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

1. 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.
2. Whether the respondents complied with the time limits and procedural requirements under the RTI Act in responding to the appellant's request.
3. Whether the appellant is entitled to receive the information free of cost due to delay in supply after payment of fees.
4. 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.