Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + Commission Indian Laws - 2015 (2) TMI Commission This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 594 - Commission - Indian LawsImposition of penalty - Obstruction in the disclosure of information to the appellant in response to RTI application - Held that:- Commission notes that the FAA vide his order dated 1-2-2012, partly allowing the appeal held, as follows : “After receipt of reply from 3rd parties, the CPIO had also not informed about their decision to the appellant. This also appears to be due to oversight”. Further to this, the FAA ordered “The disclosure of information relating to the 3rd party, i.e. DOPT is allowed and its copy is enclosed with this order; and (iii) The disclosure of information relating to the other 3rd party i.e. the Supreme Court is not allowed, as disclosure of the information is exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1)(b), (e) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. A copy of the reply received from the concerned 3rd party is enclosed for information of the appellant”. Whereas, Shri Victor James, the then CPIO in his submissions dated 27-2-2014 and 9-4-2014 states that in response to Notice u/s 11 of the RTI Act the CPIO, Supreme Court of India vide letter dated 18-5-2011 denied disclosure of information to the appellant u/s 8(1)(b), (e) and (j) of the RTI Act to the appellant and the CPIO, Appointment Committee of Cabinet vide letter dated 17-11-2011 permitted disclosure of information and the CPIO had passed his order dated 18-11-2011 to disclose the information pertaining to ACC and not to disclose the information pertaining to Supreme Court of India. The contention of the CPIO is not borne out in view of the orders passed by the FAA as stated above. Moreover, the CPIO has not given any evidence with regard to dispatch of his letter dated 18-11-2011 to the appellant. The CPIO has failed to establish whether the said letter dated 18-11-2011 has been dispatched to the appellant. The third party information was only provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 15-2-2012 to the appellant only after the FAA’s order dated 1-2-2012. Shri Victor James, the then CPIO has caused a delay of 89 days in providing third party information to the appellant. The FAA has also erred in directing the CPIO to charge photocopying charges at appellate stage, which is violative of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. The respondent public authority is directed to refund ₹ 68/ to the appellant. A penalty of ₹ 22,250/- (Rupees twenty two thousand two hundred fifty only) [@ ₹ 250 x 89 days] is imposed u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 upon Shri Victor James, the then CPIO [presently posted as Director (Vigilance), East Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi] which shall be recovered in five monthly instalments of ₹ 4,450/- each from his pay and allowances from the month starting July, 2014 to November, 2014 - Decided in favour of appellant.
|