Indian Laws - Commission

❯

❯❯

0 / 200

Expand Note

Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

NOTE:

Open Link

Case Laws

All › Indian Laws › Indian Laws - Commission

Showing Results for :

Reset Filters

Results Found:

Page of 6

Press 'Enter' after typing page number.

41 to 60 of 112 Results

Show AI Text Quick Glance by AI Headnote

2014 (1) TMI 1244 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Commission penalizes CPIO for delayed disclosure, imposes Rs. 1,000 fine
The Commission directed the CPIO to provide complete information to the appellant within a specified timeframe. It noted that the CPIO had provided misleading information and issued a show-cause notice for potential penalty imposition. The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 on the CPIO for the delayed disclosure of the enquiry report, causing genuine detriment to the appellant.

Right to Information - Duty to disclose records - Third party objection - Section 8(1)(h) exemption - Misleading information by CPIO - Penalty under Section 20(1)Right to Information - Duty to disclose records - Third party objection - Section 8(1)(h) exemption - Whether the CPIO must provide the complete information sought in the RTI application despite a third party's communication and the FAA's reliance on Section 8(1)(h). - HELD THAT: - The Commission examined the RTI request and the responses of the CPIO and the third party (CESTAT). The FAA had sustained non-disclosure on the ground that the enquiry process was not concluded and therefore disclosure was exempt under Section 8(1)(h). The Commission observed that the third party had not invoked any exemption provision nor had the CPIO furnished reasons explaining how disclosure would impede investigation or prosecution. Reading the RTI application as a whole showed the appellant sought a single enquiry report; the CPIO's answers were contradictory but that did not alter the statutory obligation to supply information if no valid exemption is demonstrated. In consequence, the Commission found no adequate basis for exemption and directed the CPIO to supply complete information as per records, free of cost, within ten days.CPIO directed to provide complete information as per record to the appellant, free of cost, within ten days.Misleading information by CPIO - Penalty under Section 20(1) - Whether the CPIO provided misleading information and whether penalty should be imposed. - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that the CPIO had given contradictory and prima facie misleading replies - stating both that the enquiry report had been received and that no such report had been received - whereas the Registrar, CESTAT had earlier forwarded a copy of the report to the Department. The CPIO's explanation that he was confused about two different reports was rejected as an afterthought. The Commission considered the seriousness and concluded that, while the explanation did not justify severe punishment, the conduct warranted imposition of a modest penalty. The Commission therefore ordered recovery of a monetary penalty from the CPIO's salary and directed transmission of the amount to the Commission in the prescribed manner.Penalty of Rs. 1,000 imposed on the CPIO; recovery to be made by the Commissioner, EDMC and remitted to the Commission as directed.Final Conclusion: The Commission directed disclosure of the complete information sought under the RTI application and, having found that the CPIO furnished misleading information without adequate explanation, imposed a monetary penalty of Rs. 1,000 to be recovered from the CPIO's salary and remitted to the Commission.

2013 (7) TMI 1007 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) delayed or denied information in such a manner as to attract penalty under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act.

2. Whether the directions of the First Appellate Authority requiring provision/inspection of specific leave records were complied with, and if not, whether partial compliance and subsequent production cured the breach.

3. Whether workload and multiple pending RTI requests provide a lawful or sufficient justification to excuse delay in compliance with an appellate direction, and how that affects the quantum of penalty.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Liability under Section 20 for delay or denial of information

Legal framework: Section 20 of the RTI Act prescribes imposition of penalty on a CPIO who, without reasonable cause, refuses to receive an application, fails to provide information within the time limits, malafidely denies information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information.

Precedent Treatment: No precedents were invoked or relied upon in the reasoning; the Commission applied statutory tests directly to the facts.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Commission examined whether the CPIO complied with the Appellate Authority's order to provide inspection of two specified leave records. The CPIO had offered inspection of one file (study leave of Ms. A.) by letter dated 1-7-2011 but did not offer inspection of the other file (leave records of the President) until 19-1-2012. The Commission treated the failure to provide inspection of the President's leave file within a reasonable time after the appellate direction as a delay under Section 20.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A CPIO's partial compliance with an appellate direction, where required information is not offered for inspection within a reasonable time, can constitute delay attracting penalty under Section 20. Obiter - None material beyond application of statutory standard.

Conclusion: The CPIO was held liable under Section 20 for causing delay in providing the information ordered by the First Appellate Authority.

Issue 2 - Compliance with First Appellate Authority's directions (whether information was provided)

Legal framework: Obligation to comply with directions of the First Appellate Authority and to furnish information or permit inspection as directed.

Precedent Treatment: No prior authorities discussed; factual compliance assessed against appellate direction and timeline.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Commission differentiated between the two records. It accepted that inspection of the study leave file was offered and carried out, and that the President's leave file was later made available, but found that the appellate order was only partially complied with within a reasonable timeframe. The Commission considered the dates of transfer of the RTI, the appellate direction (30-6-2011), the initial offer of inspection (1-7-2011) limited to one file, and the later offer (19-1-2012) for the second file - a delay of months inconsistent with prompt compliance.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Full compliance with an appellate direction requires timely provision of each item/dataset directed; partial or delayed provision does not cure non-compliance in respect of the delayed item. Obiter - Prior inspections of the same file for other RTI requests do not alone establish compliance with the specific appellate order unless the exact information was available and offered within the required time.

Conclusion: The appellate direction was only partially complied with within a reasonable time; the delayed furnishing of the President's leave records constituted non-compliance with respect to that item.

Issue 3 - Effect of workload and multiple pending RTI applications on culpability and penalty quantum

Legal framework: Section 20 requires absence of reasonable cause for delay; administrative burden or workload may be relevant to determine reasonableness but does not automatically absolve statutory liability.

Precedent Treatment: No precedents cited; the Commission applied equitable and pragmatic considerations sua sponte.

Interpretation and reasoning: The CPIO explained that approximately twenty-five RTI applications were pending and that simultaneous attention to all within statutory timeframes was impossible. The Commission acknowledged that overload of work can partly explain delay but held that such explanation cannot be wholly dispositive where an appellate authority's direction remains only partially complied with. Balancing the admitted delay against the stated difficulty, the Commission exercised discretion to mitigate the maximum statutory penalty and impose a reduced monetary penalty.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Administrative overload may mitigate but does not negate liability under Section 20; the competent authority may exercise discretion in fixing the penalty, taking mitigating factors into account. Obiter - The precise number of pending RTI matters or their complexity must be demonstrated with contemporaneous records to fully excuse delay.

Conclusion: Workload was a mitigating factor but insufficient to exonerate the CPIO; a reduced penalty (Rs. 5,000) was imposed rather than the maximum permitted amount.

Ancillary Directions and Enforcement

Legal framework: Imposition and recovery of penalty under the Act, direction to the administrative head for salary recovery and remittance.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Commission directed recovery of the imposed penalty from the CPIO's salary and specified the mode and timeline for remittance to the Commission's designated officer, demonstrating enforcement mechanisms where penalty is imposed.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where penalty under Section 20 is imposed, the competent authority may direct salary recovery and specify remittance procedures. Obiter - Administrative directions on remittance particulars are procedural and not part of the legal ratio on liability.

Conclusion: A monetary penalty of Rs. 5,000 was ordered to be recovered from the CPIO's salary and remitted to the designated office within a fixed period.

Commission penalizes CPIO for information delay; directs recovery from salary.
The Commission issued a show cause notice to the CPIO of Dept. of Revenue for delay in providing information, ultimately imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000 on the then CPIO, Shri Victor James. The CPIO partially complied with the appellate authority's order within a reasonable timeframe, leading to the penalty due to the delay in providing certain information sought by the appellant. The East Delhi Municipal Corporation was directed to recover the penalty amount from Shri Victor James's salary and send a Demand Draft to the Central Information Commission.

Penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 - transfer of RTI application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act - compliance with directions of the first appellate authority - offer of inspection as discharge of obligation to provide information - delay in providing information - overload of work as a mitigating/exculpatory factorPenalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 - compliance with directions of the first appellate authority - offer of inspection as discharge of obligation to provide information - delay in providing information - overload of work as a mitigating/exculpatory factor - Whether the CPIO delayed or denied information in breach of the first appellate authority's order so as to attract penalty and, if so, the quantum of penalty. - HELD THAT: - The RTI application of 25-4-2011 was transferred to CESTAT on 6-5-2011; the Appellate Authority on 30-6-2011 directed the CPIO, Department of Revenue, to provide information relating to the study leave of Ms. Archana Wadhwa and the leave details of the President, CESTAT, within 15 days. The CPIO invited the appellant on 1-7-2011 to inspect the file relating to Ms. Wadhwa's study leave but the file containing the President's leave records was then under submission and could not be offered; an offer of inspection for the President's file was first made on 19-1-2012. The Commission found that the Appellate Authority's order was only partially complied with within a reasonable time and that full compliance was delayed. The CPIO's explanation that he had numerous pending RTI applications and an overload of work was considered and found to partly explain but not wholly excuse the delay. Applying the statutory scheme for imposition of penalty for undue delay, the Commission exercised its discretion to impose a reduced penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case.A penalty of Rs.5,000 is imposed on Shri Victor James (then CPIO); the Commissioner, EDMC, is directed to recover the amount from his salary and remit a Demand Draft in favour of 'PAO CAT' to the Commission within five weeks.Final Conclusion: The Commission held that the Appellate Authority's directions were not fully complied with within a reasonable time, that there was culpable delay by the CPIO (partly mitigated by workload), and accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000 to be recovered from the CPIO's salary and remitted to the Commission.

2013 (12) TMI 1171 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Right to information cannot be refused for non-maintenance of records where data can be readily collected from registries.
Requested information concerning appeals, complaints, or penalty proceedings could not be denied merely because the registries said they were not maintaining it. The Commission found that such cases would be limited in number and that the relevant data could be collected without difficulty from the concerned registries. It therefore required the public authority to gather and provide the information, IC-wise, instead of refusing disclosure on a non-maintenance of records objection.

Obligation of public authority to collect and furnish requested information - duty of the Central Public Information Officer to revisit and supply information - maintenance (or non-maintenance) of records as response to RTI request - delay in passing orders (orders not passed within sixty days of hearing)Duty of the Central Public Information Officer to revisit and supply information - maintenance (or non-maintenance) of records as response to RTI request - obligation of public authority to collect and furnish requested information - delay in passing orders (orders not passed within sixty days of hearing) - Whether the CPIO must obtain and supply, IC wise, the list of appeals, complaints or penalty proceedings in which orders were not passed within sixty days of hearing for the year 2012-2013, notwithstanding registries' statements that such information was not maintained. - HELD THAT: - The registries responded that they were not maintaining the information sought. The Commission found that the number of cases where orders were not passed within sixty days of hearing would be small and therefore registries could, without undue burden, collect the required particulars. It was held that a plea of non-maintenance of records was not appropriate in the circumstances and that the CPIO has the duty to revisit the matter and arrange collection of the information from the concerned registries before responding to the RTI applicant. Pursuant to this reasoning, the CPIO was directed to compile and supply the information IC wise within a specified short time-frame.CPIO directed to revisit the matter, collect the requested IC wise information regarding appeals/complaints/penalty proceedings where orders were not passed within sixty days of hearing for 2012-2013, and supply it to the appellant within two weeks.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed to the extent that the CPIO is directed to obtain from the Registries and furnish, IC wise for 2012 2013, the list of appeals, complaints or penalty proceedings in which orders were not passed within sixty days of hearing, to be supplied within two weeks.

2014 (1) TMI 1414 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues involved:
1. Disclosure of information sought under RTI application.
2. Applicability of exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
3. Right to privacy concerning disclosure of taxpayer information.
4. Public interest in disclosing tax-related information.
5. Duty of the Income Tax Department to provide requested information.

Analysis:
1. The appellant had filed an RTI application seeking various information related to Income Tax assesses, defaulters, recovery steps, tax assessments, collections, and write-offs. The CPIO and AA had provided limited information, citing exemptions under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act for certain queries.

2. The CPIO had denied information on some queries, stating that they were third-party information not disclosable under the RTI Act. However, the AA ordered disclosure of information on one query while transferring others to different departments. The appellant persisted in seeking information on specific queries related to tax assesses, defaulters, and write-offs.

3. The appellant argued for the disclosure of top Income Tax assesses and defaulters' names, emphasizing public interest and motivation for tax compliance. The Commission highlighted the importance of transparency and motivation for taxpayers, stating that disclosure of such information is unlikely to adversely affect Central Revenues.

4. The Commission referred to a Supreme Court judgment on the right to privacy concerning bank account details and emphasized the need for establishing prima facie grounds before disclosing sensitive information. The Commission noted that disclosure of defaulter information should be based on legal remedies exhausted and proper investigations conducted.

5. The Commission directed the Addl. DIT to provide information on specified queries related to tax assesses, defaulters, and write-offs for the last two years. The decision was made to balance the appellant's request with the workload of the department, emphasizing the public's right to know such information for transparency and accountability purposes.

Commission Orders Disclosure of Tax Information to Ensure Transparency and Accountability
The Commission directed the Addl. DIT to provide information on specified queries related to tax assesses, defaulters, and write-offs for the last two years, balancing the appellant's request with the department's workload and emphasizing the public's right to know for transparency and accountability. The decision highlighted the importance of transparency and motivation for taxpayers, stating that disclosing such information is unlikely to adversely affect Central Revenues.

Disclosure of identities of assessees and written-off tax liabilities - third party information - exemptions under Section 8(1) - commercial confidence - right to privacy - prima facie grounds - statistical information - public interest override - impact on Central RevenuesDisclosure of identities of assessees and written-off tax liabilities - third party information - exemptions under Section 8(1) - commercial confidence - Disclosure of the list of top ten Income Tax assessees (in specified categories) sought under para 1 of the RTI application - HELD THAT: - The Commission held that merely seeking the names of top ten assessees in the stated categories does not attract the exemptions relied upon by the CPIO under the RTI Act. The disclosure of names is not shown to be information about the assessees' assets or commercially sensitive particulars that would harm the competitive position of third parties, nor is there material to demonstrate threat to life or safety. Historical practice of publicly felicitating high taxpayers indicates that disclosure of names is not inherently detrimental to revenue protection; rather it may promote voluntary compliance. Consequently, clauses invoked by the public authority were not attracted. To reduce administrative burden the Commission limited disclosure to the last two years only and directed provision of the information accordingly. [Paras 6, 10]Set aside the CPIO/First Appellate Authority decisions in so far as they refused para 1 and direct disclosure of the information for 2010-11 and 2011-12 within four weeks.Right to privacy - prima facie grounds - disclosure of identities of assessees and written-off tax liabilities - Disclosure of the list of top ten Income Tax defaulters (para 2 of the RTI application) - HELD THAT: - The Commission considered the principle extracted from the Supreme Court in Ram Jethmalani that revelation of bank or similar financial details without prima facie grounds of wrongdoing would violate the right to privacy. An assessee can be declared a defaulter only after due process and exhaustion of legal remedies; disclosure of names of top defaulters is permissible where the State itself, through properly conducted investigations or records, has established prima facie grounds. On the material before it the Commission found no sufficient basis to sustain the blanket refusal and therefore directed disclosure, subject to the same two-year limitation (2010-11 and 2011-12) imposed to limit work-load and for administrative practicality. [Paras 8, 9, 10]Set aside the refusal on para 2 and direct disclosure of the requested information for 2010-11 and 2011-12 within four weeks.Statistical information - disclosure of identities of assessees and written-off tax liabilities - impact on Central Revenues - Disclosure of (a) total Income Tax dues written off year-wise (para 6) and (b) top ten cases of Income Tax written off with identities in specified categories (para 7) - HELD THAT: - The Commission treated para 6 as a request for statistical information and held there was no justification for withholding such data from the public domain. Para 7 sought identities of parties in major write-off cases; the Commission observed that write-offs affect Central Revenues and that the public has a right to know the identities of those whose tax liabilities have been written off. Neither para was found to be barred by the RTI Act. For administrative convenience, disclosure was ordered only for the last two years (2010-11 and 2011-12). [Paras 9, 10]Set aside the CPIO/FAA refusals in respect of paras 6 and 7 and direct disclosure of the information for 2010-11 and 2011-12 within four weeks.Final Conclusion: The Commission set aside the orders of the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority and directed that information called for in paras 1, 2, 6 and 7 of the RTI application be furnished to the appellant, limited to the years 2010-11 and 2011-12, within four weeks.

2014 (1) TMI 1463 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Commission Holds Officials Liable for RTI Delays, Contemplates Penalty
The Commission found both the CPIO and Asstt. Registrar responsible for delays in providing information under the RTI Act. They were directed to show cause why a penalty of Rs. 250 per day should not be imposed on them for the delays. The CPIO was faulted for delayed action on the RTI application and subsequent delays in providing access to files, while the Asstt. Registrar failed to ensure timely availability of files for inspection. The Commission stressed the significance of prompt handling of RTI requests to maintain transparency and accountability in governance.

Delay in furnishing information under the Right to Information Act - duty of CPIO to provide access to records and inspection - prima facie liability for penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act - disciplinary action under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act - power of first appellate authority to direct complianceDelay in furnishing information under the Right to Information Act - duty of CPIO to provide access to records and inspection - prima facie liability for penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act - Both the CPIO and the Assistant Registrar were prima facie responsible for delay in providing the requested inspection and documents and are to be issued show cause notices proposing imposition of penalty. - HELD THAT: - The appellant filed an RTI application seeking inspection of specified files and copies. The CPIO acknowledged the request and fixed dates for inspection but part of the files were not made available on the scheduled date. Following the appellant's appeal, the FAA directed supply of the documents and tracing of the missing part. The CPIO sought the files from the Assistant Registrar to enable inspection; the Assistant Registrar initially offered a date but later declined inspection on the ground that the file was under submission and it transpired the file had been submitted to the Registrar and not returned. The Commission finds that delay occurred both in the CPIO's action (delay in processing and in ensuring availability of files for inspection) and in the Assistant Registrar's failure to make the file available despite prior communication. On these findings the conduct of both officers attracts prima facie liability under the penalty provisions and warrants issuance of separate show cause notices why penalty should not be imposed.Separate show cause notices to be issued to the CPIO and the Assistant Registrar proposing penalty of Rs. 250 per day for causing delay in providing information; matter for further proceedings on those notices.Final Conclusion: The Commission found delay in providing the requested inspection and documents and held both the CPIO and the Assistant Registrar prima facie responsible; it directed issuance of separate show cause notices proposing penalty under the RTI Act and remitted the matter for further action on those notices.

2013 (6) TMI 289 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues: (i) Whether political parties fall within the definition of public authority under section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005; (ii) Whether the financial benefits received by political parties from the Government amount to substantial financing within section 2(h)(ii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005; (iii) Whether the constitutional and statutory role of political parties supports their classification as public authorities.

Issue (i): Whether political parties fall within the definition of public authority under section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: The definition of public authority is broad enough to include bodies constituted by notification and non-government organisations substantially financed by funds provided by the appropriate Government. Political parties were not treated as bodies established under a statute or by notification, but their registration with the Election Commission, statutory recognition, and the benefits attached to that status were treated as relevant to their public character.

Conclusion: Political parties were held to fall within section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Issue (ii): Whether the financial benefits received by political parties from the Government amount to substantial financing within section 2(h)(ii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: The Commission treated allotment of land and office accommodation at concessional rates, complete income-tax exemption, and free broadcast time on public media as indirect financing by the appropriate Government. It held that substantial financing does not require majority financing and must be assessed on the totality of the benefits conferred.

Conclusion: The financial assistance was held to be substantial indirect financing, bringing the political parties within section 2(h)(ii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Issue (iii): Whether the constitutional and statutory role of political parties supports their classification as public authorities.

Analysis: Political parties were treated as central institutions in a constitutional democracy, with statutory roles in registration, recognition, election symbols, expenditure reporting, and defection-related consequences under the Constitution and election law. These features were relied upon to show their public character and continuing public functions.

Conclusion: Political parties were held to have a public character and were declared public authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Final Conclusion: The complaints succeeded, the earlier contrary view was set aside, and the political parties were directed to appoint information officers and comply with disclosure obligations under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A political party that is substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by government-conferred benefits and that performs public functions connected with democratic governance falls within section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Political parties as public authorities under RTI: substantial indirect financing and public functions triggered disclosure duties.
Political parties were treated as public authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005 because their registration, statutory recognition and democratic functions gave them a public character. The Commission also held that government-conferred benefits such as concessional land, office accommodation, income-tax exemption and free broadcast time amounted to substantial indirect financing; substantial financing was found to be assessed on the totality of benefits, not majority funding. On that basis, the complaints succeeded, the contrary view was set aside, and the parties were directed to appoint information officers and comply with disclosure obligations.

Public authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act - non-government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government - indirect financing by allotment of land and buildings, concessional rent, tax exemptions, free broadcast and supply of electoral rolls - performance of public duty / public function - registration and recognition by the Election Commission under section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 - designation of CPIOs and Appellate Authorities and compliance with section 4(1)(b) of the RTI ActPublic authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act - non-government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government - indirect financing by allotment of land and buildings, concessional rent, tax exemptions, free broadcast and supply of electoral rolls - performance of public duty / public function - registration and recognition by the Election Commission under section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 - Whether INC/AICC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP are 'public authorities' within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - HELD THAT: - The Commission examined whether these political parties fall within the inclusive limbs of section 2(h), in particular as "non-government organisation[s] substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate Government". The record showed allotment of land in Delhi and accommodation on concessional terms, full exemption from income tax under section 13A, free broadcast time during elections on AIR and Doordarshan and supply of electoral rolls by the Election Commission. These tangible and intangible benefits were treated as forms of indirect financing. The Commission applied the established principle that "substantial financing" is not to be equated with majority financing and must be assessed on the facts of each case; percentage tests are not determinative. Having regard to the aggregate of concessions and benefits (concessional land and rents, tax exemption and free broadcast/rolls), the Commission concluded that the Central Government has contributed significantly to the finances of the parties and that such financing is substantial in the statutory sense. In addition, the Commission considered the nature of functions performed by political parties - their central role in the democratic process, powers under the Tenth Schedule, statutory recognition and obligations under section 29A/29C of the Representation of People Act, and the Election Commission's regulatory framework - and held that these demonstrate performance of public duties and further support their character as public authorities. Taking the cumulative effect of substantial indirect financing, performance of public functions and statutory/constitutional recognition, the Commission held that the specified national parties qualify as public authorities under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. [Paras 72, 76, 85, 92, 93]AICC/INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP are public authorities under section 2(h) of the RTI Act; they are directed to designate CPIOs and Appellate Authorities at their headquarters within six weeks and to comply with section 4(1)(b); the Single Bench order to the contrary is set aside.Final Conclusion: The Commission held that All India Congress Committee/INC, BJP, CPI(M), CPI, NCP and BSP are 'public authorities' under section 2(h) of the RTI Act on the combined grounds of substantial indirect financing by the appropriate Government, performance of public duties and their statutory/constitutional status; directions were issued for designation of CPIOs/appellate authorities and for compliance with proactive disclosure obligations.

2013 (5) TMI 984 - Central Information Commission, New Delhi Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Central Information Commission rules CPIO not obligated to disclose information under RTI Act, suggests seeking legal counsel.
The Central Information Commission ruled that the CPIO was not obligated to disclose information sought by the Appellant under the RTI Act regarding queries related to a SEBI case. The Commission emphasized that the CPIO's role is to provide existing records, not opinions, and suggested the Appellant seek legal counsel for such queries. Despite disagreeing with the CPIO's reasoning based on the case being sub judice, the Commission upheld the decision, concluding that no disclosure was required. The case was disposed of with copies of the order provided to the parties at no cost.

Right to information under the RTI Act - existing material record - opinion versus information - CPIO's duty to provide available records - no obligation on CPIO to create new records - judicial proceedings and disclosure of informationOpinion versus information - existing material record - no obligation on CPIO to create new records - Whether the CPIO was obliged under the RTI regime to answer queries that primarily sought legal opinion rather than existing records - HELD THAT: - The Commission examined the RTI application and found that most queries sought the CPIO's view on the legality of SEBI's decision to initiate prosecution and on questions of criminal liability rather than requests for copies of existing records. Under the RTI framework information is limited to existing material records; the CPIO may furnish copies of available records but cannot create new records or provide legal opinions. The Commission observed that questions such as whether criminal liability can be fixed on a person who is neither director nor shareholder require legal adjudication and fall outside the CPIO's remit. A legal counsel would be better placed to address such queries. Consequently, the requests were characterized as seeking opinion and not disclosable information. [Paras 5]The CPIO was not required to disclose the information because the queries sought opinion rather than existing records, and the CPIO has no obligation to create new records or give legal opinions.Judicial proceedings and disclosure of information - CPIO's duty to provide available records - Whether the pendency of proceedings before a court precluded disclosure by the CPIO in this case - HELD THAT: - The Commission accepted that the CPIO had refused disclosure on the ground that the matter was pending before a court and relevant records were in the court's possession. However, the Commission did not agree with this reason as the determinative basis for refusal. The Commission clarified that refusal in the present case was appropriate for the primary reason that the applicant sought opinions rather than existing records; the pendency of judicial proceedings, as stated by the CPIO, was not accepted by the Commission as the operative ground for denial. [Paras 6]Pendency of judicial proceedings was not accepted as the decisive reason for refusal; nonetheless, disclosure was not ordered because the requests were for opinion rather than for existing records.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed: no disclosure ordered because the RTI requests sought legal opinions rather than existing material records; the CPIO is not required to create records or furnish opinions, and the Commission did not accept pendency of court proceedings as the operative ground for refusal.

2014 (1) TMI 1502 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues:
1. Interpretation of RTI application queries related to Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
2. Claim of exemption from disclosure under RTI Act.
3. Compliance with directions of Central Information Commission.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information related to alleged protests by the Union Petroleum Ministry against the Additional Solicitor General appearing in a court case. The queries included requests for detailed information, correspondence, and documents regarding the protests. The Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas had initially refused to disclose the information, citing confidentiality and sensitivity. However, the Commission noted that the respondent did not claim any exemption under the RTI Act and failed to justify how disclosure would attract any exemption. As per the decision in Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, the right to access information is fundamental, and exemptions must be strictly construed. Therefore, the Commission directed the respondent to provide information on specific points of the RTI application, except for one query that did not fall under the definition of "information" as per the Act.

2. The Commission emphasized that a public authority can only claim exemption from disclosure as per Section 8(1) of the RTI Act. In this case, the respondent did not provide any valid grounds for withholding the information sought by the appellant. The Commission's decision was based on the principle that exemptions under Section 8 should not overshadow the fundamental right to access information. By not claiming any exemption and failing to demonstrate how disclosure would meet any exemption criteria, the respondent was directed to comply with the request for information within two weeks from the receipt of the order.

3. The Commission's order required the respondent to provide the requested information within a specified timeframe. Failure to comply with the directions within two weeks would result in non-compliance with the Commission's order. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the directives issued by the Central Information Commission in response to RTI applications.

Ministry ordered to disclose info in RTI request on protests against Additional Solicitor General
The Central Information Commission directed the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to provide information sought in an RTI application regarding protests against the Additional Solicitor General. The Commission emphasized the fundamental right to access information and the strict interpretation of exemptions under the RTI Act. The respondent was instructed to disclose the requested information, except for one query not falling under the Act's definition of "information." Failure to comply within two weeks would constitute non-compliance with the Commission's order, highlighting the importance of adhering to directives in response to RTI applications.

Access to information is the rule and exemptions under Section 8 are to be strictly construed - Requirement for public authority to claim exemption under Section 8(1) - Definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - Confidentiality of internal communications does not automatically attract exemption unless statutory test is satisfiedAccess to information is the rule and exemptions under Section 8 are to be strictly construed - Requirement for public authority to claim exemption under Section 8(1) - Respondent directed to furnish information sought at points (2) and (3) of the RTI application. - HELD THAT: - The Commission noted the settled principle that access to information is the norm and exemptions under Section 8 are exceptions, citing Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner. The Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, though asserting confidentiality in its submission, did not invoke any specific exemption under Section 8(1) nor demonstrated how disclosure would attract a statutory exemption. In absence of a claimed and substantiated exemption under the Act, the respondent could not withhold the requested documents/correspondence/file notings relating to the Ministry's protest or the letter dated 4-7-2011 urging replacement of the ASG. Consequently, the Commission directed disclosure of information on points (2) and (3).Information on points (2) and (3) is to be provided; nondisclosure was not justified in absence of a claimed Section 8(1) exemption.Definition of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act - Confidentiality of internal communications does not automatically attract exemption unless statutory test is satisfied - The matter raised at point (5) of the RTI application does not constitute 'information' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Act and therefore falls outside the scope of disclosure under the RTI Act. - HELD THAT: - The Commission examined the nature of the query in point (5) and held that it does not fall within the statutory definition of 'information' as provided in Section 2(f). The recording indicates that the allegation about ASG's actions vis-a -vis Ministry instructions and affidavit is not information amenable to disclosure under the Act. Accordingly, point (5) need not be answered under RTI.Point (5) does not fall within the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f) and need not be provided.Final Conclusion: The Commission directed the respondent to furnish the information sought at points (2) and (3) within two weeks, while holding that point (5) does not constitute 'information' under the RTI Act; nondisclosure was not sustained as no Section 8(1) exemption was claimed or shown.

2013 (10) TMI 39 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Commission orders disclosure, issues notice for misleading information under RTI Act Section 20(1)
The Commission directed the CPIO to provide complete information to the appellant within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling the RTI request. The CPIO was found to have provided misleading information, prompting the Commission to issue a show-cause notice under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.

Disclosure exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act relating to interference with investigation or enquiry - third party objection in RTI proceedings - obligation of the CPIO/FAA to record and communicate reasons when denying information - duty to furnish complete information in response to an RTI request - misleading information by CPIO and show-cause under Section 20(1) of the RTI ActDisclosure exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act relating to interference with investigation or enquiry - third party objection in RTI proceedings - obligation of the CPIO/FAA to record and communicate reasons when denying information - duty to furnish complete information in response to an RTI request - Whether the respondent was justified in withholding information on the ground of ongoing enquiry and third party objection and whether reasons for nondisclosure were adequately recorded - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that the third party (CESTAT) did not invoke any exemption provision nor did the CPIO supply specific reasons demonstrating how disclosure would impede any investigation or enquiry. The FAA relied on Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act to sustain nondisclosure but failed to articulate how disclosure would obstruct the process of enquiry. In absence of such reasons and of a validly invoked exemption by the third party, the statutory duty to supply information prevailed. Accordingly the CPIO was directed to furnish complete information as per record to the appellant free of cost within ten days. [Paras 6, 7]Disclosure refused by the CPIO/FAA under Section 8(1)(h) was unsustainable for lack of reasons; the CPIO is directed to provide the complete information sought.Misleading information by CPIO and show-cause under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act - duty to furnish complete information in response to an RTI request - Whether the CPIO furnished misleading information and whether action under Section 20(1) is warranted - HELD THAT: - The Commission observed that the CPIO's reply stated that no final report of the Inquiry Committee had been received, whereas the Registrar of CESTAT had, by earlier correspondence, forwarded a copy of the report to the Department of Revenue. This amounted to prima facie misleading information being provided to the appellant. On that basis the Commission directed that a show cause notice under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act be issued to the then CPIO asking him to explain why penalty should not be imposed. [Paras 8]A show cause notice under Section 20(1) shall be issued to the then CPIO for providing prima facie misleading information.Final Conclusion: The Commission set aside the denial of information for want of adequate reasons and directed disclosure of the requested records; additionally, it directed issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act to the then CPIO for prima facie furnishing misleading information.

2013 (9) TMI 786 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Central Information Commission issues show cause notice and penalties for delays, misstatements, and non-compliance in RTI application
The Central Information Commission issued a show cause notice to the CPIO and deemed CPIO for delays in providing information to the appellant, ranging from penalties of two hundred and fifty rupees to twenty-five thousand rupees. The appellant's concerns regarding misstatements, non-compliance with maintaining specific registers, and incomplete information were addressed during the hearing, with the CPIO clarifying typographical errors and providing evidence of correspondence. The Commission's decision aimed to address the issues of delay, misstatements, and non-compliance highlighted in the RTI application and subsequent appeals.

Delay in furnishing information - penalty for failure to furnish information under the Right to Information regime - show cause notice - responsibility of CPIO and deemed CPIO - maintenance of administrative registers pursuant to earlier appellate directionDelay in furnishing information - penalty for failure to furnish information under the Right to Information regime - show cause notice - responsibility of CPIO and deemed CPIO - Prima facie delay by the CPIO and the deemed CPIO in furnishing information and initiation of penalty proceedings by issuance of show cause notices. - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that there was prima facie delay in providing the information sought by the appellant and, on that basis, directed that a separate show cause notice be issued to the CPIO and the deemed CPIO to explain why penalty should not be imposed for causing such delay. The Commission's finding rests on the record of non-receipt of timely information and the first appellate authority's order noting the registers were to be maintained, together with the subsequent conduct of the CPIO and deemed CPIO in responding. Consequently, the matter of imposing penalty is directed to proceed by way of show cause notices to afford the concerned officers an opportunity to explain the delay before any final penalty determination is made. [Paras 5, 6]Show cause notices to issue to the CPIO and deemed CPIO to explain why a penalty should not be imposed for delay in providing information.Typographical error in official order - production of contemporaneous records to rebut alleged misstatements - The CPIO's explanation that the first appellate authority's reference to the "vigilance officer" was a typographical error and production of letters addressed to the Assistant Registrar (deemed CPIO) was accepted for the present proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The CPIO produced the letters dated 9-11-2011, 29-11-2011 and 16-12-2011 addressed to Shri Mohinder Singh, Assistant Registrar (Administration), and a note sheet showing a request to appoint another CPIO. The Commission recorded this explanation and production as the CPIO's response to the appellant's allegation of misstatement. That factual clarification was noted in the record, without finally adjudicating any disciplinary consequence arising from the alleged misstatements, which remain subject to the penalty show cause process if warranted. [Paras 4]The CPIO's explanation and production of letters was recorded; the typographical error was noted and the documents produced were accepted for present record.Final Conclusion: The Commission recorded prima facie delay in furnishing information and directed issuance of separate show cause notices to the CPIO and the deemed CPIO to afford them an opportunity to explain why penalties under the RTI regime should not be imposed; the CPIO's explanation concerning a typographical error and production of letters was noted.

2013 (10) TMI 248 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues:
1. Denial of information under RTI application
2. First appellate authority's decision
3. Allegations of mala fide conduct by CPIO
4. Delay in providing information and incorrect information
5. Imposition of penalty on CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information related to various financial matters. The CPIO initially invited the appellant for file inspection but did not provide all the requested information on the inspection date. Subsequently, the CPIO provided copies of the documents sought but stated that no more information was available. The appellant contended that the information was wrongly denied to him.

Issue 2: The appellant appealed to the first appellate authority seeking directions to obtain the desired information, but the authority concurred with the CPIO's decision. The appellant raised concerns about not being granted a personal hearing before the first appellate authority and presented evidence to support his claim that the CPIO deliberately withheld information.

Issue 3: The appellant alleged mala fide conduct by the CPIO, citing a letter addressed to the Registrar indicating deliberate withholding of information. The appellant sought penalty and disciplinary proceedings against the CPIO, along with compensation under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act.

Issue 4: During the proceedings, it was disclosed that the required information had been provided to the appellant. The Commission noted a considerable delay in providing information and the provision of incorrect information to the appellant, leading to the decision to issue a show cause notice to the CPIO regarding the imposition of a penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act.

In conclusion, the Commission found merit in the appellant's claims regarding the denial of information, delay in providing information, and the alleged mala fide conduct by the CPIO. The decision to issue a show cause notice to the CPIO for a possible penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act was based on the prima facie evidence of the issues raised during the proceedings.

Commission orders show cause for RTI Act violation
The Commission found merit in the appellant's claims of denial of information, delay in providing information, and alleged mala fide conduct by the CPIO. A show cause notice was issued to the CPIO for a possible penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act based on prima facie evidence presented during the proceedings.

Right to Information - Inspection of records - Delay in furnishing information - Withholding of information - Penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act - Compensation under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act - First appeal under RTIDelay in furnishing information - Withholding of information - Penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act - Prima facie finding of delay and incorrect/withheld information and initiation of show cause proceedings against the CPIO under Section 20. - HELD THAT: - The Commission recorded that the appellant's RTI request was initially offered inspection on a specified date and that certain points (c), (d) and (e) were not provided at that inspection. Although copies were later supplied, the Commission viewed that there had been a considerable delay and that incorrect information had been provided earlier. On that basis the Commission concluded that prima facie the CPIO's conduct warranted issuance of a show cause notice to explain why penalty should not be imposed under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The Commission therefore directed that a show cause notice be issued to the CPIO for failure to furnish information correctly and promptly. [Paras 4, 5, 6]Show cause notice to be issued to the CPIO to explain why penalty under Section 20 should not be imposed for delay and incorrect/withheld information.Right to Information - Compensation under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act - First appeal under RTI - Provision of information recorded as having occurred; no affirmative grant of compensation or other relief recorded. - HELD THAT: - The Commission noted that the appellant informed it during proceedings that the required information has now been provided. The appellant had also sought compensation under Section 19(8) and complained about denial of personal hearing before the first appellate authority. The order does not adjudicate or award compensation or take a final view on the appellant's grievance regarding the conduct of the first appellate authority; instead it records provision of information and proceeds to address the question of initiating show cause proceedings against the CPIO. No direction granting compensation under Section 19(8) is made in the order. [Paras 3, 4, 5]Information recorded as provided; claim for compensation not decided or awarded in this order.Final Conclusion: The Commission recorded that the information has been provided to the appellant but, finding prima facie delay and incorrect/withheld information, directed issuance of a show cause notice to the CPIO to explain why penalty should not be imposed under Section 20 of the RTI Act; the appellant's claim for compensation under Section 19(8) was recorded but not finally adjudicated.

2013 (10) TMI 125 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

CPIO Delayed RTI Info: Penalties Under Section 20(1) Imposed
The Commission found the CPIO delayed providing information under the RTI Act, leading to a show cause notice for potential penalty imposition under Section 20(1). The appellant's complaint regarding delays in accessing information resulted in proceedings against the CPIO for penalty imposition. The Commission acknowledged the appellant's concerns about obstruction of information and initiated action against the CPIO, emphasizing the importance of timely information provision for transparency and accountability.

Delay in furnishing information - penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act - inspection of records after application of severability - powers of first appellate authorityDelay in furnishing information - penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act - Prima facie finding of culpable delay by the CPIO and initiation of show-cause proceedings under Section 20(1). - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that the CPIO, Mr. V. Sreekumar, had prima facie caused a delay exceeding 100 days in providing the information sought by the appellant. Having regard to the extent of delay and the statutory scheme for penalising obstruction or delay in furnishing information, the Commission directed that a separate show cause notice under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act be issued to the then CPIO asking him to show-cause why a penalty should not be imposed. The Commission specified the proposed monetary penalty to be pursued in the show-cause proceedings. [Paras 6]Issue of a show-cause notice to the CPIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, proposing a penalty and asking him to explain why the penalty should not be imposed.Inspection of records after application of severability - powers of first appellate authority - Direction for fresh opportunity for inspection and limitation of first appellate authority's penal powers. - HELD THAT: - The first appellate authority granted the appellant a personal hearing and directed that another opportunity for inspection be provided on a mutually convenient date within 15 days, to be intimated by fax. The Commission recorded that the appellant approached under Section 18 because the first appellate authority lacks power to impose penalties under Section 20; accordingly, the complaint seeking penal action was entertained by the Commission while the FAA's direction related to ensuring access to inspection on a fresh mutually convenient date. [Paras 5]The FAA's direction that inspection be granted on a mutually convenient date within 15 days (to be intimated by fax) is noted; the Commission proceeded separately to deal with the issue of penal action under Section 20.Final Conclusion: The Commission recorded a prima facie finding of culpable delay by the CPIO in furnishing information, directed issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 20(1) proposing a penalty, and noted the FAA's direction to grant a fresh inspection opportunity within 15 days while handling the penal aspect itself.

2013 (10) TMI 86 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Commission orders disclosure of complaints against inspection agencies since 2006, emphasizes public access to action details
The Commission directed the CPIO to provide information on complaints against inspection agencies since 2006 and their current status. It disagreed with the denial of information on actions taken against certain agencies, stating such details should be public post-investigation. The Commission emphasized the need for detailed reasoning in the first appellate authority's orders and instructed compliance within two weeks, ultimately disposing of the appeal.

Exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act - disclosure of action taken against pre-inspection agencies - disclosure of complaints and their status where investigation is pending - obligation of a public authority to maintain and produce records - requirement of a speaking order by the first appellate authorityExemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act - disclosure of action taken against pre-inspection agencies - Whether information on action taken against specified approved pre-inspection agencies (as sought at points (a) and (d)) is exempt under Section 8(1)(d) and can be withheld - HELD THAT: - The Commission rejected the CPIO's contention that information about action taken against the named pre-inspection agencies falls within the exemption in Section 8(1)(d). Where an investigation or inquiry in relation to alleged misconduct by an inspection agency is complete, information about action taken should be in the public domain and furnished. Only where an investigation or inquiry is still pending should disclosure be limited; in such cases the Commission directed that the name, complaint number and date of complaint be provided but withheld where premature disclosure would affect the investigation. The determinative reasoning is that completed inquiries remove the justification for withholding under Section 8(1)(d), while ongoing investigations may merit limited non-disclosure to protect the process. [Paras 4, 8]Information on action taken against the specified pre-inspection agencies is to be disclosed; for complaints where investigation is pending, provide name, complaint number and date but withhold further particulars to avoid prejudicing the investigation.Obligation of a public authority to maintain and produce records - disclosure of identity and designation of officers responsible for approval and action - Whether the names and designations of officers responsible for approving the approved pre-inspection agencies and those responsible for taking action (point (b)) are available and can be refused because the decision is taken by an Interministerial Committee - HELD THAT: - The respondent contended that decision-making on approval is by an Interministerial Committee and thus the information is not available with the public authority. The Commission held that such information is expected to form part of the public authority's records and cannot be denied on that ground; the CPIO was directed to provide the names and designations. The Commission's reasoning rests on the public authority's duty to maintain and supply records in its custody even where a committee is involved in decision-making. [Paras 5, 9]CPIO directed to furnish the names and designations of officers responsible for approval of inspection agencies and those responsible for taking action.Disclosure of complaints and their status where investigation is pending - right to inspect voluminous files with prior appointment - Whether copies of complaints/references received against inspection agencies since January 2006 and the present status, and inspection of the relevant files (points (e) and (f)), should be furnished - HELD THAT: - The CPIO had offered inspection stating the file was voluminous. The Commission directed that copies of complaints/references received since January 2006 and their present status be provided to the appellant. The reasoning recognises that where records exist, even if voluminous, the public authority must facilitate access; copying or inspection arrangements may be managed by prior appointment but substantive disclosure is required. [Paras 6, 7, 10]Copies of complaints/references since Jan. 2006 and their present status shall be provided; inspection arrangements to be facilitated by the public authority.Requirement of a speaking order by the first appellate authority - Whether the first appellate authority's order, which merely upheld the CPIO's view without reasons and denied a personal hearing, was adequate - HELD THAT: - The Commission held that the first appellate authority must not pass a cryptic order; it is obliged to pass a speaking order giving reasons for its decision. The appellant's grievance that a reasoned order and opportunity for personal hearing were not afforded was accepted, and the Commission emphasised the duty of the first appellate authority to provide reasons. [Paras 11]First appellate authority's order must be speaking and supply reasons; mere cryptic affirmation of the CPIO is inadequate.Final Conclusion: The Commission directed disclosure of information concerning action taken against the named pre-inspection agencies (subject to limited non-disclosure where investigations are pending), ordered provision of names and designations of officers responsible for approval and action, required copies of complaints and their present status since Jan. 2006 to be furnished, emphasised facilitation of inspection of voluminous files by prior appointment, and held that the first appellate authority must pass a reasoned speaking order; directions to be complied with within two weeks.

2013 (1) TMI 1043 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues involved: Appellant's claim of incomplete information under RTI application, CPIO's contention of providing information and appellant's extensive RTI applications causing strain on resources.

Incomplete Information Claim:
The appellant alleged that he did not receive the complete information requested in his RTI application dated 08/02/2010. However, the CPIO argued that the information has been provided through various letters mentioned by the appellant himself in his RTI appeal dated 21/01/2011. The CPIO further stated that the appellant had been allowed to inspect records on multiple occasions and provided around 175 pages of documents identified by him during inspections at no cost. It was suggested that if further details were needed, relevant files could be made available for inspection at the CPIO's office. The appellant agreed to inspect the records on 25/02/2013 at 11.00 a.m.

Resource Strain due to Extensive RTI Applications:
The CPIO informed the Commission that the appellant, a retired employee, had filed over 44 RTI applications seeking substantial and voluminous information from various CPIOs. This extensive data compilation was causing a strain on the resources of the public authority and incurring significant costs to the exchequer. The CPIO highlighted that the appellant's current RTI application alone contained a request for extensive information spanning 64 paragraphs. Additionally, it was pointed out that the appellant's actions seemed to be aimed at pressurizing the public authority to address his service-related grievance by contesting the department's actions for alleged non-compliance with rules.

Commission's Decision:
The Commission directed the CPIO, Corporate Office, to allow the appellant to inspect the relevant files/records on 25/02/2013 at 11.00 a.m. The appellant was also permitted to take photocopies or extracts from the records, free of charge for up to 100 pages, and thereafter on payment of the prescribed fee. The Commission acknowledged the strain caused by the appellant's multiple RTI applications on the public authority's resources and cited a Supreme Court ruling to caution against indiscriminate demands for information that could hinder administrative efficiency. It emphasized that the RTI Act should not be misused or abused to obstruct national development or intimidate officials, and that there are other appropriate forums for addressing grievances and disputes, not solely relying on RTI applications. The appellant was advised to consider these observations and refrain from misusing the provisions of the RTI Act.

Commission orders free inspection of files up to 100 pages; cautions against indiscriminate RTI requests.
The Commission directed the CPIO to allow the appellant to inspect relevant files/records and make copies free of charge up to 100 pages, with a fee thereafter. Acknowledging strain on resources due to the appellant's numerous RTI applications, the Commission cautioned against indiscriminate demands hindering administrative efficiency. Emphasizing the RTI Act should not be misused to obstruct development or intimidate officials, it advised the appellant to consider other avenues for addressing grievances and disputes, not solely relying on RTI applications.

Right to information - inspection of records - supply of copies/extracts - misuse of the RTI Act - RTI not a grievance redressal mechanism - disproportionate burden on public authorityRight to information - inspection of records - supply of copies/extracts - Whether the appellant was entitled to further inspection of records and provision of copies in respect of his RTI request. - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that the CPIO had already furnished information by various letters and had permitted inspections on multiple occasions, during which the appellant had been provided with documents identified by him. Nonetheless, to meet the appellant's outstanding request the Commission directed the CPIO, Corporate Office, to permit the appellant to inspect the relevant files/records on 25/02/2013 at 11.00 AM and ordered that the appellant be allowed to take photocopies/extracts free of cost up to 100 pages, with the prescribed fee to apply thereafter. The direction balances the appellant's entitlement under the right to information with the administrative limits on providing copies, by allowing inspection and a measured number of free pages before charging fees.Appellant permitted inspection on 25/02/2013 at 11.00 AM and allowed up to 100 pages of photocopies/extracts free of cost, fees to be charged thereafter.Misuse of the RTI Act - RTI not a grievance redressal mechanism - disproportionate burden on public authority - Whether the appellant's pattern of filing multiple, voluminous RTI applications could be treated as misuse of the RTI Act and whether RTI is the appropriate forum for service-related grievances. - HELD THAT: - The Commission accepted the CPIO's submission that the appellant, a retired employee, had filed numerous RTI applications across time seeking voluminous information from various CPIOs, thereby imposing disproportionate administrative burden and cost on the public authority. The Commission referenced the Supreme Court's observation in civil appeal No. 6454 of 2011 (Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr vs. Aditya Bandhopadhyay & Ors) that indiscriminate or impractical demands under the RTI Act, unrelated to transparency and accountability, can be counter-productive and should not be allowed to convert the Act into a tool for harassment or to distract public authorities from their regular duties. Applying that principle, the Commission observed that the RTI Act is not the proper statute for redressal of service-related grievances and warned against misuse of RTI provisions to pressurise the public authority to settle departmental disputes.The Commission recorded the credibility of the CPIO's contention about undue strain caused by multiple voluminous RTI requests, held that RTI is not the forum for service grievance redressal, and cautioned the appellant against misusing the Act.Final Conclusion: The Commission allowed a final inspection and limited free copying (100 pages) to the appellant, while accepting the CPIO's plea that multiple, voluminous RTI filings by the appellant impose an undue burden; it affirmed that the RTI Act is not the proper mechanism for resolving service-related grievances and cautioned against its misuse.

2013 (7) TMI 294 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues:
Denial of information in response to RTI-application; Disclosure of note-sheet portions of files; Non-disclosure of information in pending cases; Compliance with FAA's directions.

Denial of Information in Response to RTI-Application:
The appellant filed an appeal against the respondent Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise for denying information in reply to his RTI-application. The appellant sought details of Vigilance enquiries against a specific individual, status of complaints/cases, inspection of records, and copies of Vigilance reports. The CPIO provided point-wise information to the appellant, leading to the first appeal filed by the appellant.

Disclosure of Note-Sheet Portions of Files:
The FAA held that inspection of closed investigation files should be allowed within 15 days, with specific documents provided upon request. However, the note sheet portion of the files was not to be disclosed under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. For cases under investigation, disclosure was not allowed under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

Non-Disclosure of Information in Pending Cases:
The appellant, in the second appeal, challenged the FAA's order, claiming it to be illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the RTI Act. The appellant argued against non-disclosure of note-sheet portions of closed cases and information on pending cases. The appellant accused the CPIO of deliberately obstructing information despite prior disclosure during inspection.

Compliance with FAA's Directions:
During the hearing, the CPIO stated that the appellant did not approach for inspection as directed by the FAA. The Commission noted the CPIO's failure to comply with the FAA's directions and emphasized the need for careful handling of RTI matters. The CPIO was directed to allow inspection of closed investigation files and provide requested documents promptly. Additionally, the CPIO was instructed to update the appellant on the status of investigations regarding the individual in question. The Commission found no reason to interfere with the respondent's reply on other points.

Appellant challenges denial of RTI info, CPIO instructed to allow inspection of closed investigation files
The appellant appealed against the Directorate General of Vigilance Customs & Central Excise for denying information in response to his RTI-application. The FAA directed that inspection of closed investigation files should be allowed within 15 days, with specific documents provided upon request, but note-sheet portions were not to be disclosed. The appellant challenged the non-disclosure of information in pending cases, accusing the CPIO of obstructing information. The CPIO was found to have failed to comply with the FAA's directions and was instructed to allow inspection of closed investigation files promptly and update the appellant on the status of investigations.

Right to information - Inspection of records - Provision of copies upon inspection request - Exemption for disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(g) - Exemption for nondisclosure of information relating to ongoing investigations under Section 8(1)(h) - Obligation of CPIO to comply with FAA directions - Remedial directions by the Commission for non-complianceRight to information - Inspection of records - Provision of copies upon inspection request - Obligation of CPIO to comply with FAA directions - Remedial directions by the Commission for non-compliance - Whether the CPIO must permit inspection of files in which investigations have been closed and supply copies of documents identified by the appellant in compliance with the FAA's directions. - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that the CPIO had not complied with the FAA's directions and that the CPIO's contention that the appellant did not approach for inspection established a casual approach inconsistent with the duty to implement appellate directions. The Commission accordingly directed the CPIO to allow inspection of files where investigations have been closed on a mutually convenient date and time within fifteen days of receipt of the Commission's order, and to provide copies of documents identified by the appellant within fifteen days of receipt of such request. [Paras 6]Inspection of files where investigations are closed must be permitted and copies of identified documents provided in the timeframes directed by the Commission; the CPIO is cautioned for casual handling of RTI matters.Right to information - Provision of status information - Remedial directions by the Commission for non-compliance - Whether the CPIO must inform the appellant about the status of investigations (2008 to 2011) concerning frequent visits of the official named in the RTI application. - HELD THAT: - The Commission directed the CPIO to inform the appellant about the status of investigation on complaints received during the period 2008 to 2011 regarding the frequent visits of the official in question. The communication of status was ordered to be completed within two weeks of receipt of the Commission's order. [Paras 6]CPIO to inform the appellant of the status of the specified investigations within two weeks.Exemption for disclosure of information under Section 8(1)(g) - Exemption for nondisclosure of information relating to ongoing investigations under Section 8(1)(h) - Right to information - Whether the Commission should interfere with the FAA's finding upholding non-disclosure of note-sheet material and information relating to pending investigations under the claimed exemptions. - HELD THAT: - The FAA had held that note-sheet portions are covered by exemption under Section 8(1)(g) and that cases where investigation is underway are not to be disclosed under Section 8(1)(h). On the points other than compliance and provision of status/inspection, the Commission found no reason to interfere with the respondent's reply and therefore did not disturb the FAA's approach on exemptions. [Paras 6]No interference with the respondent's reliance on exemptions under Section 8(1)(g) for note-sheets and Section 8(1)(h) for ongoing investigations; those aspects stand as not disturbed by the Commission.Final Conclusion: The Commission directed the CPIO to permit inspection of closed-investigation files and supply copies on request within specified short timeframes, to inform the appellant of the status of investigations for 2008-2011 within two weeks, cautioned the CPIO for non-compliance with FAA directions, and declined to interfere with the respondent's reliance on exemptions for note-sheets and ongoing investigations.

2013 (1) TMI 959 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Central Information Commission Orders Document Release and Compensation for Delay
The Central Information Commission ordered the requested documents to be supplied to the appellant within 4 weeks upon payment. The Managing Director was directed to compensate the appellant with Rs. 800 within the same timeframe for the inconvenience caused.

2013 (3) TMI 129 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Public Official Fined for RTI Non-Compliance: Timely Disclosure Emphasized
The Commission found the CPIO and deemed CPIO failed to comply with the FAA's order, causing a delay in providing complete information to the appellant. A show-cause notice was issued, proposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000. The CPIO was directed to provide the complete information within two weeks. This case emphasizes timely and complete disclosure of information under the RTI Act, holding public authorities accountable for responding to RTI requests and complying with FAA orders. The penalty serves as a deterrent against non-compliance, reinforcing transparency and accountability standards.

Right to information - FAA's direction to furnish information - failure to furnish information within statutory period - non-compliance with FAA order - show-cause notice for imposition of penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act - direction to provide complete informationFailure to furnish information within statutory period - non-compliance with FAA order - show-cause notice for imposition of penalty under section 20(1) of the RTI Act - Whether the CPIO and deemed CPIO of CESTAT failed to comply with the FAA's directions and delayed furnishing information, warranting issuance of show-cause notice for penalty. - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that, notwithstanding the FAA's order dated 10-8-2011 directing the CPIO to obtain and furnish the information sought by the appellant, the CPIO and the deemed CPIO did not supply the complete information. Although 11 pages were furnished on 16-9-2011, the appellant alleged withholding of enclosures and the Interim Report specifically called for in his RTI application. The Commission held that the CPIO and deemed CPIO prima facie failed to comply with the FAA's directions and caused a delay exceeding 100 days in providing complete information. On that basis the Commission ordered issuance of a separate show-cause notice under the penalty provision of the RTI Act to the officers concerned to explain why penalty should not be imposed. [Paras 5]Show-cause notice under section 20(1) of the RTI Act to be issued to the CPIO and deemed CPIO for prima facie non-compliance and delay.FAA's direction to furnish information - direction to provide complete information - right to information - Whether the appellant should be supplied the complete information as directed by the FAA and, if so, within what time frame. - HELD THAT: - Having concluded that information called for by the appellant was not furnished fully in compliance with the FAA's order, the Commission directed that the CPIO furnish the complete requisite information to the appellant. The direction is immediate and time-bound to secure the appellant's statutory right to information and to give effect to the appellate order already passed by the FAA. [Paras 6]CPIO directed to provide complete requisite information to the appellant within two weeks of receipt of the Commission's order.Final Conclusion: The Commission found prima facie non-compliance by the CPIO and deemed CPIO with the FAA's directions, ordered issuance of show-cause notices under section 20(1) of the RTI Act, and directed that the complete information be furnished to the appellant within two weeks.

2013 (3) TMI 103 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Commission penalizes CPIO for delays under RTI Act, imposes Rs. 10,500 penalty split between officers.
The Commission found the CPIO and deemed CPIO responsible for delays in providing requested documents under the RTI Act, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,500 to be split between them. Each officer was directed to pay Rs. 5,250 in two installments, with the penalty to be recovered from their pay. The Commission emphasized compliance with the penalty recovery process to ensure timely provision of information as mandated by Section 7 of the RTI Act.

Liability for delay in furnishing information - disposal of request within thirty days under the RTI Act - deemed CPIO under Section 5(4)-(5) of the RTI Act - imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act - apportionment of penaltyLiability for delay in furnishing information - disposal of request within thirty days under the RTI Act - Whether there was a delay in furnishing the documents requested by the appellant and who was responsible for that delay. - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that the RTI request was replied to on 6-6-2011 and inspection occurred on 9-6-2011; copies specified in Inspection Note No. 87 (pages 1-383 of a register) were not furnished until 22-7-2011. The statutory 30-day period for disposal had elapsed. Multiple reminders were sent by the appellant. The First Appellate Authority's material and the custodial facts show that the register was maintained by Shri Pramod Kumar while the CPIO Shri Mohinder Singh had acknowledged and forwarded the inspection notes. On this basis the Commission concluded that both officers bore responsibility for the 42-day delay in providing the requested copies. [Paras 7, 10, 11, 15]Delay of 42 days in furnishing the specified documents is established and both the CPIO and the holder-of-the-information are equally responsible for the delay.Deemed CPIO under Section 5(4)-(5) of the RTI Act - Whether Shri Pramod Kumar, as holder of the information and having been asked to assist, is to be treated as a deemed CPIO for the purpose of the Act. - HELD THAT: - The Commission relied on Section 5(4) and (5) of the RTI Act: where the CPIO seeks assistance of an officer who is holder of the information, that officer is required to render assistance and is treated as a CPIO for purposes of any contravention. The record shows the CPIO had endorsed the inspection note to the holder and the holder received the inspection note and provided copies belatedly. Accordingly, Shri Pramod Kumar qualifies as deemed CPIO for the incident in question. [Paras 13, 14]Shri Pramod Kumar is a deemed CPIO for the purposes of the delay in furnishing the information.Imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act - apportionment of penalty - Whether penalty should be imposed for the proven delay, and if so, its quantum and manner of recovery. - HELD THAT: - Having found the delay and joint responsibility, the Commission applied Section 20(1) and imposed a penalty for the 42-day delay. The Commission accepted that explanations were given but found them insufficient to negate liability for delay. The Commission determined that the penalty should be apportioned equally between Shri Mohinder Singh and Shri Pramod Kumar and directed recovery by salary deduction in specified instalments. Directions were also given for the crediting/forwarding of the recovered amounts to the Commission's account/head as stated. [Paras 4, 16, 17]Penalty of Rs. 10,500/- for 42 days' delay imposed under Section 20(1); apportioned equally (Rs. 5,250/- on each officer) and directed to be recovered by instalments from their pay and credited/forwarded as directed.Final Conclusion: The Commission held that the specified documents were furnished with a 42-day delay, treated the holder-of-the-information as deemed CPIO, imposed a total penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act apportioned equally between the two responsible officers, and directed recovery and remittance of the penalty as set out in the order.

2013 (3) TMI 78 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues:
1. Delay in transferring RTI application.
2. Failure to provide opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.
3. Non-disclosure of file noting by CPIO.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application seeking information about the appointment of the Indirect Tax Ombudsman. The CPIO of the Cabinet Secretariat transferred the application to the office of the Establishment Officer in the Department of Personnel and Training after a significant delay. The Appellate Authority endorsed this action without giving the Appellant an opportunity of hearing, as requested. The Central Information Commission noted the delay in transferring the application, which violated the RTI Act's provisions. The CPIO was found liable for penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission directed the CPIO to explain why the penalty should not be imposed, considering the circumstances, and allowed one month for a response.

2. The Appellate Authority was criticized for not providing the Appellant with an opportunity of hearing, despite a specific request. The Commission emphasized that in such cases, where an Appellant seeks a personal hearing, it should be granted before passing the final order. This requirement ensures procedural fairness and allows the Appellant to present their case effectively. The Commission's directive aimed to uphold the principles of natural justice and fair administrative practices in handling RTI appeals.

3. The CPIO in the office of the Establishment Officer had provided some information to the Appellant but had withheld the file noting, which the Appellant argued was essential to understand the authorities' actions on his complaint fully. The Commission found no valid reason for non-disclosure of the file noting and directed the CPIO to provide the photocopy of the file noting within 10 working days. This decision aimed to ensure transparency and accountability in the handling of RTI requests, emphasizing the importance of disclosing relevant information to the Appellant. By ordering the disclosure of the file noting, the Commission sought to enable the Appellant to have a complete understanding of the decision-making process related to his complaint.

In conclusion, the Central Information Commission's judgment addressed issues of procedural lapses, delay in information disclosure, and the importance of providing Appellants with opportunities for hearings in RTI matters. The decision underscored the significance of adhering to the RTI Act's provisions, promoting transparency, accountability, and fairness in the governance process.

CPIO penalized for RTI Act violations, ordered to justify actions and disclose file noting.
The Central Information Commission found the CPIO liable for penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act due to delays in transferring the RTI application and failure to provide the Appellant with a hearing opportunity. The Commission emphasized the need for procedural fairness, directing the CPIO to explain why the penalty should not be imposed and to disclose the file noting within 10 days. The decision aimed to uphold transparency, accountability, and fair administrative practices in handling RTI appeals, emphasizing compliance with the RTI Act for governance transparency.

Liability for penalty for failure to transfer application within stipulated time under the Right to Information Act - show cause before imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act - obligation of Appellate Authority to provide personal hearing when requested in RTI appeals - disclosure of file notings under the Right to Information ActLiability for penalty for failure to transfer application within stipulated time under the Right to Information Act - show cause before imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act - Whether the CPIO in the Cabinet Secretariat is liable to penalty for failing to transfer the RTI application within the time prescribed by law, and whether he should be given an opportunity to explain before penalty is imposed. - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the CPIO did not transfer the RTI application within five days as required by the statutory provision governing transfer, and as a result the information reached the appellant much beyond the 30 day period. This establishes liability under the penalty provision. However, the Court directed that the officer be given an opportunity to show cause before any penalty is imposed, noting that the officer is currently away; the present CPIO must forward this order so that the officer may send an explanation within one month of receipt, after which the Commission will decide on the penalty. [Paras 4]CPIO liable to be proceeded against for delay; officer to be served with show cause and allowed one month to explain before penalty is decided.Obligation of Appellate Authority to provide personal hearing when requested in RTI appeals - Whether the Appellate Authority erred in passing the first appeal order without granting the appellant a personal hearing which he had specifically requested. - HELD THAT: - The Commission held that the Appellate Authority was wrong in not giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing when specifically asked for one. The decision records that, as a matter of practice and obligation, whenever an appellant seeks a personal hearing the Appellate Authority should provide that opportunity before passing the final order. [Paras 5]Appellate Authority erred in denying requested personal hearing; direction issued that such hearings must be granted in future when sought.Disclosure of file notings under RTI - Whether the CPIO in the office of the Establishment Officer was justified in withholding file notings from the appellant. - HELD THAT: - The Establishment Officer's CPIO had provided some records but withheld the file noting without assigning any reason. The Commission saw no justification for non disclosure of the file noting in the circumstances of this case and directed that a photocopy of the file noting from the relevant file be furnished to the appellant within ten working days of receipt of the order. [Paras 6]File notings are to be disclosed; CPIO of Establishment Officer directed to provide photocopy within ten working days.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed of by directing (a) that the absent CPIO be served with the order and allowed one month to explain before any penalty is imposed for delayed transfer; (b) that the Appellate Authority must, in future, grant personal hearings when requested; and (c) that the Establishment Officer's CPIO shall provide the appellant a photocopy of the file notings within ten working days.

2012 (12) TMI 1078 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Indian Laws

AI TextQuick Glance (AI)Headnote

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are related to the Right to Information (RTI) application seeking information about the official visits of the President of India, specifically regarding the composition of the delegation, expenses incurred, and availability of information in a compiled form.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Availability of Information in Compiled Form
The Appellant sought information on the official visits of the President of India, focusing on the details of the visits by the then President, both within and outside the country, including the composition of the delegation and expenses incurred. The Respondents stated that the desired information was not centrally available in a compiled form and would require significant resources to compile. The Commission acknowledged that the expenditure data is maintained across various ministries and departments, making it impractical for a single CPIO to compile. However, the Commission directed the CPIO to provide details of the delegation for visits beyond the information already provided to the Appellant.

Issue 2: Miscellaneous Expenditure Details
The Appellant requested a breakdown of the miscellaneous expenditure related to the President's visits, which was not clearly provided in the response. The Commission agreed with the Appellant that the components under the miscellaneous category should be explicitly stated. Consequently, the Commission directed the Controller of Accounts and the CPIO of the Ministry of External Affairs to inform the Appellant about the components constituting the miscellaneous expenditure.

Additional Observation
The Commission noted a growing public interest in official visits by high dignitaries and emphasized the importance of transparency in sharing information about such visits. It recommended that the President Secretariat consider uploading details of the delegation and expenditure on official visits on the official website to enhance public access to this information.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of, and copies of the order were to be provided to the parties free of cost.

Analysis: Commission's Directive on President's Official Visit Information
The Commission acknowledged the challenges in centrally compiling information on the President's official visits but directed the CPIO to provide additional details on delegation composition. It also required explicit breakdown of miscellaneous expenditure components related to the visits. Emphasizing transparency, the Commission recommended sharing visit details on the official website. The appeal was disposed of, with parties receiving the order copies at no cost.

Availability of information held in compiled form - no duty to create or compile data from multiple sources - obligation to provide records available within public authority - right to information regarding composition of official delegations - disclosure of budget allocations and annual expenditure - breakup of aggregated expenditure heads - proactive disclosure / uploading of informationRight to information regarding composition of official delegations - obligation to provide records available within public authority - The CPIO of the President's Secretariat must provide, visit-wise, the composition of the delegation (names, designations and the Ministry/Department/agency represented) for Presidential visits beyond the period already covered in the appellant's RTI application dated 29 April 2010. - HELD THAT: - The Commission found that lists identifying members of Presidential delegations are maintained within the President Secretariat and can be reproduced visit-wise without undertaking the onerous task of collecting and compiling data from multiple external sources. Given that the appellant has limited his request to the period beyond that already supplied in response to his RTI of 29 April 2010, the CPIO is required to supply the delegation details within a specified reasonable time-frame. [Paras 5, 6]Provide the visit-wise delegation details for the period beyond that covered by the RTI reply dated 29 April 2010 within 25 working days.Availability of information held in compiled form - no duty to create or compile data from multiple sources - disclosure of budget allocations and annual expenditure - Expenditure on Presidential visits is booked across various ministries and not available in a single compiled form; the CPIO is not required to compile such dispersed data, but must inform the appellant of the exact budget allocation in the last five years for domestic and foreign travel and the annual expenditure against those allocations. - HELD THAT: - The Commission observed that details of expenditure are recorded in different Ministries/Departments and are not centrally compiled by the President Secretariat; therefore, requiring a single CPIO to collect and collate such dispersed data would be disproportionate. Nonetheless, the Secretariat can and must provide aggregate information it can reasonably obtain or already holds: specifically, the exact budget allocations for domestic and foreign travel in the last five years and the annual expenditure against those allocations. This balances the right to information with the practical limits on public authorities to create new compilations from multiple sources. [Paras 5, 6]Inform the appellant of the exact budget allocations for domestic and foreign travel in the last five years and the annual expenditure against those allocations within 25 working days.Breakup of aggregated expenditure heads - availability of information held in compiled form - The Controller of Accounts and the CPIO of the Ministry of External Affairs must state the components that comprise the 'miscellaneous' head in the expenditure statement supplied for Presidential visits to certain countries. - HELD THAT: - The MEA's statement enclosed with the earlier reply aggregated various items under a 'miscellaneous' head, causing confusion for the appellant who specifically requested a breakup. The Commission held that the components subsumed under such an aggregated head should be disclosed so that the appellant can understand what items the 'miscellaneous' amount represents, and directed the MEA authorities to furnish that breakdown within a defined period. [Paras 7]Controller of Accounts and CPIO of MEA to provide the breakup of the 'miscellaneous' expenditure head within 20 working days.Proactive disclosure / uploading of information - obligation to provide records available within public authority - It is desirable that the President Secretariat proactively upload on its official website as much information as possible about official visits, especially delegation details and, where feasible, aggregate expenditure figures. - HELD THAT: - While acknowledging security considerations attendant on high-level official visits, the Commission recommended greater transparency by placing delegation details and aggregate expenditure (per visit or at least annually) in the public domain. This is an advisory direction intended to reduce repeated RTI requests and serve public interest in transparency, subject to legitimate security constraints. [Paras 8]Secretary/authority in the President Secretariat should consider uploading delegation details and aggregate expenditure information on the official website as feasible.Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed in part: the President Secretariat's CPIO is directed to furnish visit-wise delegation details for the period beyond the appellant's RTI of 29 April 2010 and to provide budget allocation and annual expenditure information for travel; the MEA must break up the 'miscellaneous' expenditure head; and the Secretariat is urged to proactively upload such information to the public website. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Page of 6

Press 'Enter' after typing page number.

41 to 60 of 112 Results

Case Laws

All › Indian Laws › Indian Laws - Commission

All Case Laws

Showing Results for :

Reset Filters

Page of 6

Press 'Enter' after typing page number.

41 to 60 of 112 Results

No Records Found

Case Laws

All Case Laws

Showing Results for : Reset Filters

Topics

Acts Income Tax

➔Previous Next ➔

Contact Us At :

FAQs :

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Case Laws

Case Laws

Topics