Shri.A M Attar vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 10 January, 2012

Central Information Commission in Shri.A M Attar vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 10 January, 2012 held that

Relevant facts emerging during the showcause hearing on 10/01/2012: Respondent: Mr. Saeed Ahmed Patel, PIO & Superintendent and Mr. M.A. Khan, AO;

The PIO Mr. Saeed Ahmed Patel has submitted his written submissions stating that in compliance of the Commission's order dated 02/12/2011 the information has been sent to the Appellant vide letter dated 22/12/2011. The PIO Mr. Saeed Ahmed Patel has stated that the reply dated 18/05/2011 refusing the information was furnished on the basis of the notings made by the Suptd.(Legal) Mr. Akbar Shaikh. The PIO has not been able to give any justification based on law for denying the information. The RTI application had been filed on 27/04/2011 and correct & complete information should have been provided before 27/05/2011. Instead the information has been provided to the Appellant only on 22/12/2011 i.e. after the Commission's order. Initially the PIO had denied the information on the ground that the matter is pending in court. Denial of information has to be based on the law and the onus of proving that denial of information was justified is on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act. The PIO has not been able to justify the denial of information and hence is liable to the penalty as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

 Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, "Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, 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, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;

 Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be." A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must impose penalty:

 1)     Refusal to receive an application for information.

2)     Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 – 30  days.

3)     Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request

 4) Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.

 All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ' without reasonable cause'.

 Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."

 Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub- section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.

 The information was delayed for over 100 days and no justification has been provided by the PIO for denying the information. In view of this the Commission imposes the maximum penalty of `25000/-as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on Mr. Saeed Ahmed Patel, PIO & Superintendent.

 Decision:

 As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Saeed Ahmed Patel, PIO & Superintendent. Since the delay in providing the correct information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Saeed Ahmed Patel `25000/ which is the maximum penalty under the Act.