9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th December, 2009 informed that penalty amount had been paid to the CIC and further submitted that the fault leading to the imposition of penalty was not in his functioning as the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the DDA but of Mr. S.C. Gupta the then Dy. Director (Housing) of the DDA. I may notice that the CIC has vide the impugned order, while levying penalty of ₹ 12,500/- on the petitioner, levied penalty of ₹ 12,500/- on the said Shri S.C. Gupta also and deductable from his salary. On the said contention of the petitioner, the said Shri S.C. Gupta was impleaded as respondent no.4 to the petition and in fact he alone has been served with the notice of the petition. Shri S.C. Gupta has filed a counter affidavit. The counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess the grounds on which the maximum penalty leviable under the Act had been apportioned between him and Shri S.C. Gupta and has merely reiterated that the responsibility was of Shri S.C. Gupta. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was the designated PIO under Section 5 of the Act of the DDA. Under Section 5(3) of the Act it was for the petitioner to deal with the request and render reasonable assistance to the information seeker. The PIO under Section 5(4) is authorized to seek the assistance of any other officer as may be considered necessary for the purpose of providing information and Section 5(5) mandates such officers to render all assistance to the PIO. Section 5(5) also deems such officers from whom information is sought, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... information to persons requesting for information under the Act. Such PIOs, under Section 5(2) of the Act are to receive applications for information and under Section 5(3) of the Act are to deal with request from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the information seekers. The Act having required the PIOs to deal with the request for information and to render reasonable assistance to the information seekers, cannot be said to have intended the PIOs to be merely Post Offices as the petitioner would contend. The expression deal with , in Karen Lambert Vs. London Borough of Southwark (2003) EWHC 2121 (Admin) was held to include everything right from receipt of the application till the issue of decision thereon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to urge any ground on this aspect. The PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give grounds for non-disclosure. A responsible officer cannot escape his responsibility by saying that he depends on the work of his subordinates. The PIO has to apply his own mind independently and take the appropriate decision and cannot blindly approve / forward what his subordinates have done. 9. This Court in Mujibur Rehman Vs. Central Information Commission MANU/DE/0542/2009 held that information seekers are to be furnished what they ask for and are not to be driven away through filibustering tactics and it is to ensure a culture of information disclosure t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
