SHAIL SAHNI Vs. VALSA SARA MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court applied to CPIO, Delhi Cantonment Board on 15.4.2011 seeking certain information, vide his letter dated 10.5.2011. The CPIO informed the petitioner that the information sought by him was not clear and requested him to attend his office to clarify the information desired by him. Accordingly, the petitioner met with APIO in the presence of CPIO and gave certain clarifications with respect to the information sought by him. The CPIO of Western Command transferred another application of the petitioner dated 7.9.2012 to the CPIO of the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board on 13.9.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that the information sought by him has not been supplied so far. The petitioner, who appears in person, has sought the following directions:

(2.) Section 7(1) of the Right to Information Act, to the extent it is relevant, provides that CPIO or SPIO, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall either provide the information sought by the applicant or reject the request within 30 days of the receipt of the request. Sub section (2) of Section 7 provides that if the CPIO or SPIO, as the case may be, fails to give a decision on the request within the above referred time, he shall be deemed to have refused the request. Section 19(i) of the Act provides that a person who does not receive a decision within the time stipulated in sub section (1) of Section 7 may within 30 days from the expiry of such period prefer an appeal to such officer senior in rank to the CPIO or SPIO as the case may be. Such an appeal can be admitted even after expiry of the aforesaid period if the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing an appeal in time. The appeal preferred under sub section (1) of Section 19 is required to be disposed of within 30 days of its receipt or within such extended period not exceeding a total of 45 days from the date of filing, for reasons to be recorded in writing. A second appeal under sub section 3 of section 19 is provided to the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission against the decision given under sub section (1) of the said Section. The Commission is competent not only to require the Public Authority to provide access to the information but also to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriments suffered by him. The Commission can also impose any of the penalties provided under the Act. Section 20(1) of the Act provides that where the Commission at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, had, without any reasonable cause, refused to furnish information within the time specified time, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application was received or information is furnished subject to maximum penalty of twenty- five thousand rupees: The burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently lies the CPIO or the SPIO, as the case may be. The Commission is also competent to recommend disciplinary action against CPIO or SPIO in case it finds that he had without any reasonable cause and persistently not furnished the information within the specified time. The Commission is also mandated by law to receive and inquire into the complaint from any person who has been refused to access to any information requested under the Act or who has not been able to give a request in response of any information access within the time limit specified in the Act.

(3.) It would thus be seen that two remedies were available to the petitioner on account of the alleged failure of the CPIO to provide the requisite information to him. He could file an appeal before the senior officer of CPIO under Section 19(1) of the Act and could also make a complaint to the Commission under Section 18(1) of the Act. The remedy of appeal provided under Section 19(1) of the Act cannot be said to be a remedy less efficacious than a writ petition, since such an appeal is required to be decided within a maximum period of 45 days from the date it is filed. A complaint to the Commission is also an effective remedy since not only can the Commission impose penalty upon CPIO, it can also recommend disciplinary action against him. However, the petitioner has not chosen to avail remedies available to him under Section 18(1) and 19(1) of the Act.