Shamik Nag vs The Public Information Officer, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3926 Del

$~17
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      W.P.(C) 8913/2016
       SHAMIK NAG                                          ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Petitioner in person.
                          versus

       THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ORIENTAL
       BANK OF COMMERCE AND ORS              ..... Respondents
                     Through: Ms Adwaita Sharma, Advocate for
                                R1 and R2.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
                     ORDER

       %             04.08.2017
VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, against an order dated 17.12.2015 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) rejecting the petitioner's complaint made under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter 'the Act').

2. The CIC has held that no direction for providing information as required by the petitioner could be given by the CIC in a complaint instituted under Section 18 of the Act. The CIC has further noted that in any event, the petitioner was provided the information as sought by him.

3. The petitioner, who appears in person, relied upon Section 20 of the Act and submitted that the same cannot be read in a restrictive manner and the CIC would retain the jurisdiction to direct disclosure of information even in proceedings for penalty initiated under Section 18 of the Act. He further

submitted that the decision of this Court in the case of J.K. Mittal v. Central Information Commission & Anr.: (2013) 204 DLT 689, which was relied upon by the CIC requires reconsideration.

4. The petitioner stated that he had filed four applications under the Act seeking disclosure of certain information. However, the entire information as was sought by him has not been provided; in particular, the attested copies of all documents of his personal file have still not been provided and further the provident fund details prior to 1996 have also not been provided.

5. This Court is not persuaded to interfere in the order passed by the CIC. A plain reading of Section 20 of the Act indicates that in certain cases where the CIC comes to the conclusion that the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) or the State Public Information Officer (SPIO), as the case may be, has, declined to provide the information without reasonable cause or has knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or has destroyed the information which was the subject matter of request, the CIC will impose a penalty of ₹250/- for each day till the information is provided or a sum of ₹25,000/- whichever is greater.

6. Sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Act mandates that the CIC or the State Information Commission (SIC) will receive and enquire into complaints. In terms of sub - section (2) of Section 18 of the Act, the CIC/SIC is required to initiate an enquiry if it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the same. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 18 of the Act provide for powers of the CIC/SIC while enquiring into the complaint.

Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 18 of Act are relevant and are set out below:

"18. Powers and functions of Information Commission.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,-

(a) who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer, or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or Senior Officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;

(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;

(c) who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limits specified under this Act;

(d) who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable;

(e) who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and

(f) in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof."

7. It is relevant to note that inquiry under Section 18(2) of the Act is contingent upon the CIC/SIC being satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter. Such satisfaction can be arrived at either pursuant to a complaint under Section 18(1) of the Act or during the course of hearing an appeal under Section 19 of the Act. It is relevant to mention that in terms of Sub-section 19(5), the onus to prove that the denial of request for information was justified, rests with the CPIO or the SPIO, as the case may be.

8. Section 20 of the Act sets out the provisions for imposition of penalty where the enquiry under Section 18 of the Act indicates that the CPIO or the SPIO, as the case may be, has declined to provide the information without reasonable cause or has knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or has destroyed the information which was the subject matter of request. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 is set out below:-

"20. Penalties.- (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:

Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be."

9. The opening line of Section 20(1) of the Act clearly indicates that CIC/SIC may form an opinion warranting imposition of penalty "at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal". This must be read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 18(2) of the Act. Thus, if the CIC/SIC is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to enquire into the matter whether pursuant to a separate complaint filed under Section 18(1) of the Act or in proceedings relating to appeal under the Act (under Section 19(3) of the Act), it would conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Section 18(2) of the Act and give a reasonable opportunity to the CPIO/SPIO to be heard before imposing any penalty under Section 20(1) of the Act. In cases where the question of imposing penalty arises during the course of proceedings relating to an appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act, the CIC would have the jurisdiction to also direct disclosure of information in addition to considering the question whether any penalty ought to be imposed on the CPIO/SPIO. However, in cases where the only matter before the CIC/SIC is

a complaint under Section 18(1), jurisdiction of CIC would be limited to conducting an enquiry under Section 18(2), if warranted, and to impose penalty under Section 20 of the Act. The question of CIC issuing direction for disclosure of information would only arise in case where a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act against denial of such information is pending before the CIC/SIC.

10. In view of the above, the contention that the CIC has erred in not directing disclosure of information, is unmerited.

11. Insofar as the petitioner's real grievance is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice if the present petition is treated as the petitioner's request for supplying (i) the attested copies of all documents in the personal file and (ii) provident fund details prior to 1996 by the respondents and such information, if available, is provided to the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, respondent no.3 is directed to provide the necessary information or communicate the reasons for non-disclosure of the same to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today. In the event, the petitioner is not provided the information or is aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent no.3, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail all appropriate remedies as available under the Act.

13. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J AUGUST 04, 2017/pkv/MK