CPIO fined for delay in RTI response, ordered to pay Rs. 22,250, refund Rs. 68 to appellant

The Commission penalized the CPIO with a fine of Rs. 22,250 for an 89-day delay in providing third-party information and ordered recovery from the CPIO's salary. Additionally, a refund of Rs. 68 was directed to the appellant for mishandling fees. The CPIO's actions were deemed in breach of the RTI Act, emphasizing the importance of prompt and accurate responses to RTI requests.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in providing information.
2. Non-disclosure of third-party information.
3. Failure to adhere to RTI Act timelines.
4. Improper handling of fees and document requests.
5. Allegations of malafide intent by the CPIO.
6. Compensation for the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Providing Information:
The appellant argued that the CPIO caused an unwarranted delay of 181 days in supplying copies of inspected documents, which he requested on the day of inspection, i.e., 13-5-2011. The CPIO's failure to provide these documents despite repeated reminders was deemed deliberate and malafide, making him liable for a penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission noted the delay and imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,250 on the CPIO.

2. Non-Disclosure of Third-Party Information:
The appellant contended that the CPIO failed to adhere to Section 11(3) of the RTI Act, which mandates a decision within 40 days when third-party information is involved. The CPIO delayed the decision by 157 days beyond the stipulated period, obstructing the appellant's access to information. The CPIO cited the Supreme Court's refusal to disclose certain information under Sections 8(1)(b), (e), and (j) of the RTI Act. However, the Commission found the CPIO's handling of third-party information unsatisfactory and noted a delay of 89 days in providing the information.

3. Failure to Adhere to RTI Act Timelines:
The appellant highlighted that the CPIO did not act within the timelines stipulated by the RTI Act. The CPIO's decision on third-party information was delayed, and the appellant was not informed about the decision promptly. The Commission acknowledged this delay and imposed a penalty on the CPIO.

4. Improper Handling of Fees and Document Requests:
The appellant argued that the CPIO harassed him by requesting a fee for supplying copies of inspected documents after 270 days, violating Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. The CPIO failed to send an intimation regarding the fee as required under Section 7(3). The appellant also claimed that the CPIO did not provide complete information even after the fee was paid. The Commission directed the public authority to refund Rs. 68 to the appellant and noted the CPIO's failure to handle the fee and document requests properly.

5. Allegations of Malafide Intent by the CPIO:
The appellant accused the CPIO of acting with malafide intent to harass him and obstruct the information. The CPIO's actions, including not providing complete information, delaying responses, and improper handling of fees, were seen as deliberate attempts to hinder the appellant's access to information. The Commission found merit in these allegations and imposed a penalty on the CPIO.

6. Compensation for the Appellant:
The appellant requested compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for the harassment, inconvenience, and expenditure caused by the CPIO's conduct. The Commission did not explicitly address the compensation request in the order but directed the refund of Rs. 68 to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Commission imposed a penalty of Rs. 22,250 on the CPIO for causing a delay of 89 days in providing third-party information and directed the public authority to recover the amount from the CPIO's salary. The Commission also ordered a refund of Rs. 68 to the appellant for the improper handling of fees. The CPIO's actions were found to be in violation of the RTI Act, and the Commission emphasized the need for timely and accurate responses to RTI applications.

---