CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,

Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.

Tel: +91-11-26161796

Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000736/9775Penalty

Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000736

Complainant : Mr. Anzar

H-157, J.J.Colony, Bawana

Delhi-110039

Respondent : Mr. Dorilal

APIO & Vice Principal

Govt. Co-ed Sec. School, No. 2

Directorate of Education (GNCTD)

School ID 1310415, JJ Colony

Bawana, Delhi-110039

Events Chronologically:

• RTI Application - 11/05/2010

• Refusal of RTI Application

• Complaint - 20/05/2010

Brief Facts:

The Commission has received a complaint dated 20/05/2010 from Mr. Anzar wherein it was stated that he went to the office of the APIO & Vice Principal, to file his RTI Application dated 11/05/2010 which was addressed to the Dy. Director of Education. The Complainant has alleged that the same was unaccepted by the APIO & Vice Principal with the remarks that he has no orders to accept any RTI Applications and hence the same should be filed directly in the office of the Dy. Director of Education. In accordance with Section 18(1) (a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Commission has registered this Complaint, No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000736.

Section 5(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 provides that a Public Authority may appoint an Assistant Public Information Officer who may be assigned the duty to forward the RTI Application to the respective PIO(s). Section 5(2) provides-

Section 5(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), every public authority shall designate an officer, within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, at each sub-divisional level or other sub-district level as a Central Assistant Public Information Officer or a State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, to receive the applications for information or appeals under this Act for forwarding the same forthwith to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified under sub- section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be:

In view of the provisions of the RTI Act, there is no reason why a RTI Application should not be accepted by an APIO when addressed in the name of a CPIO. APIO & Vice Principal, should ensure that in future any RTI Applications are not returned on such superfluous grounds.

Commission's Decision dated 13th October, 2010:

Complaint was allowed.

"In view of the above, you are hereby directed to make such arrangements wherein the RTI Applications are received and subsequently forwarded to concerned Public Information Officer. Further, you are directed to ensure that information is provided w.r.t. the RTI Application dated 11/05/2010 of the

Page 1 of 3

Complainant in the present matter by concerned Public Information Officer before 03/11/2010. A compliance report should be sent to the Commission before 08/11/2010 in this regard. From the facts before the Commission, it appears that the APIO has willfully refused to accept the RTI Application under the RTI Act without any reasonable cause. The APIO & Vice Principal, Govt. Co-ed Sec. School, No. 2, is hereby directed to present himself before the Commission on 30/11/2010 at 4:30 pm along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, the APIO may serve this notice to such person (s) who is responsible for such refusal, and may direct them to be present before the Commission along with him on the aforesaid scheduled date and time. If the information has already been supplied to the complainant, bring a copy of the same to the Commission with your written submissions, and also proof of seeking assistance from other person(s), if any."

Relevant Facts emerging during non-compliance hearing on 30 November 2010: The following were present:

Respondent: Mr. Dorilal, APIO & Vice Principal;

Mr. Dorilal, APIO admits that he refused to take the RTI application from the Complainant. He states that he was not aware that this was his duty. Section 5(2) of the RTI Act states, "Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), every public authority shall designate an officer, within one hundred days of the enactment of this Act, at each sub divisional level or other sub-district level as a Central Assistant Public Information Officer or a State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, to receive the applications for information or appeals under this Act for forwarding the same forthwith to the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission , as the case may be." Thus the soul function of the APIO defined in the RTI Act is to receive applications for information or appeals and forwarding these. It is very unfortunate that an APIO appointed for this purpose is not even aware of his basic functions. The Complainant has approached the APIO Mr. Dorilal on 11/05/2010 with the RTI application which Mr. Dorilal refused to take. Subsequently the Complainant's RTI application was received by the PIO at the Directorate of Education on 12/06/2010 as per the statement of Mr. Dorilal. Thus there was a delay of 30 days in receiving the RTI application.

Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act states, "Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty five thousand rupees;

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be." A plain reading of Section 20 reveals that there are three circumstances where the Commission must impose penalty:

1) Refusal to receive an application for information. 2) Not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 - 30 days. 3) Malafidely denying the request for information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroying information which was the subject of the request 4) Obstructing in any manner in furnishing the information.

All the above are prefaced by the infraction, ' without reasonable cause'. Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act has also stated that "In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request."

Page 2 of 3

Thus if without reasonable cause, information is not furnished within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7, the Commission is dutybound to levy a penalty at the rate of rupees two hundred and fifty each day till the information is furnished. Once the Commission decides that there was no reasonable cause for delay, it has to impose the penalty at the rate specified in Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act and the law gives no discretion in the matter. The burden of proving that denial of information by the PIO was justified and reasonable is clearly on the PIO as per Section 19(5) of the RTI Act.

The delay in accepting the RTI application of the Complainant was from 11/05/2010 to 12/06/2010 i.e. for 30 days. Since no reasonable cause has been offered for the refusal to take the RTI application by the APIO Mr. Dorilal, Vice-Principal the Commission imposes a penalty as per the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on him. The Commission imposes a penalty as per Section 20(1) of the RTI Act at rate of `250/- per day of delay in receiving the RTI application for 30 days i.e. `250/- X 30 days = `7500/-.

The Commission under its powers under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act recommends to the Director of Education to provide copies of the RTI Act to all PIOs and APIOs and also conduct training programs so that they understand their duties under the RTI Act and their liabilities.

Decision:

As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. Dorilal, Vice-Principal & APIO. Since the delay in receiving the RTI Application has been of 30 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing Mr. Dorilal `7500/-.

The Chief Secretary of GNCT of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of `7500/- from the salary of Mr. Dorilal and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker's Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `3750/ per month every month from the salary of Mr. Dorilal and remitted by the 10th January 2011 and 10th February 2011. The total amount of `7500/- will be remitted by 10th of February 2011.

Shailesh Gandhi

Information Commissioner

30 November 2010

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(MS)

CC:

1- The Chief Secretary

GNCT of Delhi

New Delhi

2. Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar,

Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary

Central Information Commission,

2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,

New Delhi - 110066

3- Director

Directorate of Education (HQ)

Old Secretariat, Delhi

Page 3 of 3