Cataloguing, indexing and computerization of records.
Cataloguing, indexing and computerization of records.
In the case of Shri. Ishwar Lal vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Decision No.4620 /IC(A) /2009 F. No.CIC /MA /C /2009 / 000578 Dated, the 7th October, 2009. The CPIO has furnished partial information while the remaining information has been refused on the ground that relevant files are not traceable and the record in question is too old.
Judgement: The commission has made the following observations. The CPIO, has furnished partial information while the remaining information has been refused on the ground that relevant files are not traceable. Under section 4 (1) (a) of the Act, every public authority is required to 'maintain all its records duly categorized and indexed in a manner and the form which facilitates the right to information. In view of this, denial of information on the basis of nonavailability of records is not acceptable. The CPIO, is held responsible for violation of section 7 (1) of the Act since he has refused to provide the information without reasonable cause..
In case he has sought the assistance of the concerned officers, who may be deemed PIO, u/s 5(4) of the Act, he should identify and advise them to be present in the hearing to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed on them also, on the ground of mis-management of records and/or creation of obstacles in sharing of information.
The public authority, IOCL is also held responsible for improper record management, due to which vital information relating to allotment of LPG dealership have gone missing. This reflects both lack of proper record management by the concerned officials who were associated with the LPG dealership selection process as well as lackadaisical attitude of officials, who chose to refuse the information on the ground that 'files are not traceable' which is not an acceptable ground for denial of information to the affected persons. The respondents have also not submitted relevant evidence of having made sincere efforts to search and trace the file.
29
Commission is having the view that the respondents are suppressing vital facts for malafied reasons. Due to this, the appellant has surely suffered all kinds of losses, including mental harassment and right to pursue a profession due to nonavailability of information, which is clearly related to his livelihood. He therefore needs to be compensated, u/s 19 (8) (b) of the Act.
The Commission, therefore, holds that the respondent's CPIO, has deliberately provided incorrect and misleading information without any reasonable cause and is therefore held responsible for providing false and misleading information for which he is liable to pay a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), u/s 20(1) of the Act. The above amount of penalty is thus imposed on him.
An amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) is also awarded to the appellant u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act, to compensate for all types of losses - time and resources, in seeking access to information about the outcome of the selection process initiated by the respondent.