TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4-2011. Reply to the RTI application was sent to the appellant on 5-5-2011. All the information was furnished to the appellant except 3rd party confidential information. Simultaneously notice to 3rd party i.e. Registrar General Supreme Court of India and Under Secretary ACC, DOPT were sent on 5-5-2011. The appellant inspected the records except 3rd party information on 13-5-2011; * On receipt of reply from both the 3rd parties, the CPIO decided to accept the contention of the 3rd parties and passed order dated 18-11-2011 to disclose information pertaining to DOPT and not to disclose the information pertaining to Supreme Court of India. Accordingly, a letter was dictated on the same day reflecting the decision of CPIO on 3rd party notices. The letter was dispatched to the appellant on 18-11-2011; * The appellant filed first appeal and the FAA passed order dated 1-2-2012 directing the CPIO to disclose decision on 3rd party information and to provide copies of certain documents to the appellant. Copies of relevant documents were provided to the appellant on receipt of requisite fees as directed by the FAA vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 11(3) of the RTI Act was of 157 days excluding 40 days as per S. 11(3) (6-6-2011 to 9-11-2011). The then CPIO is therefore liable for penalty u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act as also recommendation for disciplinary action u/s 20(2) of the RTI Act. * That it may be seen from Sl. No. 5 of the table above that the one of the noticees i.e. Addl. Registrar, Supreme Court had given its reply to the CPIO on 18-5-2011 which was received by the then CPIO on 23-5-2011 (kindly see Annexure E1 which carries the then CPIO's receiving). However yet the then CPIO remained silent and knowingly and malafidely did not take any action on the matter. This shows that the then CPIO had willfully not taken any decision on the matter in order to harass the Appellant/Complainant and causing obstruction to information. This calls for penalty u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act and also recommendation for disciplinary action u/s 20(2) of the RTI Act against the then CPIO. * That it may be seen from Sl. No. 9 of the table in his written submissions that even after the DoPT gave its consent to the disclosure of information vide letter dated 17-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore the CIC as recorded at para 6 of the CIC order. * That thus it is evident from the submission above that the then CPIO has caused a total delay of 279 days (13-5-2011 to 15-2-2012) in providing information to the Appellant/Complainant knowingly and malafidely which makes him liable for maximum penalty u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act as also recommendation for disciplinary action u/s 20(2) of the RTI Act. * That it is also evident from the facts of the case that the Appellant/Complainant has suffered detriment and has been put to great harassment, inconvenience and expenditure by the conduct of the then CPIO and deprived of the information within time. This calls for a suitable award of compensation to the appellant/Complainant u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act. * That therefore it is requested that maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000/- be imposed on Shri Victor James, the then CPIO u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act for knowingly and malafidely causing delay and obstruction to information. Disciplinary action u/s 20(2) of the RTI Act may be also recommended against him for persistently cau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t pages 158-159/C, pages 180-181/c and page 207 which are third party confidential letters, at 3 p.m. on 13-5-2011. 4(E) Please provide information whether any proposal for transfer of Member of the CESTAT has been received by the Ministry of Finance or any proposal for transfer is under consideration of the Ministry of Finance No 4(F) Please provide inspection of all original records, documents, files, notes, memos, correspondence, circulars in respect of information (A) to (E) above Covered under reply to (D) above. From the above, it may be noted that full information was given to the appellant within 30 days in r/o 5 parts out of total 6 parts of his RTI application. In r/o the remaining part (D), inspection was allowed on 13-5-2011 of all the documents except two documents which were highly sensitive third party confidential information. Thus 95% of the information was promptly provided to the appellant even without waiting for 30 days. The RTI appellant has not denied this anywhere in his appeal. * The table of delay in the rejoinder pertains to two information, i.e. supply of documents identified by the appellant at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed order dated 18-11-2011 to disclose the information pertaining to ACC and not to disclose the information pertaining to Supreme Court of India. The delay in ACC office was because they could not trace the Notice issued by the CPIO in the matter. Denial of information pertaining to Supreme Court on earlier date would not have made the appellant any wiser and information pertaining to ACC was disclosed to the appellant promptly on receipt of reply from ACC. The appellant claims that the order in this regard passed by the then CPIO dated 18-11-2011 did not reach him. Possibly the document was misplaced in his office. The CPIO cannot be held responsible for this. * The appellant kept on writing letters to the CPIO stating that complete information was not provided to him. Therefore, the CPIO addressed letter dated 13-3-2012 to the appellant requesting to indicate the information he has not yet received so that the same could be provided to him. However, the appellant chose not to reply to the CPIO and went ahead and filed the second appeal pleading to impose penalty on the CPIO. * From, the above, it may be....