CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000746/8942Penalty
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000746
Complainant : Mr. Rakesh Thakur
B- 812, J.J. Colony, Bawana
New Delhi-39
Respondent : Mr. Ram Babu Tomar
Deemed PIO & Principal
Govt. Co-ed Sec. School No.- 1
(Directorate of Education)
(School ID 1310414), J.J. Colony
Bawana, Delhi-39
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
Mr. Rakesh Thakur approached the office of the APIO, Mr. Ram Babu Tomar, Vice Principal,
Govt. Co-ed Sec. School, J.J. Colony, Delhi, to file a RTI application dated on 11/05/2010 addressed to
the PIO, O/o Deputy Director of Education, District: North West A, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, asking for
certain information. The above mentioned APIO refused to receive the said RTI Application. Thereafter,
the Complainant filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. On this basis,
the Commission issued a notice to the PIO, O/o Deputy Director of Education on 09/06/2010 with a
direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not
furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission received a letter dated 13/07/2010 from the PIO, O/o Deputy Director of
Education stating that information has been provided to the Complainant vide a letter dated 03/07/2010. In
this letter, the PIO has also stated that the RTI Application was not received by him earlier and therefore
no information was provided. The PIO further stated that a letter was sent to the APIO asking him to
justify his non-acceptance of the RTI application, after which a reply was sought from the APIO vide
letter dated 23/06/2010 wherein he accepted his mistake and assured to receive any further RTI
applications.
Therefore, in the light of the above circumstances, it is observed from the reply of the APIO that
the APIO has without any reasonable cause refused to receive the RTI Application as per the provisions of
the RTI Act.
Decision dated 13/08/2010:
The Complaint was allowed.
“From the facts before the Commission, it is apparent that the APIO has without any reasonable
cause refused to receive the RTI Application, leading to a delay of over 22 days in furnishing the
information beyond the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 as per the requirement of the RTI
Act. It appears that the APIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act.
Page 1 of 3
The APIO is hereby directed to present himself before the Commission on 20/09/2010 at 3:30p.m.
along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him under
Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act.
Relevant facts emerging during showcause hearing on 20/09/2010:
Respondent: Mr. Ram Babu Tomar, the then APIO & Vice-Principal
The APIO Mr. Ram Babu Tomar has submitted a copy of the order of the Director, Directorate of
Education, GNCTD dated 03/11/2009 by which he was designated as the State Assistant Public
Information Officer. He has further sated that since he was not designated as the APIO and the RTI
application was addressed to the APIO, he had refused to receive the same. The complete information had
been provided to the Complainant on 03/07/2010.
The APIO Mr. Ram Babu Tomas was asked to why he refused to take the RTI application when the
appellant approached him on 11/05/2010. He states that he is the State Assistant Public Information
Officer as per the order received from Directorate of Education. Hence he felt he need not take RTI
Application. As per Section 5(2) of the RTI Act the only function of the CAPIO or SAPIO is to take an
RTI application from the citizen. The APIO Mr. Ram Babu Tomar failed to do this duty of taking the RTI
application for which there is no reasonable cause. The RTI application was sought to be submitted on
11/05/2010 in which case the appellant should have got the information before 11/06/2010. Instead the
appellant had to file a complaint consequent to which Commission issued a notice on 09/06/2010. The
information was provided on 03/07/2010. Instead of getting the information on 11/06/2010 the appellant
received information on 03/07/2010 i.e. after the delay of 22 days.
Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, “Where the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the
opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not
furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the
request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed
information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the
information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received
or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five
thousand rupees;
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.”
Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that “In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a
denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.”
Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under
sub-section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two
hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was
no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the
RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that the PIO or deemed PIO
acted reasonably and diligently is clearly on the PIO.
Since there was a delay of providing the information to the complainant by 22 days which can be clearly
attributed to the refusal of the APIO Mr. Babu Ram Tomar to receive the RTI application the Commission
Page 2 of 3
imposes a penalty under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Babu Ram Tomar, APIO & Principal at
`250/- per day of delay i.e. `250/- X 22 days = `5500/-
Decision:
As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a
fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Babu Ram Tomar, APIO & Principal. Since the delay in
providing the correct information has been of 22 days, the Commission is passing an order
penalizing Mr. Babu Ram Tomar `5500/-.
The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `5500/-
from the salary of Mr. Babu Ram Tomar and remit the same by a demand draft or a
Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi
and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy
Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi – 110066. The amount of `5500/- be deducted from the salary of Mr. Babu
Ram Tomar and remitted by the 10th October 2010.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 September 2010
1- The Chief Secretary
GNCT of Delhi
New Delhi
2- Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,
Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary
Central Information Commission,
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110066
Page 3 of 3