2013 (3) TMI 103 - Commission - Indian Laws

Delay of 42 days in providing of requisite records made under RTI-request - Held that - There is no doubt that the RTI-application dated 2-5-2011 filed by Shri R.K. Jain was replied to by CPIO Shri Mohinder Singh, Assistant Registrar vide ID No. 06-56/11, dated 6-6-2011. Shri Jain inspected the relevant documents on 9-6-2011 and submitted his Inspection Notes dated 9-6-2011 indicating clearly the copies of the documents required by him. With regard to other Inspection Notes, the copies of 813 pages were provided to Shri Jain on 27-6-2011. However, no information was provided to him in respect of his Inspection Memo No. 87 dated 9-6-2011 for more than a fortnight. He therefore, sent a reminder dated 24-6-2011 to the CPIO and the same was received in the office of the Public Authority on the same day. Subsequently, two more reminders were sent vide letters dated 1-7-2011 and 9-7-2011. Finally, copies of 383 pages of a Register maintained by Shri Pramod Kumar were furnished only on 22-7-2012. Thus the 30 days time available with the CPIO as mentioned in Section 7 of the RTI Acthad already been lapsed as the CPIO given a reply on 6-6-2011 to the RTI-request dated 2-5-2011. The CPIO never contested that he had sent all the three letters to the deemed CPIO. Thus, the Commission is of the considered view that both Shri Mohinder Singh, Assistant Registrar & the then CPIO and Shri Pramod Kumar, SPS to Member (Tech.) & holder-of-the-information are equally responsible for the delay in furnishing the information. A penalty of Rs. 10,500/- for the delay of 42 days @ Rs. 250/- per day is imposed u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. As both the officers are equally responsible, the penalty of Rs. 5,250/- is imposed on each of them viz., Shri Mohinder Singh, Asstt. Registrar & the then CPIO and Shri Pramod Kumar, Deemed CPIO to be recovered in 2 monthly instalments of Rs. 2,625/- each from each one of them.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in providing requested documents under RTI Act.
2. Responsibility for delay in furnishing information.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Issue 1: Delay in providing requested documents under RTI Act
The appellant, Shri R.K. Jain, filed an RTI request seeking information on four queries, which was replied to by the CPIO after a delay of 42 days. Despite reminders, the documents requested on 9-6-2011 were provided only on 22-7-2011. The Commission directed the FAA to identify the person responsible for the delay and recover the penalty amount. The delay was considered a violation of Section 7 of the RTI Act, which mandates providing information within 30 days of receiving the request.

Issue 2: Responsibility for delay in furnishing information
The FAA received explanations from the officers involved, stating that the information was scattered across various files and registers, leading to delays. However, the FAA found the explanations reasonable and was unable to apportion the penalty between the officers. The Commission disagreed, holding both the CPIO and the deemed CPIO responsible for the delay. The CPIO had offered inspection of documents, but the copies of specified records were provided after significant delays, leading to the imposition of a penalty.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005
The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,500 for the delay, to be recovered from both the CPIO and the deemed CPIO. Each officer was directed to pay Rs. 5,250 in two monthly installments. The penalty was imposed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, for the failure to provide information within the stipulated time frame. The penalty amount was to be recovered from their pay and allowances starting from a specified month. The head of the Public Authority was instructed to ensure compliance with the penalty recovery process.