CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000796/3527
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/000796
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Sh.M. M. Rattan,
R/o A-85-A,
Dilshad Colony,
Delhi-95
Respondent : Mr. K.S.Rawat, PIO,
Administration Branch I,
Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi.
RTI application filed on : 04.12.2008
PIO replied : 18.12.2008
First Appeal filed on : 02.01.2009
First Appellate Authority reply : 23.01.2009
Second Appeal received on : 18.04.2009
Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought for information regarding joining report dated 20.03.1984
of Sh. M. M. Rattan, LDC in Administration branch.
The reply of the PIO:
Information was called from the Suptd. Administration Branch II, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi. It is submitted that same is not available in his personal file, therefore, kindly
provide if available, the copy of joining report dated 20.03.1984 of Shri M.M. Rattan
as LDC on ad hoc basis at the earliest.
The First Appellate Authority ordered:
FAA ordered and directed the PIO to collect the information from the Senior
Accounts Officer and to send a copy of the joining report dated 20.03.1984 to the
appellant if the same is available in the official record. The PIO is directed to comply
with these directions within 10 days from today.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr.M. M. Rattan
Respondent : Absent
The appellant states that inspite of the orders of the First Appellate Authority no
information has been provided to him.
The PIO has however stated in a letter on 20/01/2009 that “it is also submitted that the
information relates to the twenty years back and thus the PIOs are not obliged to
provide information if it is not available as provided by the Section8(3) of the Right to
Information Act-2005 as the best efforts have already been made to provide
information. It is therefore, clear that appellant does not want the permission of the
court and the PIO is not competent to make any unfettered direction to the Ld. Court
who is custodian of records etc.”
The Commission sees that the PIO has interpreted Section 8(3) in a manner absolutely
contradictory to its meaning. Section 8(3) states that out of 10 exemptions of Section
8(1) only three would apply and thus for records over 20 years there is a larger scope
of giving information under RTI Act. The PIO’s contention that some permission of
the court is required is completely flawed; if the information is with the court the PIO
has to obtain it and give it to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will provide the information to the appellant before 15 June
2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required
information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO Mr. K.S.Rawat is
guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of
Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He
has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable
doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate
Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) .
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the
Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 June, 2009. He will also
submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
2nd June 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(Ran)