Failure to Respond to RTI Applications Results in Deemed Refusal and Compensation Order

The Central Information Commission found the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and the Appellate Authority (AA) in violation of their obligations under the RTI Act for failing to respond to the appellant's RTI applications, leading to a deemed refusal. Complaint proceedings were initiated under Section 18, with a direction for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid to the appellant under Section 19 (8)(b). The CPIO was instructed to refer the RTI request to the relevant parties and respond within three weeks. A further hearing was scheduled to address the unresolved issues.

---

---

Issues involved: Failure to respond to RTI applications, failure to discharge obligations under the RTI Act, initiation of complaint proceedings under Section 18, compensation under Section 19 (8)(b), direction to refer RTI request to holders of information, and scheduling of further hearing.

The judgment by the Central Information Commission addressed the failure of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and the Appellate Authority (AA) to respond to the appellant's RTI applications. The CPIO, Md. Israil, did not provide any response to the RTI applications submitted by the appellant, leading to a deemed refusal. Additionally, the AA rejected the appellant's first appeals against the deemed refusal, citing that the appellant had requested a direction to be issued to a senior official. The Commission noted that both the AA and the CPIO failed to fulfill their obligations under the RTI Act, prompting the initiation of complaint proceedings under Section 18 of the Act. Furthermore, the Commission directed the initiation of proceedings under Section 19 (8)(b) for compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid to the appellant. The respondents were given two weeks to respond to the directives.

In response to the appeal, the CPIO was directed to refer the appellant's RTI request to the holders of the information or the deemed CPIO, irrespective of seniority, and provide a response to the appellant within three weeks. The Commission emphasized that the appellant could approach the Commission directly if unsatisfied with the responses received. The second appeal by the appellant and the complaint proceedings were to be heard jointly in the future, and a further hearing was scheduled to address the ongoing issues related to the RTI applications and the respondents' obligations under the Act.

---