Shri Padam Rosha vs Ministry Of Home Affairs (Mha). on 16 December, 2008

                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                       Complaint No.CIC/WB/C/2008/00886 dated 15.9.2008
                          Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 18


Complainant            - Shri Padam Rosha
Respondent        -      Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).


Facts

:

By an application of 17.7.08 Shri Padam Rosha, of Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi Retd. Director General, Police applied to CPIO Shri S. K. Bhatnagar,
Dy. Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, seeking the following information:

“The Central Govt. appointed the Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy
Commission of Enquiry to look into the Nagarwala case, vide
notification no. S. C. 389 (E) dated 9th June 1977 on completion of
the Enquiry, Justice Reddy submitted his report on the 23rd
October, 1978.

I tendered my evidence before the above Commission on 19th July,
1978 as CW 108. A transcript of my evidence, which would be
available in the records of the above Commission, may please be
supplied to me within 30 days, as stipulated in the RTI Act 2005. I
enclose a Postal Order for Rs. 10/- in favour of the Accounts
Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs.”

To this Shri Rosha received a reply from Shri J. S. Phaugat, Under
Secretary & CAPIO dated 11.8.08 as follows:

“The information desired by you is more than 30 years old. In
terms of section 8 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005, there shall be no
obligation to give any citizen any information relating to any
occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or
happened twenty years before the date on which any request is
made under Section 6.

In view of the foregoing rule position, it is not obligatory on the part
of the CPIO to provide the requisite information at this belated
stage.”

1

Shri Rosha has then moved a complaint before us on 15.9.08 (although
the letter itself carries the date of 17.7.08, obviously a clerical error) with the
following prayer:

“I have been denied the above information on the ground that the
matter is more than twenty years old and it is ‘not obligatory’ on the
part of the CPIO to provide this information. It appears to me that
the CPIO has taken a rather perverse and bureaucratic view. The
information requested by me is well within the public domain and
would be easily available from the records of Justice P.
Jaganmohan Reddy Commission of Enquiry.”

DECISION NOTICE

Sec. 8(3) of the RTI Act 2005 is clear and entirely without ambiguity. It
reads as follows:

Sec.8 (3)
“Subject to the provisions of clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section
(1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter
which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before
the date on which any request is made under section 6 shall be
provided 1 to any person making a request under that section

Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which
the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of
the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals
provided for in this Act.”

In this case the information sought is, as conceded by respondents Shri
J. S. Phaugat more than 30 years old and, therefore, providing the information is
mandatory unless sub sections (a), (c) and (i) of Sec 8(1) can be cited, none of
which have in fact been even referred to, or there is a dispute regarding dating,
which in this case is not in question. The only issue that remains is whether this
clearly incorrect and misleading information has been ‘knowingly’ given, which
would place it squarely within the mischief of Sec 20(1), rendering CPIO Shri
Bhatnagar, or CAPIO Shri Phaugat, depending upon who was responsible for
taking the decision to provide this information. liable for a penalty of Rs 25,000/-.

1

Underlined by us for emphasis

2
The complaint is, therefore, allowed. The information sought will be
provided to complainant Shri Padam Rosha within ten working days of the date
of issue of this Decision Notice under intimation to Shri Pankaj KP Shreyaskar,
Jt. Registrar of this Commission. The CPIO Shri Bhatnagar and CAPIO Shri
Phaugat will also show cause as to why they should not be held liable for a
penalty of Rs 25,000/- either on a shared basis or severally. This they may do in
writing by December 30, 2008.

Announced. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.

(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
16.12.2008

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.

(LC Singhi)
Addl. Registrar
16.12.2008

3