Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Complaint No. CIC/CC/C/2015/000146-BJ-Final

Judges

Bimal Julka, IC

Acts

Administration Section/Evasion Section, Adjudication Section, Review Section and Legal Section,
provision of Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005
first.15. Section 20(1) of the RTI Act,
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.8.
SECTION 610 COMPANIES ACT
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005,
Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005,
Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)
Section 20(1) of the RTI Act
sub section (1) of Section 7,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Summary of the Commission's Opinion — RTI Complaint by Shri J.K. Mittal

Factual and Procedural Background

Shri J.K. Mittal filed an RTI application dated 29.10.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Office of the Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi, seeking information on eight points relating to the Sevottam Scheme in the Delhi Service Tax Commissionerate. The complainant alleged that the CPIO did not provide information within the maximum time limit under the RTI Act and filed a complaint before the Central Information Commission on 10.02.2015 requesting action against the CPIO.

A first appeal was filed (date recorded as 10.02.2015) and the First Appellate Authority (FAA) issued an order dated 31.03.2015 directing the CPIO to furnish information within 15 days. The complainant contended compliance did not occur within that period. Hearing(s) were held before the Commission on 08.06.2016, 02.09.2016 and later on 18.07.2017. During the proceedings, the CPIO explained that a reorganisation of the Service Tax Commissionerate (division into eight Commissionerates in October 2014) led to transfer and segregation of files and that the file containing the RTI application was misplaced; information was eventually supplied (point-wise) on 14.05.2015 (also references to a para-wise reply on 21.05.2015). The Commission issued a show cause notice requiring an explanation why penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated; after submissions and further hearings the Commission concluded the delay occurred but found no malafide and dropped the penalty proceedings, disposing the complaint.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the CPIO is liable for penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for not furnishing information within the time specified and/or for knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or for malafidely denying the request.
Whether the complainant may insist that no further opportunity be granted to the CPIO once the Commission has found information was not provided and CPIO is prima facie liable for penalty (i.e., the scope and meaning of the proviso to Section 20(1) regarding "a reasonable opportunity of being heard").
Whether the delay in furnishing information could be construed as malafide or without reasonable cause in light of the particulars of departmental restructuring and the alleged misplacement of files.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant's Arguments (Shri J.K. Mittal)

The information was not provided within the statutory 30 days, necessitating first appeal dated 10.02.2015, and even after the FAA order dated 31.03.2015 the information was not provided within the 15 days directed by the FAA.
Requested that penal action be initiated against the CPIO for providing misleading and incomplete information and for deliberate violation of the RTI Act.
During the 02.09.2016 hearing the complainant argued that once the Commission has adjudicated and found that information was not provided and that CPIO is liable under Section 20(1), no further opportunity can be granted; relied on the proviso to Section 20(1) and on the Himachal Pradesh High Court decision in CWP No. 640 of 2012-D (Sanjay Hindwan v. SIC(HP)) to contend penalty must be imposed (calculated at Rs.250 per day subject to Rs.25,000 cap) and that the Commission has no discretion to provide further opportunity.
Requested the Commission not to entertain or adjudicate on respondent's written submissions until the complainant's oral submissions on 02.09.2016 were disposed of.

Respondent's Arguments (CPIO and representatives)

Explained that in October 2014 the Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi, was bifurcated into eight Commissionerates which required transfer and segregation of records; during this process the file regarding the RTI application was misplaced, causing delay in processing and furnishing the information.
Asserted that compliance with the FAA order occurred and that a point-wise reply was provided on 14.05.2015 (also para-wise reply on 21.05.2015 as explained in hearings).
Tendered an unconditional apology for any inadvertent lapse or delay and submitted that delays were unintentional and not malafide; contended there were genuine and reasonable causes for the delay (including voluminous/multi-point nature of request requiring coordination across multiple sections and the strain on manpower during restructuring).
Referenced the Supreme Court decision in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay in support of the contention regarding the nature and compilation of voluminous information and the effort required to compile such information.
Confirmed awareness of Section 20 of the RTI Act and accepted that penalty is imposable under specific circumstances but maintained that the facts here showed reasonable cause for the delay rather than malafide conduct.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ankur Mutreja v. Delhi University (Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision dated 09.01.2012)	Interpreting the proviso to Section 20(1) — discretionary nature of the Commission's power to grant opportunity; 'a reasonable opportunity' need not be restricted to a single hearing.	The Commission relied on this decision to hold that the word 'a' in the proviso does not necessarily mean only 'one' opportunity; the Commission has discretion to grant further opportunities and such discretion does not infringe natural justice if exercised reasonably.
Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011)	Referenced concerning obligations and practical issues in furnishing voluminous or multi-point information under the RTI Act (as cited by the respondent).	The respondent cited this decision in support of his contention that the RTI request involved voluminous/multi-point information requiring coordination and compilation from many sections; the Commission recorded that the respondent relied upon this decision as part of his explanation.
Registrar of Companies v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg (W.P.(C) 11271/2009, delivered 01.06.2012)	Principle that penalty under Section 20 should not be imposed where delay was not malafide or without reasonable cause; caution against routine imposition of penalties.	The Commission referred to this ruling to emphasize that mere incorrectness or delay, without malafide or unreasonable conduct, does not automatically justify penalty; it supported the Commission's caution in not imposing penalty where reasonable cause exists.
Bhagat Singh v. CIC (WP(C) 3114/2007)	Observation that delay and lack of adequate reasoning does not by itself demonstrate malafide denial; absence of malafide negates direction to initiate action under Section 20.	The Commission relied on this observation to support the conclusion that although there was delay and inadequate approach, the complainant had not demonstrated malafide denial by the respondent and thus penalty could not be imposed on that basis alone.
Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission (WP(C) 5469 of 2008, dated 20.03.2009)	Holding that Section 20 empowers imposition of penalty but the Commission must be satisfied that delay was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.	The Commission cited this authority to reiterate that the threshold for imposing penalty is satisfaction that the delay was without reasonable cause or malafide, and applied that standard in evaluating the instant case.
Sanjay Hindwan v. SIC(HP) (CWP No. 640 of 2012-D) — (Himachal Pradesh High Court)	Cited by the complainant to support his contention that once adjudicated the Commission must impose penalty (and to argue calculation at Rs.250/day to the Rs.25,000 cap).	The Commission considered the complainant's reliance on this decision but concluded, based on other authorities (notably Ankur Mutreja and the cited High Court rulings), that it had discretion regarding the opportunity of hearing and could not accept the complainant's submission that no further opportunity could be granted as a matter of law.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission proceeded in the following analytical steps (as reflected in the opinion):

Verified timeline and procedural facts: RTI application dated 29.10.2014; first appeal and FAA order dated 31.03.2015 directing compliance within 15 days; information ultimately furnished with delay (point-wise on 14.05.2015 / para-wise on 21.05.2015 as per respondent's account).
Considered the statutory text of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, including the proviso that the CPIO "shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed" and reiterated the elements listed in Section 20(1) which trigger penalty (refusal without reasonable cause to receive application; failure to furnish within the time specified; malafide denial; knowingly providing incorrect, incomplete or misleading information; destruction or obstruction).
Explained that a plain reading of Section 20(1) shows that merely concluding that complete and correct information was not provided is insufficient to impose penalty; the Commission must form a view whether the CPIO acted without reasonable cause or malafidely, and an opportunity of hearing must be afforded before imposing penalty.
Addressed the complainant's submission that no further opportunity should be granted once the Commission had found non-provision of information and prima facie liability: the Commission relied on Ankur Mutreja to hold that the word 'a' in the proviso does not confine the Commission to only a single opportunity. The Commission observed that providing only one opportunity could violate principles of natural justice and that discretion vested in the Commission permits it, in its wisdom, to grant more than one opportunity where appropriate.
Considered the respondent's explanation (file misplacement during major restructuring and voluminous nature of the request requiring coordination across sections), his written submissions and apology, and references to the Supreme Court's Aditya Bandopadhyay decision to contextualize difficulties in compiling voluminous information.
Examined binding and persuasive precedents (Registrar of Companies v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg; Bhagat Singh; Col. Rajendra Singh) that caution against imposing personal penalties under Section 20 in the absence of malafide or unreasonable conduct; these authorities emphasize that penalty should not be routinely imposed purely for errors or genuine bonafide mistaken views.
Noted that the complainant did not appear at the 18.07.2017 hearing and thus did not substantiate claims of malafide denial or withholding of information without reasonable cause.
On balance, concluded that while there was a regrettable delay in furnishing information (contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act), the evidence did not establish malafide intent or denial without reasonable cause warranting imposition of penalty under Section 20(1). Accordingly, the Commission accepted the respondent's explanations and dropped the penalty proceedings but issued a caution regarding future compliance.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Commission held that the delay in providing information occurred but was not shown to be malafide or without reasonable cause such as to justify imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. Consequently, the Commission directed that the penalty proceedings against the Respondent be dropped and the complaint be disposed of.

Implications:

Direct effect on the parties: Penalty proceedings against the CPIO (Mr. Saroj Kumar Behera / the then CPIO) stand dropped; the complaint by Shri J.K. Mittal is disposed of.
The respondent was formally cautioned to exercise due care to ensure correct and complete information is furnished timely to RTI applicants in the future; failure to do so may result in initiation of penal proceedings under Section 20.
No broader or novel legal principle altering existing precedent was announced; the Commission applied established authorities to the facts and emphasised the threshold of malafide or lack of reasonable cause before imposing penalties under Section 20.

This summary is restricted to the information contained in the provided opinion. No facts, findings or inferences beyond those expressly recorded in the opinion have been added.

Show full summary ...

J.K. Mittal Complainant v. Central Public Information Officer, Office Of The Commissioner Of Service Tax .

1. Shri J.K. Mittal filed an application dated 29.10.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), O/o Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi seeking information on eight points relating to the Sevottam Scheme in the Delhi Service Tax Commissionerate.

2. Shri J.K. Mittal filed a complaint dated 10.02.2015 before the Commission on the grounds that the CPIO has not provided the information even after expiry of the maximum time limit prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005 and has deliberately violated the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The complainant requested the Commission to take appropriate action against the respondent under the provisions of the RTI Act.

Hearing on 08.06.2016:

3. The complainant Shri J.K. Mittal and the respondent Shri Abhishek Sharma, CPIO and Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax were present in person.

4. The complainant submitted that the information was not provided within the stipulated period of 30 days, necessitating filing of the first appeal dated 10.02.2015. The complainant further submitted that even after the FAA's order dated 31.03.2015, the information was not provided within 15 days as directed by the FAA. Therefore, the complainant requested the Commission to initiate penal action against the CPIO for providing misleading and incomplete information to him.

5. The respondent submitted that the Service Tax Commissionerate in Delhi was bifurcated into 8 different Commissionerates in October, 2014 necessitating the transfer of number of records/files from one Commissionerate to another. During this process the file pertaining to the RTI application was misplaced. Hence, information could not be provided to the complainant. However, in compliance with the FAA's order, point wise information was provided vide letter dated 14.05.2015.

6. The complainant countered the arguments of the respondent submitting that he was never informed that the file in question has been misplaced. Hence, the delay in providing the information be construed as intentional and malafide.

Interim Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the information was provided with a considerable delay even after the FAA's order. The Commission takes a very serious view of this delay. The public information officers are entrusted with the responsibility of providing information to the citizen under the RTI Act. It is expected that the CPIO shall as expeditiously as possible provide information. In this case the CPIO did not discharge his responsibility properly. Therefore, the CPIO is liable for imposition of penalty in terms of provision under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.

8. The then CPIO, Service Tax is hereby directed to submit an explanation both by post and through e-mail at do.icsb-cic@gov.in before the Commission, on or before 23.08.2016, explaining why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act should not be initiated against him. Shri Abhishek Sharma, CPIO and Assistant Commissioner, Service Tax will ensure that a copy of this show cause notice is served upon the officer.

9. The CPIO, Service Tax is further directed to appear before the Commission on 02.09.2016 at 1.15 p.m. along with a copy of his written explanations.

10. The CPIO is also directed to inform if there is/are other person(s) responsible for knowingly not providing complete information to the complainant and if so to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission on 02.09.2016 at 1.15 p.m. along with his/their written explanations.

Hearing on 02.09.2016:

11. The complainant Shri J.K. Mittal and the respondent Shri Amit Kumar, Asstt. Commissioner, O/o Commissioner of Service Tax were present in person.

12. The complainant during the hearing challenged the practice followed by the Commission while hearing matters pertaining to the show cause notice issued in the earlier hearing. The complainant further submitted that once the Commission has after adjudication, given its findings that information was not provided by the CPIO to the complainant and that the CPIO is liable for imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, no further opportunity can be granted to the CPIO. In support of his contention, he relied upon proviso to Section 20(1) of the RTI Act wherein it has inter-alia been mentioned that the CPIO shall be given V reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed upon the CPIO. Hence, once the Commission has given its findings that information has not been provided, it has no discretion but to impose penalty on the erring CPIO without affording any further opportunity. The complainant relying on Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court decision in CWP No. 640 of 2012-D (Sanjay Hindwan v. SIC(HP)) submitted that the penalty has either to be imposed at the rate fixed under the RTI Act or no penalty has to be imposed. Hence, the Commission has no discretion in this regard but to calculate the amount of penalty at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day for the number of days the delay has occurred subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000/-.

13. The complainant also requested the Commission not to entertain and adjudicate on the written submissions of the respondent in response to the Commission's decision dated 17.06.2016 till his submissions made on 02.09.2016 are disposed of.

Interim Decision:

14. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the complainant and perusing the records, observes that it would be appropriate if the issue arising out of the submissions made by the complainant is decided first.

15. Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, inter-alia, provides as under:—

20. (1) 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:

A plain reading of the above indicates that merely coming to a conclusion that complete and correct information has not been provided is not enough for imposing a penalty. The Commission has to form a view whether or not the CPIO without any reasonable cause has not furnished information within the time specified 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. Therefore, after reaching a conclusion at the time of deciding the appeal and before imposing any penalty, an opportunity of hearing has to be provided to the CPIO against whom penalty is imposed. This is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision dated 09.01.2012 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ankur Mutreja v. Delhi University 764/2011).

Coming to the submissions of the complainant, the Commission is of the view that the opportunity provided to the CPIO cannot be restricted to ‘one’ opportunity because by doing so, the principles of natural justice would be violated. Besides, the word ‘a’ mentioned in proviso to Section 20(1) of the RTI Act does not connote ‘one’ but means providing of reasonable opportunity, which in the wisdom of the Commission may extend to ‘two’ or even more such opportunities. This is fortified by the decision dated 09.01.2012 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ankur Mutreja v. Delhi University 764/2011) wherein it has been observed that the discretion has been vested with the CIC. Hence, there is no infirmity in granting another opportunity, if at all it is one, to the CPIO to present his case. Apart from the above, the Hon'ble High Court in para 11 of the said decision has observed as under:—

“11. The penalty proceedings are akin to contempt proceedings, the settled position with respect whereto is that after bringing the facts to the notice of the Court, it becomes a matter between the Court and the contemnor and the informant or the relator who has brought the factum of contempt having been committed to the notice of the Court does not become a complainant or petitioner in the contempt proceedings. His duty ends with the facts being placed before the Court though the Court may in appropriate cases seek his assistance”

The Commission, therefore, observes that the complainant has no locus standi in the matters pertaining to disposal of show causes notices issued by the Commission. Hence, the Commission directs the Registry to issue a fresh notice to the CPIO in due course to present himself before the Commission along with the records/documents as directed in the Commission's decision dated 17.06.2016.

16. Copy of the interim decision be provided to both the parties free of cost.

Note: Subsequent to re-allocation of work amongst different registries in the Commission on 10.01.2017, this matter was transferred by the Registry of IC-SB to the Registry of IC-BJ on 06.03.2017.

Hearing:

Facts emerging during the hearing on 18.07.2017:

The following were present:

Complainant: Absent;

Respondent: Mr. Saroj Kumar Behera, Jt. Director, Directorate General of Export Promotion (M: 7838757488); Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Asst. Commissioner (M: 9818827573);

The Complainant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent Mr. Saroj Kumar Behera, the then CPIO while explaining the reasons for the delay in providing information submitted that due to major restructuring in October, 2014 whereby the erstwhile Single Service Tax Commissionerate of Delhi was divided into 8 Commissionerate (4 Executives 2 Audit and 2 Appeal). While referring to his written submission dated 23.08.2016, it was submitted that the RTI application dated 29.10.2014 was received on 30.10.2014 and a para wise reply was provided on 21.05.2015. The Respondent confessed that it was unfortunate that the RTI application was not responded within the stipulated time period and apologized for the mistake. Explaining the reasons for the delay in responding to the RTI Application, it was submitted that Department's cadre underwent restructuring as a result of which the Single Commissionerate of Service Tax-I, was divided into 8 different Commissionerates in October, 2014 and the process of segregation of records/files and handing over the same to respective Commissionerate was taking place. During the same, unfortunately the RTI application dated 29.10.2014 got misplaced and therefore couldn't be processed on time and a para wise reply was given on 21.05.2015. It was further submitted that the delay was unintentional and assured that such mistakes would not recur in future. On a query from the Commission regarding the date of providing information to the Complainant in compliance with the orders of FAA dated 31.03.2015, the Respondent submitted that a point wise reply was provided to the Complainant on 14-.05.2015.

The Commission was also in receipt of written submission from the CPIO and Jt. Commissioner, O/o the Pr. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi-I, dated 02.09.2016, wherein it was submitted that they had scrupulously followed and complied with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and had ensured that correct and complete information was provided to the RTI applicants within stipulated time period. However unconditional apology was tendered for any inadvertent lapse or delay in providing timely information to the RTI applicant. It was submitted that the Complainant had filed an RTI application dated 29.10.2014 on 30.10.2014 seeking voluminous information on “fifteen odd points”. It was submitted that the Service Tax Commissionerate, Delhi-I comprised of large number of sections that looked after particular nature of work. The details of the scope of work of Administration Section/Evasion Section, Adjudication Section, Review Section and Legal Section, etc. was cited. It was stated that the RTI applicant sought multiple information on different issues/aspects which were required to be obtained from the respective sections by the CPIO for onward submission to the Complainant which required coordination and compilation of information from different sections. A reference was also drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) in support of his contention. It was also submitted that “Service Tax” was one of the major sources of Government revenue and the number of tax assesses during the relevant time in the erstwhile Service Tax Commissionerate was quite huge (2.83 lakhs approximately). It was also articulated that during the restructuring process, many other large number of parallel administrative and trade facilitation tasks were required to be completed in a time bound manner with meagre working strength of officers which actually consumed almost all of their attention and priority over many other issues. Furthermore, it was submitted that he was aware of the provision of Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005 and that penalty was imposable under specific circumstances, i.e. refusal to receive an application for information, not furnishing information within the time limit under sub section (1) of Section 7, etc. without any reasonable cause. It was, however, stated that there were genuine and reasonable causes for which the delay in submission of information occurred.

The Commission observed that after duly considering the submissions made by Mr. Saroj Kumar Behera, CPIO in response to the show cause notice issued by the Commission, it is evident that the delay had been caused in delivery of information but it cannot be construed that there was any malafide intention on the part of the Respondent to obstruct free flow of information. Nonetheless, the Commission was appalled to learn that information was not timely provided to the Complainant which was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.

With regard to the imposition of penalty on the CPIO/PIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission took note of the ruling of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11271/2009 Registrar of Companies v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg (delivered on: 01.06.2012) wherein it was held:

“ 61. Even if it were to be assumed for the sake of argument, that the view taken by the learned Central Information Commissioner in the impugned order was correct, and that the PIOs were obliged to provide the information, which was otherwise retrievable by the querist by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act, it could not be said that the information had been withheld malafide or deliberately without any reasonable cause. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a showcause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed,. This was certainly not one such case. If the CIC starts imposing penalty on the PIOs in every other case, without any justification, it would instill a sense of constant apprehension in those functioning as PIOs in the public authorities, and would put undue pressure on them. They would not be able to ful fill their statutory duties under the RTI Act with an independent mind and with objectivity. Such consequences would not auger well for the future development and growth of the regime that the RTI Act seeks to bring in, and may lead to skewed and imbalanced decisions by the PIOs Appellate Authorities and the CIC. It may even lead to unreasonable and absurd orders and bring the institutions created by the RTI Act in disrepute.”

Similarly, the following observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhagat Singh v. CIC WP(C) 3114/2007 are pertinent in this matter:

“17. This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lack adaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the Petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act, cannot be issued.”

Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the decision of Col. Rajendra Singh v. Central Information Commission WP (C) 5469 of 2008 dated 20.03.2009 had held as under:

“Section 20, no doubt empowers the CIC to take penal action and direct payment of such compensation or penalty as is warranted. Yet the Commission has to be satisfied that the delay occurred was without reasonable cause or the request was denied malafidely.”

The Complainant was not present to satisfy the Commission or substantiate his claims further regarding malafide denial of information by the Respondent or for withholding it without any reasonable cause.

FINAL DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and submission made by both the parties, the Commission felt satisfied by the response provided by the Respondent in reply to the show cause notice issued against him. The penalty proceedings against the Respondent stands dropped.

The Respondent is however, cautioned to exercise due care in future to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 shall be initiated.

The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.

J.K. Mittal Complainant v. Central Public Infor...