Central Information Commission
Adjunct to Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/00518 dated 22-3-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Basanti Lal Singhvi
Respondent: Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)
ORDER
In our decision of 31.7.2008 we had held as follows:
From the above it is clear that the disclosure of information sought
in the present application will not, in the view of Speaker, Lok
Sabha, breach the exemption from disclosure granted u/s 8 (1) (c)
CPIO Shri NN Perumal, Director MHA will now provide the
information sought by appellant Shri Basanti Lal Singhvi, which
will now be disclosed to him within 20 days of the date of receipt
of this decision notice, allowing for 5 days for issue of notice to the
third party and a further 10 days for the third party to respond.
Shri Basanti Lal, complainant has filed several complaints of non-
compliance before us, in which he has contended that the Central Public
Information Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs, has not provided the requisite
information, arising from the direction of the Commission, to him till date.
The Commission called for a compliance report from the CPIO MHA.
From the records it appears that instead of complying with the orders of the
Commission the concerned public authority has made a further reference to the
Lok Sabha Secretariat. On the examination of records it is observed that in
compliance with the orders of the Central Information Commission, a notice has
been issued to the third party i.e. erstwhile Maharaja of Udaipur to make a
submission in writing or orally regarding the disclosure of the information asked
for by the appellant. A copy of the notice appears to have also been sent to the
Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan for causing service on the third
party.
1
It is astonishing that the Commission has been kept in the dark inasmuch
as neither the copy of the reference made to the Lok Sabha Secretariat, nor
even a copy of the notice issued to the third party has been marked to the
Commission. The Notice to the third party having been issued on 3rd October
2008, but what followed thereafter is not known, despite the setting of a clear
time frame by this Commission in its directions. If the department has come to
know that the property in question is a private property rather than a State
property, as stated by them, nothing prevented them from approaching this
Commission. We have thus been given reason to believe that the department
more particularly the CPIO has willfully disobeyed the orders of the Commission
and has thereafter obstructing providing of the information as ordered by the
Commission.
Now therefore CPIO, Shri N.M. Perumal, Director Ministry of Home
Affairs, is hereby directed to show cause as to why a maximum penalty of
Rs. 25,000/- should not be not imposed on him under section 20 (1) of the
RTI Act 2005 for having willfully obstructed furnishing of information to
appellant Shri Basanti Lal Singhvi in compliance with the orders of the
Commission. He shall do so by personal appearance on 9.3.’09 at 4.00 pm at
Room No. 306, 2nd floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
18.2.2008
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the Charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO
of this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
18.2.2008
2