Full Text
W.P.(C) 11564/2018, CM No. 44744/2018
DIBYENDU BIDYANTA
Through: ....Petitioner Mr. Vikas Kumar, Mr. Manish Paliwal and Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Advs.
V
Through:
22.04.2019 As all these petitions involve an identical issue related to penalties as
1. such, they are being disposed ofby this common order.
The challenge in all these petitions is to orders dated September 28, 2.
2018 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC in short). The details of the information sought in the RTI application filed by respondent no.2; reply thereof; order of the First Appellate Authority; appeal against order passed by the First Appellate Authority; complaint filed against the
CPIO and the gist of the impugned order passed by the CIC are given in the following chart:
2019:DHC:7883
Order of First Appellate Authority Complaint against
CPIO / Appeal against First Appeal Order Impugned
Order by CIC WP(C) Date ofApplication and Information Sought
Reply No Appeal filed on 26.09.2017.
Appeal filed on 15.10.2017 11564/18 Application filed 16.09.2017 Replied on 25.09.2017
Information pertaining to issue of Form - C for PO Number
BEPO/GC7/4900218077 All information denied as either:
ORDER
1. Barred by Sections 8 (1) (a), (d) and (e) of the Act; or Order passed on 05.10.2017 Appeal under Section 18 ofthe Act. Reaffirmed the original reply given by the CPIO, i.e. the Petitioner.
1. Details of officers responsible for issuance of Form - C.
2. Grounds of non issuance.
3. Details of Controlling Authority who can take action against officers for dereliction of duty.
4. Expected date of issuance of Form -C.
5. Daily update on movement of present RTI application file. being
2. Not "information" under the Act. Identical Final Orders Application filed 03.03.2018 Replied on 23.03.2018 12532/ 18 passed on 28.09.2018 Information pertaining to RFx 2000213107. Information denied as barred by Sections 8 (1) (a), (d) and (e) of the Act. is
1. It Price comparision chart, copy of MSE registered certificate of LI Bidder, list of tenders posted in future, and grounds for not inviting applicant to participate in tender. establishe d that CPIO has acted in an arbitrary and unreasona Application filed on 03.03.2018 Replied on 23.03.2018 12534/18 (l)(a), (d)and (e)of the Act. Information relating to Enquiry No. GC7/2600467150 ble Complaint filed on 30.03.2018. manner (though it is noted Price comparision chart, copy of MES registered certificate of LI Bidder, list oftenders posted in future, and grounds for not inviting applicant to participate in tender Alleging that RTI application responded to in a cyclostyle manner, denying information under all exemption clauses available under the Act. that corrective measures have now been taken by CPIO).
2. Penalty of Rs 5000 imposed under section 20 (1) of the Application filed 09.03.2018 Replied on 30.03.2018 12557/ 18 All information denied as barred by Sections 8 (l)(a), (d) and (e) of the Act. Information relating to Action Taken Report against applicant’s application dated 1^01.2018 (details of file movements, officers handling matter, action taken (if any), grounds for not taking action, etc.) Act.
3. Amount to Application filed 09.03.2018 Replied on 30.03.2018 12564/18 be deducted from salary. (l)(a), (d)and (e) of the Act. Information pertaining to withdrawal of MSE’s reserved procurement clause from tender RFx 2000242190. and all information connected thereto
3. Respondent no. 2 has been served in all the petitions but is not present. Hence, this Court proceeds to decide these petitions. From the above, it is seen that five applications were filed by the
4. respondent no.2 under the RTI Act seeking certain information. The CIC in all the complaints and appeal has imposed penalties on the petitioner, CPIO. The CIC was of the view that the CPIO has not tendered any substantial cause for having denied the information to the respondent no.2. It also held. the fact that corrective measures have been taken, even if considered, still the CPIO has acted in arbitrary and unreasonable manner which calls for imposition ofpenalties. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
5. course adopted by the CIC is not correct. According to him, CIC has not concluded, how the denial of information as being exempted under Section 8 (1) or for that matter not being “information” under Section 2(f) is not justified. According to him, rightly or wrongly, if the information has been denied by the petitioner that would not make the action of the CPIO arbitrary for imposition of penalties as has been done by the CIC in the impugned orders. He would rely upon the following two judgments in support ofhis contention:
1. Registrar ofCompanies and Ors. v. Dharmender Kumar Garg andAnr. ILR (2012) VIDELHI 499
2. Kripa Shanker v. Ld. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. bearing no. W.P. (C)8315/2017.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I agree with his submission that CIC did not give reasons as to how the CPIO has acted arbitrarily. That apart, rightly or wrongly, if the information has been denied, that cannot be a ground for the CIC to impose penalties on the petitioner. In any case, the information which was sought, has been given to the respondent no.2 by the petitioner during the pendency ofthe complaints / appeal before the CIC. Further the conclusion of the CIC that similar reply has been given by the petitioner in all the applications filed by respondent no.2 is no ground for imposition of penalties, more so, when it was » submitted by the counsel that the information was denied in these 5 applications as against 16 applications where information was given, would surely suggest that the said denial of information on the ground noted above. was not intentional and as such not arbitrary. In this regard, I may refer to Judgment of this court in the case of Registrar of Companies and Ors. (Supra), wherein this court has held as under: “Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show- cause notice under Section 20 ofthe RTI Act and the imposition ofpenalty. 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 tofulfill 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.”
1. That apart even in the case of Kripa Shanker (Supra) this court held as under: “Indisputably, merely because the view taken by a PIO is not correct, it would not lead to an inference that he is liable to penalty. There may be cases where the PIO is ofthe view that the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the Act. If this view is subsequentlyfound to be incorrect, it would not necessarily mean that he would be subjected to penalty. The question of imposition of penalty depends on whether the conduct of PIO is reasonable and whether there is any bonafide justification for denial of information; penalty is levied only if it is found that the information was denied without reasonable cause. ” f In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that the
8. penalties imposed in the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. The petitions are disposed of CM No. 44744/2018 in W.P.(C) 11564/2018 CM No. 48648/2018 in W.P.ICI 12532/2018 r CM No. 48651/2018 in W.P.(C) 12534/2018 CM No. 48757/2018 in W.P.(C) 12557/2018 CM No. 48820/2018 in W.P.(C) 12564/2018 Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J