CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Adjunct to Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2007/00704 dated 8-10-2007
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18
Appellant: Shri Madhu Sudan Bhayana
Respondent: Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Lab. (APFSL)
ORDER
Announced 3.11.’09
In our decision of 10-7-2009 we had found as follows
“The CPIO, Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory,
Hyderabad is further directed to show cause as to why a penalty
of Rs. 250/- per day from the date when the information fell due
i.e. 17-05-2007 to the date when the information is actually
supplied, not exceeding Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed on
him/ her under Section 20(1) of the RTI act. The CPIO may do
so through a written submission to be received by us on or
before 28-07-2009.
In response to our show cause notice Director, APFSL, has in his letter
of 28-7-09 submitted as follows:
“Superintendent of Police, CBI in his letter dated 11.2.2008 has
intimated that the matter is sub-judice and the request of the
Dharambir Khattar for supply of the same documents/
information/ articles has already been turned down by the
competent court and the stand taken by this office in not
supplying the document is strictly as per provisions of the RTI
Act, 2005. It is mentioned that the hard disks of CBI lying with
APFSL are the court properties and the APFSL under no
circumstances can provide the copies of there of to the accused
person or others without permission by orders of the Trial Court.
The disclosure of such information will not only the contempt of
court, but it will also impede the process of prosecution of
offenders.”
Accordingly, CPIO, APFSL refused the information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the
RTI Act only. The delay in response has been explained in light of the
correspondence with SP, CBI on whether the information could be disclosed.
The third party i.e. SP, CBI’s request that the information may not be supplied
u/s 8 (1) (h) was made by the SP in his letter of 27-6-07. This resulted in a
reply being sent to appellant Shri Bhayana only on 19-7-07.
1
The complaint heard by us was with regard to failure of CPIO, AP, FSL
to reply to Shri Madhu Sudan Bhayana’s RTI request of 17-4-07. However, it
is clear that the matter has only been referred to the SP, CBI on receipt of the
complaint notice served by this Commission of 8-5-09. In other words CPIO
APFSL has taken no steps to respond to the application of Shri Bhayana of
17-4-07 to which an answer was due on 17-5-07. Nevertheless, we find that
an interim reply has been sent to Shri Madhu Sudan Bhayana by PIO, Shri
G.V. Jagdamba, Assistant Director, O/o APFSL, Hyderabad on 18-6-07
informing him as follows:
“I am to inform that the reports in the cases referred to in your
letter have been dispatched to the Supdt., of Police, CBI, New
Delhi in July, 2003 itself.
You may please approach the Supdt., of police, CBI, ACB Zone-
III, New Delhi for copies of the documents which require in the
cases.”
This would mean that PIO, Shri G.V. Jagdamba has rendered himself
liable for penalty @ Rs. 250/- per day from the date of information became
due i.e. 17-5-07 to the date when response was actually given i.e. on 18-6-07.
He is liable for penalty for 32 days delay that is Rs. 8,000/-. Under proviso to
Section 20 the CPIO is required “to be given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard before any penalty is imposed upon him.”
In this case the show cause notice has been replied to by the Director,
AP, FSL, although it was clearly addressed to the CPIO. It is not the Director
who is liable for penalty. However, Shri G.V. Jagdamba was given an
opportunity to show cause through video conferencing as to why he should
not be penalised. This he could do through video conferencing had he so
chosen. Failing this it must be presumed that he has no reasonable cause to
explain the delay in responding. DDO, AP, FSL, Hyderabad will deduct this
amount of Rs. 8000/- from the salary of November, 2009 of Shri G.V.
Jagdamba, Assistant Director, APFSL, Hyderabad by 3.12.’09 and deposit the
same with Pay & Accounts Officer, Central Administrative Tribunal, C-1,
Hutments, Dalhousie Road, New Delhi-110001 under intimation to Shri
Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Jt. Registrar, CIC, New Delhi. With these orders this
complaint may now be treated as closed
2
Announced. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
3-11-2009
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
3-11-2009
3