PIO is responsible to collect the information from subordinates and provide correct information

g. in the matter of J P Agrawal vs Union of India & Ors., [2011 VII AD 

(Del.) 625], the Hon’ble Delhi High Court was pleased to explain the ambit of 

Sections 5(4) and 5(5) vis-à-vis the statutory responsibilities of the CPIO under 

Section 7(1) of the RTI Act in the following terms:

“7. Section 4 of the Act obliges every public authority to publish inter alia 

the particulars of facilities available to citizens for obtaining information 

and the names, designations and other particulars of the PIOs.

Section 5 requires the public authorities to designate PIO to provide information to 

persons requesting for information under the Act. Such PIOs, under 

Section 5(2) of the Act are to receive applications for information and 

under Section 5(3) of the Act are to deal with request from persons 

seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the information 

seekers. The Act having required the PIOs to "deal with" the request for 

information and to "render reasonable assistance" to the information 

seekers, cannot be said to have intended the PIOs to be merely Post 

Offices as the Petitioner would contend. The expression "deal with", in 

Karen Lambert v. London Borough of Southwark (2003) EWHC 2121 

(Admin) was held to include everything right from receipt of the 

application till the issue of decision thereon. Under Section 6(1) and 7(1) 

of the RTI Act, it is the PIO to whom the application is submitted and it is 

he who is responsible for ensuring that the information as sought is 

provided to the applicant within the statutory requirements of the Act. 

Section 5(4) is simply to strengthen the authority of the PIO within the 

department; if the PIO finds a default by those from whom he has sought 

information, the PIO is expected to recommend a remedial action to be 

taken. The RTI Act makes the PIO the pivot for enforcing the 

implementation of the Act. 

8. Even otherwise, the very requirement of designation of a PIO entails 

vesting the responsibility for providing information on the said PIO. As 

has been noticed above, penalty has been imposed on the Petitioner not 

for the reason of delay which the Petitioner is attributing to Respondent 

No. 4 but for the reason of the Petitioner having acted merely as a Post 

Office, pushing the application for information received, to the 

Respondent No. 4 and forwarding the reply received from the Respondent 

No. 4 to the information seeker, without himself "dealing" with the 

application and/or "rendering any assistance" to the information seeker. 

The CIC has found that the information furnished by the Respondent No. 

4 and/or his department and/or his administrative unit was not what 

was sought and that the Petitioner as PIO, without applying his mind 

merely forwarded the same to the information seeker. Again, as aforesaid 

the Petitioner has not been able to urge any ground on this aspect. The 

PIO is expected to apply his / her mind, duly analyse the material before 

him / her and then either disclose the information sought or give 

grounds for non-disclosure. A responsible officer cannot escape his 

responsibility by saying that he depends on the work of his subordinates. 

The PIO has to apply his own mind independently and take the 

appropriate decision and cannot blindly approve / forward what his 

subordinates have done.

Complaint No. CIC/CC/C/2016/000029, Mr. Venkatesh Nayak, Vs Central Public Information Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs order dated 20.09.2016