CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/C/2009/000097
Dated, the 31st August, 2009.
Complainant : Shri Anchal Das
Respondents : Paradip Port Trust
This complaint was heard through videoconference (VC) on
24.08.2009 with the appellant present at NIC VC facility at Jaipur and
the respondents at NIC VC facility at Jagatsinghpur. Commission’s
hearing was held from the CIC office at New Delhi.
2. On the complaint of the petitioner, Shri Anchal Das that
unreasonable delay was caused in disclosing information to him
corresponding to his RTI-application dated 16.05.2008, notice dated
17.03.2009 was issued to Shri P.K. Nanda, Secretary & PIO, Paradip Port
Trust. Replies dated 26.03.2009 and 29.04.2009 were received from
Shri P.K. Nanda, Secretary and CPIO, Paradip Port Trust ⎯ the
respondent. The chronology of various events connected with the
servicing of appellant’s RTI-application is briefly summarized below:-
Date Event 16.05.2008 Complainant filed his RTI-application before the CPIO 16.05.2008 CPIO received the RTI-application 28.06.2008 CPIO sought assistance of Heads of Department of the Paradip Port Trust 01.07, 02.07,
03.07, 05.07, CPIO received replies from the holders-of-the-information
10.07 &
18.07.2008
25.08.2008 CPIO transmitted the information to the complainant
27.11.2008 Complainant filed his complaint before the Commission
3. The CPIO, Shri P.K. Nanda has admitted the delays which
occurred in this matter, which he explained through two
communications dated 26.03.2009 and 29.04.2009 respectively. These
stated as follows:-
“Please refer to the show cause notice issued vide your letter No.
CIC/AT/C/2009/00097 dated 17th March, 2009 regarding delay in
submission of information to Shri Anchal Das as requested vide
his application dated 16.05.2008 under RTI Act. In this
AT-31082009-04.doc
Page 1 of 3
connection, it is humbly submitted that the applicant has sought
for information concerning to four different works ranging
periods for more than 03 years and covering 1000 cases
approximately spread over to 03 (three) departments of the
organization. The information as sought for by the applicant was
not readily available with the Secretary-cum-PIO, Paradip Port
Trust. The information were collected from the different offices
of the Port Trusts and compiled and supplied to the Appellant.
Hence, delay caused in supply of information is not intentional.”
“It is a fact that there has been delay for submission of
information to the Appellant by CPIO. In this connection, it is to
submit that the undersigned in the capacity of Secretary, PPT,
Head of Administrative Department, is discharging the duties of
CPIO under the RTI Act. There is no separate full-fledged
mechanism to process the RTI application under the RTI Act. The
working methodology under the Act is new and staff & officers
were not acquainted with the procedure. Undersigned was busy
with other official works. The delay in furnishing the
information is not intentional but due to aforesaid bonafied
reasons. However, at the level of appeal the time limit has been
scrupulously maintained.”
4. Personal hearing was given to the respondent-CPIO, Shri Nanda on
24.08.2009 in the presence of the complainant.
5. It is seen from the chronology provided by the CPIO that delays in
processing of appellant’s RTI-application dated 16.05.2008 occurred at
two stages mainly
(a) Respondent-CPIO took 45 days to transfer appellant’s
RTI-application to the holders-of-the-information and
(b) He held on to the information for 38 days (from 18.07.2008
to 25.08.2008) when he received the reply from the holders
of the information to whom he had made the references.
6. It is seen that the holders-of-the-information, who were primarily
responsible for providing information to the appellant through the CPIO,
acted with great promptness, which was sadly lacking in CPIO’s actions.
7. An explanation that CPIO was overworked and had to act with
great caution to cross-verify and cross-check the information received
AT-31082009-04.doc
Page 2 of 3
before transmitting it to the appellant is not altogether convincing. It
looks more like an afterthought and I got the impression that for some
unknown reason, CPIO was extremely reluctant to provide the
information to the appellant and, was looking over his shoulders all the
time in order to make sure that disclosure of the information would
bring him no harm.
8. I am, therefore, not in a position to accept the CPIO’s explanation
that there were reasonable grounds that would entitle him to leniency
in respect of the delays which had undoubtedly being caused in
processing appellant’s RTI-application.
9. In view of the above, it is directed that the CPIO be penalized for
73 days of delay @Rs.250/- for each day, which totals up to Rs.18,250/-
(Rupees Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred Fifty) only.
10. The above amount i.e. Rs.18,250/- shall be recovered from
Shri P.K. Nanda, CPIO’s monthly salary bills in five installments, each of
Rs.3,650/- (Rupees three thousand six hundred fifty) only, beginning
with Shri Nanda’s salary bill for the month of October, 2009.
11. The methodology of remitting the recovered penalty amount is
spelt-out in the enclosed note.
12. Matter is disposed of accordingly.
13. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-31082009-04.doc
Page 3 of 3