- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shri Daleep Singh v. Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) .
Factual and Procedural Background
On 5-10-06, Shri Daleep Singh of Jaroli Phase-I, Kanpur, applied to Shri Manohar Lal, Directorate of Prosecution, CBI, seeking information regarding the basis for calculation of kitchen and other non-verifiable expenses in DA cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), including any circulars or laws related to such calculations and a photocopy of circular No. 21/17/86-PD dated 24.7.87. The application was transferred by the Deputy Legal Advisor, Shri Manohar Lal, to the Assistant Inspector General (P) 1, CBI, New Delhi on 26-10-06. Not receiving a response, the appellant filed a first appeal on 20-11-06. Subsequently, the appellant was informed on 5-12-06 that the information could be provided upon payment of Rs. 32/- for photocopy charges covering 16 pages.
The first appellate authority, Additional SP (P), disposed of the first appeal on 29-12-06, stating that the information regarding instructions forming the basis for the calculation in DA cases could only be provided after obtaining the views of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as per Section 11 of the RTI Act. The circular No. 21/17/86-PD dated 24.7.87 had already been furnished. After receiving the CVC's views on 5-12-06, the CPIO requested the appellant to send the photocopy fee, which had not been received. The appellant then filed a second appeal before the Commission, alleging mental harassment due to non-supply of information even after payment of fees.
The appeal was heard via videoconference on 18-1-08. The respondents submitted that upon receipt of the fees, they had repeatedly attempted to send the information to the appellant's new address, but the envelopes were returned undelivered. The Commission examined the returned envelopes and the procedural history of the case.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the information regarding the basis and calculation of kitchen and other non-verifiable expenses in DA cases under the PC Act can be disclosed under the RTI Act.
- Whether the respondents complied with the time limits and procedural requirements under the RTI Act in responding to the appellant's request.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to receive the information free of cost due to delay in supply after payment of fees.
- Whether the respondents are liable for penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for delay in providing the information.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Even after payment of the demanded fees, the information was not supplied, resulting in mental harassment.
Respondents' Arguments
- Upon receipt of the fees, the office made repeated attempts to send the information to the appellant’s new address.
- The letters containing the information were returned undelivered, as evidenced by returned envelopes placed before the Commission.
- The response to the RTI request was sent within the prescribed time limits.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Commission analyzed the timeline and correspondence related to the RTI request. It found that the respondents responded to the application within the prescribed time limit by sending a reply on 10-11-06 and subsequently on 5-12-06 specifying fees payable. The delay in supplying the information was attributed to the appellant’s failure to remit the photocopy charges and the returned correspondence due to incorrect or outdated address details.
The Commission noted that since the information was not supplied within the time frame after fees were demanded, the information must be provided free of cost under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act. It also found that the respondents could not be held liable for penalty under Section 20(1) as they had responded within the time limit. The Commission directed the Public Information Officer to renew efforts to ascertain the appellant’s correct address and supply the information, and to refund Rs. 35/- to the appellant as fees were not due.
Holding and Implications
The Commission disposed of the appeal by directing the Public Information Officer to:
- Make renewed efforts to trace the correct address of Shri Daleep Singh.
- Send the information sought to the appellant once the correct address is determined.
- Refund Rs. 35/- to the appellant representing fees which the Commission held were not due.
The decision implies that timely response by the public authority in accordance with the RTI Act protects it from penalty, but failure to supply information within the time frame after payment of fees entitles the appellant to receive the information free of cost. No new precedent was set; the ruling reaffirms procedural compliance and the appellant’s right to information under the RTI Act.
By an application of 5-10-06 Shri Daleep Singh of Jaroli Phase-I, Kanpur applied to Shri Manohar Lal, Directorate of Prosecution, CBI seeking the following information:
1. What is basis for calculation of Kitchen and other non-Verifiable expenses in DA cases under PC Act and what heads of expenditure are taken in this kitchen and other non-verifiable expenditure.
2. is there any circular/ law regarding calculation of kitchen and other non-verifiable expenditure for fixing % of calculation of this expenditure. Copy of circular/ notification may be supplied for public interest.
3. Photocopy of circular No. 21/17/86-PD dated 24.7.87. This application was transferred by the Dy. Legal Advisor, Shri Manohar Lal to the AIG (P) 1, CBI, New Delhi on 26-10-06. But on not receiving a response appellant moved his first appeal on 20-11-06, subsequent to which he received a response from Asst. Inspector General of Police dated 5-12-06 informing him that the information sought could be provided on payment of Rs. 32/- for photocopy charges on 16 pages. Subsequently, 1st appellate authority, Addl. SP (P) vide his order of 29-12-06 disposed of the first appeal as follows: In reply the CPIO vide his letter dated 10.11.2006 has informed the appellant that instructions issued on the subject form the basis of calculation in DA cases. Such information can only be provided after ascertaining the views of the CVC as provided under Section
11 of the RTI Act. However, copy of circular No. 21/17/86-PD dated 24.7.87 has already been furnished to the appellant. After receipt of the views of the CVC vide letter No. 21/42(89)/2006 PD/2888 dated 5.12.2006, CPIO has asked to the appellant to send demand draft/ Postal order of Rs. 32/- for photocopy charges of 16 pages. The photocopy charges for Rs. 32/- is still not received in the office from the appellant to supply the information to him. The appellant is therefore advised to sent (sic) photocopy charges for Rs. 32/- at the earliest so that information could be supplied to him by the CPIO. However, appellant has moved a second appeal before us in which his grounds for moving a second appeal are summarized as follows: Even after receipt of the demanded fees non-supply of the information result into mental harassment. The appeal was scheduled for videoconference on 18-1-08. Following are present: Respondents Shri Jogendra Nayak, Addl SP/CBI. Shri Manohar Lal, Dy. L.A. /CBI. Although, informed of the hearing through our letter of 9-1-2008, appellant Shri Daleep Singh opted not to be present. Shri Jogendra Nayak, Addl. SP/ CBI submitted that in fact on receipt of the fees his office had been repeatedly attempting to send the information to Shri Daleep Singh at his new address : Plot No.4, Jaroli Phase-1, Kanpur, U.P. However, this has been repeatedly received back. To substantiate his submission, Shri Jogendra Nayak placed before us the returned envelopes. DECISION NOTICE: We are satisfied that respondents have made genuine efforts to provide information sought to appellant Shri Daleep Singh. However, the address held by us which corresponds to the address to which respondents have been addressing their letter containing the requisite information has not evoked a response even in the current hearing. We are not aware whether the appellant has opted not to be present or has done so because he had not received the notice of hearing. At any rate we find that the RTI request was transferred to DIG (P) on 26- 10-06 and response therefore became due on 26-11-06 but has, in fact, been sent on 10-11-06 which is within the time limit specified, but without copies of documents sought regarding which response has gone from AIG only on 5-12- 06, specifying fees payable. Therefore, while respondents cannot be held liable for penalty u/s 20 (1) having responded to the application on time, the information not having been supplied within the time frame specified is eligible for supply free of cost u/s 7 (6). Therefore, PIO Shri Jogendra Nayak, Addl. SP (CBI) will renew his efforts to trace the correct address of appellant Shri Daleep Singh and send him the information sought but once determined he will also refund to him Rs. 35/- representing cost of fees which we hold are not due. The appeal is disposed of accordingly Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. (Wajahat Habibullah) Chief Information Commissioner 18-1-2008 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission. (Pankaj Shreyaskar) Joint Registrar 18-1-2008
Alert