CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
...
F.No. CIC/AT/C/2009/000548
Dated, the 3rd December, 2009
Appellant : Shyam M. Sainani
Respondents : Kandla Port Trust
Pursuant to the Commission’s interim decision dated 12.08.2009 (F.No.
CIC/AT/A/2009/000321), the present petition was converted into a complaint
and, was allotted a new F. No. i.e. CIC/AT/C/2009/000548. Simultaneously,
a show-cause notice dated 12.08.2009 under Section 20(1) of the RTI-Act was
issued to Shri K.C. Vyas, CPIO, Kandla Port Trust, Gandhidham, Kutch for
delayed transmission of information and, for giving incorrect and misleading
information to complainant, corresponding to RTI-application dated
27.01.2009.
2. Shri Vyas (noticee), the then CPIO filed his reply to the show-cause
notice on 24.08.2009. At the hearing, on 14.09.2009, Shri Vyas stated that on
receipt of the complainant’s RTI-application dated 27.01.2009, through a
letter dated 06.02.2009, he referred the matter to the Deputy Chairman,
Kandla Port Trust as holder-of-the-information, who was also functioning as
1st Appellate Authority (AA) under RTI-Act. Since no response was received
from the Dy. Chairman & AA, Kandla Port Trust, he (noticee), vide letter
dated 13.03.2009, reiterated an earlier reply dated 22.01.2009 given to the
complainant in response to his application dated 26.12.2008 .
3. However, during the hearing, CPIO admitted that it was a mistake by
him. Considering this, Commission, through its decision dated 25.09.2009,
remitted the appeal part of the complainant’s petition to the AA with the
direction that he would consider the matter de-novo and provide to the
complainant pointed replies to his RTI-queries.
4. As regards the complaint, a show-cause notice was directed to be
issued to the holder-of-the-information viz., Deputy Chairman, Kandla Port
Trust for not responding to the appellant’s RTI-application. This notice was
issued on 01.10.2009 and simultaneously a personal hearing was fixed on
10.11.2009 for the noticee (Dy. Chairman & AA,KPT) to make his oral
submission.
5. As scheduled, matter was heard on 10.11.2009. The noticees Shri M.A.
Bhaskarachar, Dy. Chairman & AA, KPT and Shri K.C. Vyas, Ex-CPIO were
Page 1 of 3
present at NIC videoconference facility at Kutch, so was the complainant.
Commission conducted the hearing from its court-room at New Delhi.
6. The noticee Shri M.A. Bhaskarachar, Dy. Chairman & AA, KPT stated
during the hearing that he was not the holder-of-the-information as informed
to the Commission by the CPIO. He further submitted that there was no such
reference made to him by the CPIO for furnishing the reply to the
complainant’s RTI-application dated 27.01.2009. It was a letter dated
27.01.2009 by the complainant, addressed to Dy. Chairman &AA regarding a
separate appeal dated 26.12.2008, which was forwarded to him by the CPIO
on 06.02.2009. This had nothing to do with the present RTI-application dated
27.01.2009, which was addressed to the Public Information Officer & Dy.
Secretary (Estate), KPT. When it was posed to CPIO, Shri Vyas, he answered
that he was unclear and confused and, as a result, made incorrect statement
before the Commission at the hearing on 14.09.2009. He (CPIO) admitted that
the AA was not the holder-of-the-information and the letter which was
forwarded to AA was not the present RTI-application.
7. Complainant, in his turn, stated that neither the CPIO nor the AA gave
replies to him till he filed the complaint before the CIC. He submitted that
the information which had now been given to him was unsatisfactory. He also
filed a written submission dated 03.11.2009.
8. In-so-far as appellant’s submission regarding provision of unsatisfactory
information is concerned, it is noticed that the present complaint-petition is
against the CPIO for giving incorrect and misleading information to
complainant with a delay of 14 days and, against the AA/holder-of-the-
information, for not providing information to complainant. It is, therefore,
inappropriate to take up the appeal part in the present complaint-petition.
Complainant, nevertheless, should he so desire, may approach the
Commission in 2nd-appeal. As regards complaint proceeding initiated against
the holder-of-the-information (AA), it has been clarified by him that he was
not the one who held the information and there was no reference made to
him for giving reply to present RTI-application. In view of this, the penalty
proceeding initiated against the Dy. Chairman as holder-of-the-information is
directed to be dropped.
9. As regards complaint against CPIO, it is noticed that the CPIO, in the
first instance, admittedly provided to complainant totally irrelevant
information with the delay of 14 days and, thereafter, at second-appellate
stage made evasive statements, which were later explained away as caused
by confusion. In sum, CPIO, in the present case, is noticed to be remiss in
dealing with the present RTI-application of the complainant which resulted in
multiple proceedings and delays.
Page 2 of 3
10. Considering the above, it is not possible to accept the CPIO’s
explanation which is rejected. It is accordingly ordered that a penalty of
Rs. 3,500/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred Only), at the rate of Rs.
250/- (Two Hundred Fifty Only)per day, for the delay of 14 days and, for
giving incorrect and misleading information to complainant, be imposed on
the Ex-CPIO, Shri K.C. Vyas, Kandla Port Trust.
11. The Head of the Public Authority, viz. the Chairman, Kandla Port
Trust is hereby directed that the amount of penalty shall be recovered
from Shri K.C. Vyas’s monthly pay-bill of January, 2010 and be remitted as
per the procedure annexed to this order. He shall also submit a report to
the Commission after the recovery of the penalty amount.
12. Copy of this decision be sent to the parties as well as the head of the
public authority, viz., Chairman, Kandla Port Trust.
(A.N. TIWARI)
Information Commissioner
Page 3 of 3