TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Delays in RTI Disclosure: Case highlights importance of timely information provision</h1> <h3>RK. JAIN Versus DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF VIGILANCE, CUS. & C. EX.</h3> The case involved an appeal under the RTI Act regarding information on a fraudulent LL.B. complaint. The CPIO initially refused disclosure, citing lack of ... Levy of penalty for delay in providing information under RTI Act - Held that:- Main contention of the appellant is that the information was provided to Shri Sharan in July, 2012 whereas the appellant was provided information on the same subject matter in June, 2013 - Commission is of the view that the CPIO has prima facie caused a delay of more than 100 days in providing information to the appellant. A separate show cause notice under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act would be issued to the CPIO asking him to show cause why a penalty of ₹ 25,000/- should not be imposed upon him - Decided in favour of appellant. Issues:1. Appeal regarding RTI application for information on fraudulent LL.B. complaint.2. Allegation of delay in providing information to the appellant.3. Discrepancy in the timing of information provided to different individuals.Issue 1: Appeal regarding RTI application for information on fraudulent LL.B. complaintThe appeal was related to an RTI application seeking information on the steps taken for verifying a complaint regarding a fraudulent LL.B. The CPIO had initially claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, stating that the matter had not reached finality. The FAA upheld this decision, stating that the CPIO was not competent to disclose the investigation report. The appellant alleged that the CPIO deliberately denied information to cover up lapses, which the FAA rejected. The appellant also highlighted that another individual received the information before him, raising concerns about fairness.Issue 2: Allegation of delay in providing information to the appellantDuring the hearing, the appellant claimed that he received the information in June 2013, while another individual received it in July 2012. The Commission noted a delay of over 100 days in providing information to the appellant. Consequently, a show cause notice was to be issued to the CPIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, considering imposing a penalty of &8377;25,000 for the delay.Issue 3: Discrepancy in the timing of information provided to different individualsThe appellant raised concerns about the timing of information provision, stating that another individual received the information earlier. The file movement details presented by the respondent showed a sequence of actions leading to the dispatch of the U.O Note to the Joint Secretary (Revenue) on 4-11-2011. The Deputy Commissioner, then CPIO, clarified that he provided information to the other individual in July 2012, denying any denial of information to the appellant.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of delayed information provision, fairness in disclosure, and discrepancies in the timing of information provided to different individuals. The Commission found a prima facie delay in providing information to the appellant and decided to issue a show cause notice for possible penalty imposition on the CPIO. The case highlighted the importance of timely and equitable disclosure of information under the RTI Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
