STATE Vs. MINISTRY OF FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN pursuance with the Commission's order of even number dated 18 -12 -2013 a show cause notice u/s. 20(1) of the R.T.I. Act, dated 27 -11 -2013 was issued by the Commission to Shri Victor James,, the then C.P.I.O. [presently posted as Director (Vig.), East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi] directing him to explain reasons why a penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - should not be imposed upon him for obstructing the disclosure of information to the appellant in response to his R.T.I. application dated 23 -4 -2011. Shri Victor James, the then C.P.I.O. attended the hearing. In his written submissions filed before the Commission, Shri Victor James, states as follows: • The R.T.I. application was received in the Section on 27 -4 -2011. Reply to the R.T.I. application was sent to the appellant on 5 -5 -2011. All the information was furnished to the appellant except 3rd party confidential information. Simultaneously notice to 3rd party i.e. Registrar General Supreme Court of India and Under Secretary A.C.C., D.O.P.T. were sent on 5 -5 -2011. The appellant inspected the records except 3rd party information on 13 -5 -2011; • On receipt of reply from both the 3rd parties, the C.P.I.O. decided to accept the contention of the 3rd parties and passed order dated 18 -11 -2011 to disclose information pertaining to D.O.P.T. and not to disclose the information pertaining to Supreme Court of India. Accordingly, a letter was dictated on the same day reflecting the decision of C.P.I.O. on 3rd party notices. The letter was dispatched to the appellant on 18 -11 -2011; • The appellant filed first appeal and the FAA passed order dated 1 -2 -2012 directing the C.P.I.O. to disclose decision on 3rd party information and to provide copies of certain documents to the appellant. Copies of relevant documents were provided to the appellant on receipt of requisite fees as directed by the FAA vide letter dated 15 -2 -2012; • In spite of providing all the information, the appellant repeatedly by following the procedures laid down in the R.T.I. Act, pled second appeal before the Commission pleading that information was not provided to him. The plea of the appellant is baseless as may be seen from the narration above. When the appellant kept on writing letters to the C.P.I.O. stating that full information was not provided to him, the C.P.I.O. requested the appellant to specify the information which he did not receive. However, the appellant chooses not to respond to the C.P.I.O. and approached the Commission in second appeal;

(2.) IN his written submissions dated 21 -3 -2014 filed by Shri(appellant) states as follows: • That as may be seen from Sl. No. 2 of the table of the written submissions, that the Appellant/Complainant had made a request for supply of copies of documents from the inspected records on the day of inspection itself i.e. 13 -5 -2011. However, the then C.P.I.O., Shri Victor James did not provide the same to the Appellant/Complainant despite repeated reminders (kindly see Sl. Nos. 6, 7 & 8 of the table). Till the date of final reminder dated 9 -11 -2011 the total delay caused by the C.P.I.O. in supplying copies of inspected documents was of 181 days (13 -5 -2011 to 9 -11 -2011). This delay was totally unwarranted and was caused by the then C.P.I.O. knowingly and malafidely which makes him liable for penalty u/s. 20(1) of the R.T.I. Act. • That the then C.P.I.O. also failed to adhere to time -lines stipulated u/s. 11(3) of the R.T.I. Act for taking decision with regard to the information which he claimed to be related to third party. As per Section 11(3) the C.P.I.O. is required to take decision on the matter within 40 days of receipt of R.T.I. application where third party has been given opportunity to make representation. However, in this case the then C.P.I.O. caused inordinate delay in taking decision on the matter despite repeated reminders thereby obstructed/delayed the supply of information to the Appellant/Complainant. In fact he has not taken any decision on the matter and acted only on the direction of FAA. Till the last reminder dated 9 -11 -2011 (Sl. No. 8 of the table), the total delay caused by the then C.P.I.O. in taking decision on the matter in terms of Section 11(3) of the R.T.I. Act was of 157 days excluding 40 days as per S. 11(3) (6 -6 -2011 to 9 -11 -2011). The then C.P.I.O. is therefore liable for penalty u/s. 20(1) of the R.T.I. Act as also recommendation for disciplinary action u/s. 20(2) of the R.T.I. Act. • That it may be seen from Sl. No. 5 of the table above that the one of the noticees i.e. Addl. Registrar, Supreme Court had given its reply to the C.P.I.O. on 18 -5 -2011 which was received by the then C.P.I.O. on 23 -5 -2011 (kindly see Annexure El which carries the then C.P.I.O.'s receiving). However yet the then C.P.I.O. remained silent and knowingly and malafidely did not take any action on the matter. This shows that the then C.P.I.O. had willfully not taken any decision on the matter in order to harass the Appellant/Complainant and causing obstruction to information. This calls for penalty u/s. 20(1) of the R.T.I. Act and also recommendation for disciplinary action u/s. 20(2) of the R.T.I. Act against the then C.P.I.O. • That it may be seen from Sl. No. 9 of the table in his written submissions that even after the DoPT gave its consent to the disclosure of information vide letter dated 17 -11 -2011 (Annexure E2) (though with a gross delay) the then C.P.I.O. did not provide even that information. He even suppressed this fact from the Appellant/Complainant and thereby obstructed the information which was allowed to be disclosed by the third party. This makes him liable for penalty u/s. 20(1) of the R.T.I. Act as also recommendation for disciplinary action u/s. 20(2) of the R.T.I. Act. • That Respondents further harassed the Appellant/Complainant by asking him to deposit fee for supply of copies of inspected document that is after 270 days of request for supply copies of documents. Kindly see Sl. No. 13 of the table. This decision of the then C.P.I.O./FAA was in contravention of Section 7(6) of the R.T.I. Act. • That as per Section 7(3) of the R.T.I. Act, it is for the C.P.I.O. to send the intimation regarding details of fee to be deposited by information seeker towards supply of information. However in this case the then C.P.I.O. had neither furnished the information, nor had he sent any intimation to the Appellant/Complainant regarding fee as per Section 7(3) of the R.T.I. Act. He deliberately and malafidely remained silent and did not provide information despite several reminders. This shows his mala fide intention and unwillingness to provide information which makes him liable for penalty u/s. 20(1) of the R.T.I. Act as also recommendation for disciplinary action u/s. 20(2) of the R.T.I. Act. • That even after having deposited the amount demanded by the then C.P.I.O., the then C.P.I.O. did not furnish the information completely. While he himself asked the Appellant/Complainant to deposit Rs. 68 (Annexure E3) for supply of 34 pages of information, he provided only 20 pages of information and illegally retained the remaining amount. Instead he asked the Appellant/Complainant to mention rest of information needed. This clearly shows the mala fide intention and ulterior motive of the then C.P.I.O. which was only to harass the Appellant/Complainant by one way or the other, thereby causing obstruction to information. This warrants imposition of maximum penalty u/s. 20(1) of the R.T.I. Act as also recommendation for disciplinary action u/s. 20(2) of the R.T.I. Act against the then C.P.I.O. • That moreover the mala fide of the then C.P.I.O. is already established before the CIC as recorded at para 6 of the CIC order. • That thus it is evident from the submission above that the then C.P.I.O. has caused a total delay of 279 days (13 -5 -2011 to 15 -2 -2012) in providing information to the Appellant/Complainant knowingly and malafidely which makes him liable for maximum penalty u/s. 20(1) of the R.T.I. Act as also recommendation for disciplinary action u/s. 20(2) of the R.T.I. Act. • That it is also evident from the facts of the case that the Appellant/Complainant has suffered detriment and has been put to great harassment, inconvenience and expenditure by the conduct of the then C.P.I.O. and deprived of the information within time. This calls for a suitable award of compensation to the appellant/Complainant u/s. 19(8)(b) of the R.T.I. Act. • That therefore it is requested that maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - be imposed on Shri Victor James, the then C.P.I.O. u/s. 20(1) of the R.T.I. Act for knowingly and malafidely causing delay and obstruction to information. Disciplinary action u/s. 20(2) of the R.T.I. Act may be also recommended against him for persistently causing obstruction to information. • That the Appellant/Complainant be also awarded compensation u/s. 19(8)(b) of the R.T.I. Act for the reasons explained above. • That the remaining information be also directed to be disclosed to the Appellant/Complainant without any further delay. • That the Appellant/Complainant may be heard before deciding the matter.

(3.) COMMISSION vide its letter of even number dated 31 -3 -2014 directed Shri Victor James, C.P.I.O. to furnish his counter submissions, if any, within two weeks on the written submissions dated 21 -3 -2014 filed by Shri(appellant).