CentralInformationCommission,NewDelhi

FileNo.CIC/SM/A/2012/000981&982
RighttoInformationAct2005UnderSection(19)

Dateofhearing : 21December2012

Dateofdecision : 21December2012

NameoftheAppellant : ShriAlokeTikku,
145,NationalMediaCentre,
Gurgaon,Haryana122002.

NameofthePublicAuthority : CPIO,DepartmentofPersonneland
Training,NorthBlock,
NewDelhi.

TheAppellantwaspresentinperson.

OnbehalfoftheRespondent,thefollowingwerepresent:

(i) ShriR.K.Girdhar,US,
(ii) Smt.AnuradhaS.Chagti,Director

ChiefInformationCommissioner : ShriSatyanandaMishra

2. Both the parties were present during the hearing. We heard their

submissions.

3. IntwoseparateRTIapplications,theAppellanthadsoughtanumberof

information mainly relating to the amendment to the RTI Act and Rules

respectively. In response to both these RTI applications, the CPIO had

observedthatthedesiredinformationwascontainedinfileswhichhadbeenput

CIC/SM/A/2012/000981&982
uptohigherauthoritiesandwouldbedisclosedonlyafterreceivingthosefiles

back.TheAppellateAuthorityhadendorsedthestandtakenbytheCPIO.

4. TheAppellantarguedthattheresponseoftheCPIOwasnotacceptable

becauseitwasnotinconformitywiththeprovisionsoftheRighttoInformation

(RTI)Act.Theinformationcouldnotbedenied,heargued,merelybecausethe

filewasundersubmissiontosomehigherauthority.Inthepresentcase,he

submittedthatthesubmissionofthefiletothePrimeMinister(PM)meantthatit

was within the Department of Personnel and Training, the PM being the

Ministerincharge,and,therefore,therelevantfileswereavailablewithinthe

Department.HepointedoutthathehadreceivedsimilarrepliesfromtheCPIO

oftheDoPTinthepastalsowhichshowedthatthiswasonewayofnotgiving

theinformationtoinformationseekers.

5. TheRespondentssubmittedthattherelevantfileshadbeenindeedput

uptothehigherauthoritiesincludingthePrimeMinisterand,therefore,werenot

physically available in the section. After carefully considering both the

submissions,weareoftheviewthattheremustbeabetterwayofdealingwith

suchsituationswherethedesiredinformationformspartofalivefileinthe

process of decisionmaking. The twin objectives of meeting the information

needofthecitizenandearlydecisionmakingbytheauthorities,abalancehas

tobestruck.Incaseslikethepresentones,theCPIOshouldhaveestimated

thelikelytimetobetakeninthedisposalofthefilesbythehigherauthorities

andinformedtheAppellantappropriately.However,ifitwasnotpossibleforthe

CPIOtofindoutaboutthelikelytimetobetaken,heshouldhaveinformedthe

higher authorities about the RTI application and the need to provide the

information within a period of 30 days. In that case, the onus of deciding

CIC/SM/A/2012/000981&982
whethertoreturnthefilestemporarilytomeetthedemandoftheinformation

seekerwouldhavebeenonthehigherauthoritiesthemselves.Inthepresent

case,theCPIOchosethesimplealternativeofinformingtheAppellantthatthe

fileswereundersubmissiontohigherauthorities.Thefactthattherelevantfiles

werewithintheDepartmentwasignored.WewouldliketheCPIOtobearthisin

mindinfutureandwheneverasimilarcasecomesup,hemustintimatethe

higherauthoritiestowhomtherelevantfileshavebeensubmittedtotakeacall

andeitherreturnthefilesorprovidetheinformationthemselvesdirectlytothe

informationseeker.Itmustnotbeforgottenthatasfarastheinformationseeker

isconcerned,hedoesnotdistinguishbetweenoneortheotherauthoritywithin

the public authority itself; for him the CPIO is the single point of contact.

Therefore,itisfortheCPIOtofacilitatethedisclosureofinformationevenifhe

hastosummonthefilesfromthehigherauthoritiesonlyforthispurpose.

6. TheAppellantsubmittedthatwhileheunderstoodthattherelevantfiles

hadbeenundersubmissiontothehigherauthoritiesatthetimeoftheRTI

applications, he expected that the CPIO should have provided the desired

informationoncethefilesreturnedtotherespectivedivisions.Accordingtohis

information,therelevantfilesmusthavecomebacktotherespectivedivisions

waybackinJulythisyearwhereastheinformationwasprovidedonlyrecently.

It is to be remembered thatthe CPIO hadhimself promised to provide the

informationoncethefileswerereceivedback.Bynotprovidingtheinformation

soonafterreceivingthefilesbackfromthehigherauthorities,theCPIOhas

rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty as per the provisions of

subsection1ofsection20oftheRighttoInformation(RTI)Act.BoththeCPIO

andtheAppellateAuthorityconcerned,presentduringthehearing,submitted

CIC/SM/A/2012/000981&982
thatthishappenedbecauseofoversightcausedbyexcessiveworkloadand

extremelypoorinfrastructure.TheysubmittedthattheCPIOsworkloadwas

hugewithnearly400RTIapplicationsreceivedtilltheendofNovemberthis

yearandnumerousRTIrelatedcourtcasesandschemesandprogrammes.

ThenumberofpersonnelpostedtoassisttheCPIOandtheAppellateAuthority

istoosmalltocopewithsuchworkload.Whileacceptingthisexplanationas

plausibleenoughnottoimposeanypenaltyontheCPIO,wewouldlikevery

stronglytourgetheSecretaryoftheDepartmentofPersonnelandTrainingto

reviewtheworkingoftheCPIOandtoprovideadditionalmanpowerandother

resources so that he can fulfil his statutory responsibility of providing

informationwithinthestipulatedperiod.

7. AslongastheRighttoInformation(RTI)Actisonthestatutebook,itis

ourresponsibilitytoseethatitsmandatesarecarriedoutfaithfullyandwithout

anylapse.Infact,thereisaneedtoreviewwhysuchlargenumberofRTI

applicationsarebeingpreferredtothisparticularCPIO.Inourview,itshouldbe

possibletominimisethenumberofRTIapplicationsbyuploadingmostofthe

informationheldinthisparticulardivisioninthewebsiteoftheDepartmentona

continual basis. For example, the files relating to the appointment of the

CIC/InformationCommissioners,amendmenttotheRTIActandRules,staff

strengthandotherinfrastructurefacilitiesfortheCICaremostoftendemanded

bythecitizens.Tobeginwith,thedepartmentcandecidetouploadallthese

filesintheirwebsitesince,inouropinion,therecouldbeverylittleinthesefiles

whichwouldcomeunderanyoftheexemptionprovisions.WedirecttheCPIO

toobtaintheordersofthecompetentauthoritywithinthedepartmentandcarry

outtheuploadingwithinamonthofreceivingthisorder.Thisoptionwouldbe

CIC/SM/A/2012/000981&982
farmoreeconomicalthanemployinglargernumberofpersonneltoassistthe

CPIO.

8. WedirectthattheCPIOmustputupthisorderbeforetheSecretaryof

theDepartmentofPersonnelandTrainingimmediatelyonreceipt.Wewould

likeareportonthestepsbeingtakenbytheDepartmenttoimprovetheworking

oftheCPIOandtheAppellateAuthoritywithintwomonths.Wedisposeofthe

appealsaccordingly.

9. Copiesofthisorderbegivenfreeofcosttotheparties.

(SatyanandaMishra)
ChiefInformationCommissioner

Authenticatedtruecopy.Additionalcopiesofordersshallbesuppliedagainst
applicationandpaymentofthechargesprescribedundertheActtotheCPIOofthis
Commission.

(VijayBhalla)
DeputyRegistrar

CIC/SM/A/2012/000981&982