If possible 5(4) should be used to collecte info, instead of transfer
Join AntiCorruption Team to make the world better
Join AntiCorrutption Team
. Transfer under section 6(3) is not possible within a single public authority. (10/1/2005/CIC dated 25.02.06 & ICPB/C1/CIC/2006 dated 06.03.06)
If possible 5(4) should be used to collecte info, instead of transfer
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192692806/?type=print
It is relevant to note the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision dated 12.09.2014 in W.P(C) No. 6088/2014 in the matter of Ministry of Railways vs Girish Mittal, where it observed that CPIO cannot brush aside his responsibility by simply stating that the queries were marked to other officer. The operative part of the decision is extracted below:
" 15. The plain language of Section 6(3) of the Act indicates that the public authority would transfer the application or such part of it to another W.P.(C) No.6088/2014 Page 9 of 9 public authority where the information sought is more closely connected with the functions of the other authority. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Act is clearly misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the case. This is not a case where penalty has been imposed with respect to queries which have been referred to another public authority, but with respect to queries that were to be addressed by the public authority of which petitioner no. 2 is a Public Information Officer. Section 6(3) of the Act cannot be read to mean that the responsibility of a CPIO is only limited to forwarding the applications to different departments/offices. Forwarding an application by a public authority to another public authority is not the same as a Public Information Officer of a public authority arranging or sourcing information from within its own organisation. In the present case, undisputedly, certain information which was not provided to respondent would be available with the Railway Board and the CPIO was required to furnish the same. He cannot escape his responsibility to provide the information by simply stating that the queries were forwarded to other officials. Undeniably, the directions of CIC were not complied with."
In light of the above decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Commission is again duty bound to bring to the notice of the PIOs of the MoD, Navy and DRDO the above observation of the High Court, Delhi and to refrain from shifting onus of responsibility u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act unnecessarily. Further, while discharging his duties for providing necessary information to the appellant, the CPIO is authorised to take recourse to the facilities provided to him under Sec 5(4) of the RTI (deemed PIO) Act.
Be that as it may, on the basis of overall consideration of the fact especially as the time gap is considerable in this case, the Commission is of the view that the appellant is entitled to receive replies as applicable in the present situation. Further, considering the facts of the case in particular, according to the Commission, it would be proper to direct the CPIO Navy to take assistance of any officer u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act including US N-III and CPIO DRDO for providing requisite information to the appellant. Information as applicable in the present case under the RTI Act shall be provided within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, to the appellant without fail.
It is pertinent to note that any officer who does not assist the PIO u/s 5(4) of the Act willfully may be liable for obstruction of information which may attract penal consequences u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act.