2013 (10) TMI 248 - Commission - Indian Laws

Right to information - Wrong information furnished - Held that - as prima facie there has been a considerable delay in providing information to the appellant and incorrect information provided, the CPIO shall be issued with a show cause notice as to why a penalty should not be imposed on him as per Section 20 of the RTI Act.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of information under RTI application
2. First appellate authority's decision
3. Allegations of mala fide conduct by CPIO
4. Delay in providing information and incorrect information
5. Imposition of penalty on CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information related to various financial matters. The CPIO initially invited the appellant for file inspection but did not provide all the requested information on the inspection date. Subsequently, the CPIO provided copies of the documents sought but stated that no more information was available. The appellant contended that the information was wrongly denied to him.

Issue 2: The appellant appealed to the first appellate authority seeking directions to obtain the desired information, but the authority concurred with the CPIO's decision. The appellant raised concerns about not being granted a personal hearing before the first appellate authority and presented evidence to support his claim that the CPIO deliberately withheld information.

Issue 3: The appellant alleged mala fide conduct by the CPIO, citing a letter addressed to the Registrar indicating deliberate withholding of information. The appellant sought penalty and disciplinary proceedings against the CPIO, along with compensation under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act.

Issue 4: During the proceedings, it was disclosed that the required information had been provided to the appellant. The Commission noted a considerable delay in providing information and the provision of incorrect information to the appellant, leading to the decision to issue a show cause notice to the CPIO regarding the imposition of a penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

In conclusion, the Commission found merit in the appellant's claims regarding the denial of information, delay in providing information, and the alleged mala fide conduct by the CPIO. The decision to issue a show cause notice to the CPIO for a possible penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act was based on the prima facie evidence of the issues raised during the proceedings.