2015 (7) TMI 1088 - Commission - Indian Laws

RTI violation: Commission orders disclosure, emphasizes transparency

Sanjay Thul Versus CPIO, C.B.E. & C.

The Central Information Commission found that the respondents violated the RTI Act by failing to provide information in response to an RTI application and ... RTI application - Held that:- The Commission is of the considered view that the appellant has been deprived by the respondents deliberately from having the benefits of the RTI Act 2005, even after lapse of more than five months period. Thus, the respondents have defeated the very purpose of the RTI Act, 2005 for which it was legislated by Parliament of India. It is also admitted fact that, as on date, respondents failed to provide the required information to the appellant. As such, the Commission feels that it would be appropriate and even justified to allow the appellant’s second appeal in toto instead of remanding back to learned FAA for disposal of FA which is even more time consuming. Therefore, it is allowed in toto. Thus the respondents are hereby directed to provide the complete and categorical information, issue-wise, to the appellant as per his RTI application, in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act 2005, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission. If needed Section 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 be also invoked in the matter. Issues:Failure to provide information in response to RTI application, non-disposal of First Appeal by FAA, violation of RTI Act 2005 and service rules by CBEC.Analysis:1. The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information on specific issues, but the respondents failed to provide any response. The appellant then filed a First Appeal (FA) which could not be disposed of by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) for unknown reasons, leading to a second appeal before the Central Information Commission.2. During the hearing, the Commission questioned the respondent about the information provided to the appellant and the status of the FA filed by the appellant. The respondent could not provide satisfactory answers, indicating a lack of compliance with the RTI Act and procedural irregularities within the CBEC.3. The Commission observed that the respondents deliberately deprived the appellant of the benefits of the RTI Act for over five months, defeating the purpose of the legislation. It was noted that the respondents failed to provide the required information, leading the Commission to allow the appellant's second appeal in its entirety instead of remanding it back to the FAA, which would further delay the process.4. Consequently, the Commission directed the respondents to provide the complete information, issue-wise, to the appellant within 30 days in accordance with the RTI Act 2005. The Commission emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions of the Act and indicated that Section 5(4) of the RTI Act could be invoked if necessary to ensure timely and complete disclosure of information.5. The judgment highlighted the non-compliance of the respondents with the RTI Act and service rules, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in providing information to citizens. The appeal was disposed of with a clear directive to the respondents to fulfill their obligations under the RTI Act within the specified timeline, under the supervision of the Commission.