9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India vide letter dated 18-5-2011 denied disclosure of information to the appellant u/s 8(1)(b), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act to the appellant and the CPIO, Appointment Committee of Cabinet vide letter dated 17-11-2011 permitted disclosure of information and the CPIO had passed his order dated 18-11-2011 to disclose the information pertaining to ACC and not to disclose the information pertaining to Supreme Court of India. The contention of the CPIO is not borne out in view of the orders passed by the FAA as stated above. Moreover, the CPIO has not given any evidence with regard to dispatch of his letter dated 18-11-2011 to the appellant. The CPIO has failed to establish whether the said letter dated 18-11-2011 has been dispatched to the appellant. The third party information was only provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 15-2-2012 to the appellant only after the FAA’s order dated 1-2-2012. Shri Victor James, the then CPIO has caused a delay of 89 days in providing third party information to the appellant. The FAA has also erred in directing the CPIO to charge photocopying charges at appellate stage, which is violative of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. The respondent public authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nformation and to provide copies of certain documents to the appellant. Copies of relevant documents were provided to the appellant on receipt of requisite fees as directed by the FAA vide letter dated 15-2-2012; In spite of providing all the information, the appellant repeatedly by following the procedures laid down in the RTI Act, pled second appeal before the Commission pleading that information was not provided to him. The plea of the appellant is baseless as may be seen from the narration above. When the appellant kept on writing letters to the CPIO stating that full information was not provided to him, the CPIO requested the appellant to specify the information which he did not receive. However, the appellant chooses not to respond to the CPIO and approached the Commission in second appeal; 3. In his written submissions dated 21-3-2014 filed by Shri R.K. Jain (appellant) states as follows : That as may be seen from Sl. No. 2 of the table of the written submissions, that the Appellant/Complainant had made a request for supply of copies of documents from the inspected records on the day of inspection itself i.e. 13-5-2011. However, the then CPIO, Shri V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formation vide letter dated 17-11-2011 (Annexure E2) (though with a gross delay) the then CPIO did not provide even that information. He even suppressed this fact from the Appellant/Complainant and thereby obstructed the information which was allowed to be disclosed by the third party. This makes him liable for penalty u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act as also recommendation for disciplinary action u/s 20(2) of the RTI Act. That Respondents further harassed the Appellant/Complainant by asking him to deposit fee for supply of copies of inspected document that is after 270 days of request for supply copies of documents. Kindly see Sl. No. 13 of the table. This decision of the then CPIO/FAA was in contravention of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. That as per Section 7(3) of the RTI Act, it is for the CPIO to send the intimation regarding details of fee to be deposited by information seeker towards supply of information. However in this case the then CPIO had neither furnished the information, nor had he sent any intimation to the Appellant/Complainant regarding fee as per Section 7(3) of the RTI Act. He deliberately and malafidely remained silent and did not provide informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That the remaining information be also directed to be disclosed to the Appellant/Complainant without any further delay. That the Appellant/Complainant may be heard before deciding the matter. 4. Commission vide its letter of even number dated 31-3-2014 directed Shri Victor James, CPIO to furnish his counter submissions, if any , within two weeks on the written submissions dated 21-3-2014 filed by Shri R.K. Jain (appellant). 5. In compliance with aforementioned directions of the Commission, Shri Victor James, then CPIO Department of Revenue (presently posted as Director (Vigilance), East Delhi Municipal Corporation filed his submissions vide his letter dated 9-4-2014 as under : For ease of reference, the information sought by Shri R.K. Jain vide RTI Application No. RTI/11/3307, dated 23-4-2011 and the reply by CPIO dated 5-5-2011 are reproduced below : Para No. Information sought vide RTI application dated 23-4-2011 Information provided vide reply dated 5-5-2011 4(A) Please provide information whether the process of appointment of new President to the CESTAT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he time of inspection on 13-5-2011 and two pages of third party confidential information. The delay in providing documents identified by the appellant at the time of inspection on 13-5-2011 is attributable to the appellant himself. The appellant being a regular visitor in Department of Revenue in connection with the numerous RTI applications filed by him, usually carries postal orders/cheques for payment of fees for documents identified by him during inspection. However, on 13-5-2011, he apparently did not carry postal order etc. and therefore he was requested to send the payment. The payment was sent by him vide letter dated 6-2-2012 and the documents were supplied to him on 15-2-2012. The appellant has not given any proof for making payment on any earlier date nor has he made any claim of making payment earlier. Therefore, it is wrong to attribute the delay on the CPIO. While supplying documents to the RTI application on 15-2-2012, it was noted that there was mismatch on the payment made by the appellant and the documents demanded by him. Therefore he was requested to indicate the remaining documents to be supplied to him. However, instead of indicating the remaining d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed to identify the information, he apparently did not receive despite the request from the CPIO to identify the pending information. He has been trying only to somehow implicate the CPIO and get penalty imposed on him by twisting facts and misusing provisions under the RTI Act. There is no substance in his claims of delay in furnishing information. 6. In this connection, the Commission notes that the FAA vide his order dated 1-2-2012, partly allowing the appeal held, as follows : After receipt of reply from 3rd parties, the CPIO had also not informed about their decision to the appellant. This also appears to be due to oversight . Further to this, the FAA ordered The disclosure of information relating to the 3rd party, i.e. DOPT is allowed and its copy is enclosed with this order; and (iii) The disclosure of information relating to the other 3rd party i.e. the Supreme Court is not allowed, as disclosure of the information is exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1)(b), (e) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. A copy of the reply received from the concerned 3rd party is enclosed for information of the appellant . 7. Whereas, Shri Victor James, the then CPIO in his submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
