and allowed one month for a response.

2. The Appellate Authority was criticized for not providing the Appellant with an opportunity of hearing, despite a specific request. The Commission emphasized that in such cases, where an Appellant seeks a personal hearing, it should be granted before passing the final order. This requirement ensures procedural fairness and allows the Appellant to present their case effectively. The Commission's directive aimed to uphold the principles of natural justice and fair administrative practices in handling RTI appeals.

3. The CPIO in the office of the Establishment Officer had provided some information to the Appellant but had withheld the file noting, which the Appellant argued was essential to understand the authorities' actions on his complaint fully. The Commission found no valid reason for non-disclosure of the file noting and directed the CPIO to provide the photocopy of the file noting within 10 working days. This decision aimed to ensure transparency and accountability in the handling of RTI requests, emphasizing the importance of disclosing relevant information to the Appellant. By ordering the disclosure of the file noting, the Commission sought to enable the Appellant to have a complete understanding of the decision-making process related to his complaint.

In conclusion, the Central Information Commission's judgment addressed issues of procedural lapses, delay in information disclosure, and the importance of providing Appellants with opportunities for hearings in RTI matters. The decision underscored the significance of adhering to the RTI Act's provisions, promoting transparency, accountability, and fairness in the governance process.