TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seeking information on four queries was replied to by the CPIO vide letter dated 6-6-2011. The CPIO provided an opportunity to the appellant for inspection of documents as sought for by him at Point 'D'. The inspection of the documents was undertaken by the appellant on 9-6-2011 and copies of specified records were requested on 9-6-2011. Failing to get the requisite records, the appellant sent reminders to the CPIO vide his letters dated 24-6-2011, 9-7-2011. The CPIO vide his letter dated 22-7-2011 provided the requisite documents to the appellant. 4. Having considered the submissions of the CPIO and the appellant, the Commission observes that there is a delay of 42 days in providing of requisite records to the appellant. The docume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n notes dated 9-6-2011 from records maintained by different officers in CESTAT. Most of such information running into 813 pages were furnished within 30 days from 9-6-2011 and the copies of 383 pages of a Register maintained by Shri Pramod Kumar were furnished only on 22-7-2012. 4. The FAA referred to the Section 20(1) of the RTI Act stating that penalty is to be imposed only if the explanations given are not considered reasonable and the delay is malicious. According to him, there was no delay in furnishing the information, the explanations given by these two officers were reasonable, and he (FAA) was not in a position to apportion the penalty between two officers. He further stated that it is the prerogative of the Information Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....RTI-application No. RTI/11/3303, dated 2-5-2011 filed by Shri R.K. Jain was replied to by CPIO Shri Mohinder Singh, Assistant Registrar vide ID No. 06-56/11, dated 6-6-2011. In his reply, the CPIO also offered the complainant to inspect the relevant documents and obtain the required information. Copy of the reply was also endorsed to the PPS to Member (Technical). 9. Shri Jain inspected the relevant documents on 9-6-2011 and submitted his Inspection Notes dated 9-6-2011 indicating clearly the copies of the documents required by him. With regard to other Inspection Notes, the copies of 813 pages were provided to Shri Jain on 27-6-2011. 10. However, no information was provided to him in respect of his Inspection Memo No. 87 da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he holder-of-the-information. From the Summary of explanation given by Shri Pramod Kumar, as given by the FAA in his reply dated 15-6-2012, is reproduced below : "(c) He was under the impression that CPIO will take the steps for furnishing the information. After receiving a copy of the letter dated 1-7-2011 from the Applicant he took copies of 383 pages of the Register but could not hand over photocopies to CPIO because the CPIO was on medical leave from 4-7-2011 to 14-7-2011. The copies were handed over on 21st July 2011 to CPIO. The period between 14-7-2011 to 21-7-2011 cannot be treated as a period of malicious delay having regard to his other pre-occupations and also the fact he was not the CPIO or "deemed CPIO" as applicant ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e copies of the desired documents. The CPIO never contested that he had sent all the three letters to the deemed CPIO. Thus, the Commission is of the considered view that both Shri Mohinder Singh, Assistant Registrar & the then CPIO and Shri Pramod Kumar, SPS to Member (Tech.) & holder-of-the-information are equally responsible for the delay in furnishing the information. 16. A penalty of Rs. 10,500/- (Rupees ten thousand five hundred only) for the delay of 42 days @ Rs. 250/- per day is imposed u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. As both the officers are equally responsible, the penalty of Rs. 5,250/- is imposed on each of them viz., Shri Mohinder Singh, Asstt. Registrar & the then CPIO and Shri Pramod Kumar, Deemed CPIO. The amount sh....