Delhi High Court
Unique Identification Authority Of ... vs Central Information Commission, on 17 April, 2025
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment pronounced on : 17.04.2025
+ W.P.(C) 3019/2025 & CM APPL. 14293/2025, CM APPL.
14294/2025 & CM APPL. 14295/2025
UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vipin Jai and Mr. Ujjwal Goel,
Advocates.
versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION .....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition seeks to assail an order dated 24.05.2024 passed
by the Central Information Commission (CIC) whereby a penalty of Rs.
10,000/- (each) was imposed on the Chief Public Information Officer,
Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) and First Appellate
Authority, UIDAI under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
(hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act").
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following
prayers:
"i. Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, quashing the Impugned
Order bearing CIC/NITIA/A/2022/669319, dated 24.05.2024, being based on
incorrect facts and law; and
ii. Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondent to
take action on the representation/ application for modification of the
Impugned Order dated 24.05.2024; and
iii. Pass an order in the interim staying the operation of the Impugned Order
to the extent of establishment of mala fide against the Petitioner as well as
the penalty imposed under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005; and
iv. Any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem it in the favour of
the Petitioner and against the Respondents."
3. An RTI application dated 22.08.2022 was filed by Mr. Krishna Deo
Prasad Sahu (hereinafter 'the applicant'), an IFS (member of All India
Services of Kerela Cadre-2005) before the CPIO, UIDAI i.e., Director (HR),
UIDAI (hereinafter 'the CPIO'). In the said application, the applicant sought
a total of eight separate points of information related to his pre-mature
repatriation from the post of Additional Director General, Regional Office,
Ranchi, Jharkhand, UIDAI (on deputation).
4. The CPIO vide letter dated 21.09.2022 responded to the queries raised
by the applicant as under:
Sir,
Please refer to your RTI application dated 22.08.2022 received in
this office on 25.08.2022. The desired information w.r.t. your RTI
application is appended below :
Point No. Information sought Reply thereof
1. Furnish certified copy of the Note Copy of notification
Sheets of the File and dated 29.04.2019
Order/O.M./Notification of the and copy of
competent authority of UIDAI, notesheet are
communicating/conveying its attached as Annexure
concurrence for appointment of 'A' & 'B"
Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, respectively.
IFS (Kerala-2005) at UIDAI.
2. Furnish the certified copy of the Copy of work
office orders or notifications of allocation dated
the UIDAI, assigning the roles 05.11.2018 is
and responsibilities to Dr. attached at Annexure
Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS 'C'.
(Kerala-2005) in accordance with
the Order No. 22/05/2017
EO(SM-I), DoPT, dated
26.10.2018, upon his joining at
UIDAI, regional Office, Ranchi
w.e.f. 01.11.2018
3. Furnish certified copy of all the Same as in para 2
Office Orders of the UIDAI, above
Regional Office, Ranchi,
communicated to the UIDAI HQ,
New Delhi (for the period from
01.11.2018 to 18.08.2022) of
Work Allocation to Dr. Krishna
Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS (Keral-
2005), ADG/Director, UIDAI,
Regional Office, Ranchi
4. Furnish certified copy of Report Information can not
communicated to the UIDAI, HQ, be provided under
New Delhi by the DDG, UIDAI, Section 8(h) of RTI
Regional Office, Ranchi who Act.
is/were Reporting/Controlling
Authority w.r.t. Dr. Krishna Deo
Prasad Sahu, IFS (Kerala-2005),
ADG/Director, for breach of any
regulation of the Authority or
negligence, inefficiency in
discharge of the assigned duties
or violations of any of the
provision of the All India Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1968 and/or
Unique Identification Authority of
India (Salary, Allowances and
other Terms and Conditions of
Service of Employees)
Regulations, 2020 during the
period of his working at UIDAI
w.e.f. 01.11.2018 till date.
5. Furnish certified copy of the No such document is
show-cause notice issued or available with
explanation called for, if any w.r.t. UIDAI Headquarters
reported (by the
Reporting/Controlling Authority)
breach of any regulation of the
Authority or negligence,
inefficiency in discharge of the
assigned duties or violations of
any of the provisions of All India
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968
and/or Unique Identification
Authority of India (Salary,
Allowances and other Terms and
Conditions of Service of
Employees Regulations, 2020 by
Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu,
IFS, Director, UIDAI, Regional
Office. Ranchi during the period
of his working at UIDAI w.e.f.
01.11.2018 till date
6. Furnish certified copy of the Copy of ACC order
order of authorization for dated 26.10.2018 is
regulation of deputation tenure of attached as Annexure
a member of All India Services 'D'.
appointed/deputed at UIDAI vide
appointment order of the
Competent Authority (ACC) as
per the Deputation Guidelines for
All India Service Officers vide F.
No. 14017/33/2005-AIS (II)
(PT.1) dated 28.11.2007 of the
Govt. of India, DoPT.
7. Furnish certified copy of Note Copy of notesheet
Sheet of the file and letter/Office and letter to DoPT
Memorandum, of the UIDAI, HQ, dated 14.07.2022 are
New Delhi communicated, if any, attached as Annexure
as per the procedure laid down by 'E' & 'F'
the DoPT i.r.o. the officers of All respectively.
India Services working under the
Government of India and
Organizations under the
Government of India and
recommending with
Administrative
Exigencies/grounds for
curtailment of deputation tenure
and pre-mature repatriation of the
services of Dr. Krishna Deo
Prasad Sahu, IFS (Kerala-2005),
ADG/Director, UIDAI, Regional
Office, Ranchi.
8. Furnish certified copy of No such document is
Order/Office Memorandum of available with
Constitution/Establishment of UIDAI Headquarters
DDG Secretariat at UIDAI,
Regional Office, Ranchi and
sanctioned strength of staffs in the
said DDG Secretariat, at Ranchi.
5. However, on the premise that the information sought has neither been
satisfactorily attended nor furnished by the CPIO the applicant appealed 7
out of 8 responses (except Serial no.5) provided by the CPIO, in a first
appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) i.e., Deputy Director
General (HR) UIDAI (hereinafter 'the FAA'). The application filed before
the FAA reads as under:
"The applicant, I, Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS, submit this
First Appeal being aggrieved by the information furnished by the CPIO,
vide letter dated-21.09.2022 as per the details given below-
Point Information Sought Reply thereof from Ground of
No. CPIO Appeal &
Request
1. Furnish certified copy of Copy of notification The
the Note Sheets of the File dated 29.04.2019 and information
and Order/ copy of note-sheet are furnished is
O.M./Notification of the attached as Annexure not the
competent authority of 'A' & 'B' respectively desired one,
UIDAI, therefore,
communicating/conveying the sought
its concurrence for information
appointment of Dr. may please
Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, be
IFS (Kerala-2005) at furnished.
UIDAI
2. Furnish the certified copy Copy of work The
of the office orders or allocation dated information
notifications of the UIDAI, 05.11.2018 is attached furnished is
assigning the roles and as Annexure 'C'. not the
responsibilities to Dr. desired one,
Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, therefore,
IFS (Kerala-2005) in the sought
accordance with the Order information
No. 22/05/2017 EO(SM-1), may please
DOPT, dated 26.10.2018, be
upon his joining at UIDAI, furnished.
regional Office, Ranchi
w.e.f. 01.11.2018.
3. Furnish certified copy of Same as in para 2 Partial
all the Office Orders of the above information
UIDAI, Regional Office, furnished,
Ranchi, communicated to therefore,
the UIDAI, HQ, New Delhi complete
(for the period from information
01.11.2018 to 18.08.2022) may
of work Allocation to Dr. pleased be
Krishna Deo Prasad Sahu, provided.
IFS (Kerala-2005),
ADG/Director, UIDAI,
Regional Office, Ranchi.
4. Furnish certified copy of Information can not The
Report communicated to be provided under information
the UIDAI, HQ, New Delhi Section 8(h) of RTI furnished at
by the DDG, UIDAI, Act. Point No.7,
Regional Office, Ranchi shows that
who is/were Action has
Reporting/Controlling been
Authority w.r.t. Dr. Krishna initiated/co
Deo Prasad Sahu, IFS mpleted at
(Kerala-2005), UIDAI, HQ,
ADG/Director for breach HR Division
of any regulation of the as per the
Authority or negligence, report of
inefficiency in discharge of DDG, RO,
the assigned duties or Ranchi.
violations of any of the Therefore,
provision of the All India the sought
Services (Conduct) Rules, information
1968 and/or Unique may please
Identification Authority of be provided.
India (Salary, Allowances
and other Terms and
Conditions of Service of
Employees) Regulations,
2020 during the period of
his working at UIDAI
w.e.f. 01.11.2018 till date.
5. Furnish certified copy of No such document is Not
the show-cause notice available with UIDAI appealed.
issued or explanation Headquarters
called for, if any w.r.t.
reported (by the
Reporting/Controlling
Authority) breach of any
regulation of the Authority
or negligence, inefficiency
in discharge of the
assigned duties or
violations of any of the
provisions of All India
Services (Conduct) Rules,
1968 and/or Unique
Identification Authority of
India (Salary, Allowances
and other Terms and
Conditions of Service of
Employees) Regulations,
2020 by Dr. Krishna Deo
Prasad Sahu, IFS,
Director, UIDAI, Regional
Office. Ranchi during the
period of his working at
UIDAI w.e.f. 01.11.2018
till date
6. Furnish certified copy of Copy of ACC order The
the order of authorization dated 26.10.2018 is information
for regulation of attached as Annexure furnished is
deputation tenure of a 'D'. not the
member of All India desired one,
Services therefore,
appointed/deputed at the sought
UIDAI vide appointment information
order of the Competent may please
Authority (ACC) as per the be
Deputation Guidelines for furnished.
All India Service Officers
vide F. No.
14017/33/2005-AIS (II)
(Pt.1) dated 28.11.2007 of
the Govt. of India, DoPT.
7. Furnish certified copy of Copy of notesheet and Part of the
Note Sheet of the file and letter of DoPT dated copy of
letter/Office 14.07.2022 are notesheet
Memorandum, of the attached as Annexure furnished is
UIDAI, HQ, New Delhi 'E' and 'F' missing
communicated, if any, as respectively. (from
per the procedure laid note#1 to
down by the DoPT i.r.o. note# 16)
the officers of All India therefore,
Services working under complete
the Government of India information
and Organizations under may please
the Government of India be provided.
and recommending with
Administrative
Exigencies/grounds for
curtailment of deputation
tenure and pre-mature
repatriation of the services
of Dr. Krishna Deo Prasad
Sahu, IFS (Kerala-2005),
ADG/Director, UIDAI,
Regional Office, Ranchi.
8. Furnish certified copy of No such document is As per
Order/Office available with UIDAI Office
Memorandum of Headquarters. Order No.
Constitution/Establishment 01/2022-23
of DDG Secretariat at (Revised),
UIDAI, Regional Office, dated
Ranchi and sanctioned 13.05.2022
strength of staffs in the of the
said DDG Secretariat, at UIDAI, RO,
Ranchi. Ranchi,
provision
has been
made for
Expenditure
of the DDG,
Secretariat
from
Government
Exchequer
(Copy
Encl.),
therefore,
the sought
information
may please
be provided.
6. Vide order dated 14.11.2022 the FAA dismissed the aforesaid appeal
by observing as under:
"2. With respect to Point no. 1,2,3,4,6 and 8 the information/document as
available in the records of UIDAI Headquarters, as sought vide RTI
application dated 22.08.2022 have been provided by the CPIO vide dated
21.09.2022.
3. The relevant pages of Notesheet with respect to the information sought
vide Point No.7 of your RTI application dated 22.08.2022 have been
provided by the CPIO vide dated 21.09.2022
4. In light if the above I do not find merit in the first appeal. The first
appeal is disposed of."
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a second appeal came to be filed by
the applicant on 26.12.2022 under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information
Act before the CIC. The applicant sought for pecuniary/special damages
against the alleged 'arbitrary response' of the CPIO (Mr. Piyush Chand) and
FAA (Mr. Atul Kumar Chaudhary). The applicant was aggrieved by the
CPIO and FAA exempting information sought under serial no.4 by invoking
Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act and on account of furnishing of partial
document/s pertaining to information sought at serial no.7 of RTI
application filed by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the response by
the CPIO and FAA to queries i.e., serial no(s).4 and 7 reads as under:
Sno. Information sought Reply by the CPIO Reply by FAA
4. Furnish certified copy Information cannot be The information
of report provided under /document as
communicated to the Section 8(h) of the available in the
UIDAI, HQ, New RTI Act. records of UIDAI
Delhi by the DDG, Headquarters, as
UIDAI, Regional sought vide RTI
Office, Ranchi who application dated
is/were 22.08.2022 have
Reporting/Controlling been provided by
Authority w.r.t Dr. the CPIO vide dated
Krishna Deo Prasad 21.09.2022
Sahu, IFS (Kerela-
2005), ADG/Director,
for breach of any
regulation of the
Authority or
negligence,
inefficiency in
discharge if the
assigned duties of
violations of any of the
provisions of the All
India Services
(conduct) Rules, 1969
and/or Unique
Identification Authority
of India (Salary,
Allowances and other
Terms and Conditions
of Service of
Employees)
Regulations, 2020
during the period of his
working at UIDAI w.e.f
01.11.2018 till dated.
7. Furnish certified copy Copy of notesheet and The relevant pages
of Note Sheet of the letter to DoPT dated of Notesheet with
file and letter/Office 14.07.2022 are respect to the
Memorandum, of the attached as Annexure information sought
UIDAI, HQ, New 'E' and 'F' vide Point No.7 of
Delhi communicated, if respectively. your RTI
any, as per the application dated
procedure laid down by 22.08.2022 have
the DoPT i.r.o the been provided by
officers of All India the CPIO vide dated
Services working under 21.09.2022
the Government of
India and
Organizations under
the Government of
India and
recommending with
Administrative
Exigencies/grounds for
curtailment of
deputation tenure and
pre-mature reparation
of the services of Dr.
Krishna Deo Prasad
Sahu, IFS (Kerela-
2005), ADG/Director,
UIDAI Regional
Office, Ranchi.
8. Subsequently, a notice dated 01.12.2023 was issued by the CIC to the
CPIO and FAA for hearing on 02.01.2024. After the aforesaid hearing, the
CIC passed an order dated 11.01.2024 directing the CPIO (Mr. Piyush
Chand) and FAA (Mr. Atul Kumar Chaudhary) to show-cause as to why
maximum penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act may not be imposed
upon them. Vide the said order, the CPIO and FAA were also directed to
furnish information pertaining to serial no(s).4 and 7 of the RTI application
to the applicant within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the
said order. The said order reads as under:
"Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the fact, perusal of records and
hearing both the parties noted that the respondent have provided point-
wise information/reply to the appellant vide letter dated 21.09.2022. The
appellant during the hearing expressed his satisfaction over the
information provided by the respondent on the all the points except on
point nos. 4 and 7 of the RTI application.
Perusal of the records revealed that the respondent had denied the
information sought on point no. 4 of the RTI application under Section
8(1) (h) of RTI Act. The respondent failed to explain as to how the
exemption claimed by them would apply in this case. Plain reading of
section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, states that anything which would hamper
and interfere with procedure followed in the investigation and have the
effect to hold back the progress of investigation, apprehension of
offenders or prosecution of offenders. However, the impediment, if
alleged, must be actual and not make belief and a camouflage to deny
information.
In B.5. Mathur vs. Public Information Officer of Delhi High Court,
(2011) 125 DRJ 508, High Court of Delhi has made the following
observations:
"19. The scheme of the RT! Act, its objects and reasons indicate that
disclosure of information is the rule and non-disclosure the exception. A
public authority which seeks to withhold information available with it
has to show that the information sought is of the nature specified in
Section 8 RT/ Act. As regards Section 8(1)(h) RT/ Act, which is the only
provision invoked by the Respondent to deny the Petitioner the
information sought by him, it will have to be shown by the public
authority that the information sought "would impede the process of
investigation." The mere reproducing of the wording of the statute would
not be sufficient when recourse had to Section 8(1)(h) RTI Act. The
burden is on the public authority to show in what manner the disclosure
of such information would 'impede' the investigation. Even if one went by
the interpretation placed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7930 of 2009
[Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) v. CIC, decision dated 30th
November 2009] that the word "impede" would "mean anything which
would hamper and interfere with the procedure followed in the
investigation and have the effect to hold bock the progress of
investigation", it has still to be demonstrated by the public authority that
the information if disclosed would indeed "hamper" or "interfere" with
the investigation, which in this case is the second enquiry."
It may be noted that no such justification has been provided by the
Respondent public authority while denying information in the instant
case, which arise out of Appellant's own service matter. The concerned
FAA has also failed to discharge his duty in the spirit of RTI Act blindly
endorsing the reply of the CPIO without studying the facts of the case in
hand and thereby, the FAA has not passed speaking order.
In addition to the above, the respondent had also not provided complete
information against point no. 7 of the RTI application. Though, during
the course of hearing, they expressed their preparedness to provide the
complete information on point no. 7 along with all the annexures. It is
pertinent to mention that information as sought by the appellant in the
aforesaid RTI application should have been provided within the time
frame. As per the submission of the appellant, if the information sought
was given within the timeline, he could have raised his grievance before
an appropriate authority. But due to lapse of time, damaged done to him
may not be cured. The Commission observes that reply given by the
respondent is evasive, misleading and incomplete.
In view of the above, Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the CPIO and Shri Atul
Kumar Chaudhary, the FAA in the capacity of deemed PIO are directed
to show cause as to why maximum penalty under Section 20 (1) of the
RTI Act should not be imposed against each of them for not providing the
information within the stipulated time. The present CPIO is given
responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice
to the FAA and secure their attendance on the next date of hearing and
also submit their written explanations. All the written explanations of the
CPIO & the FAA (deemed CPIO) must reach the Commission within four
weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Meanwhile, the respondent is
directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the revised
information on point no.4 and 7 of the RTI application, within three
weeks' time from the date of receipt of this order."
9. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the incumbent CPIO (Ms.
Revathi Suresh Kumar) vide communication dated 30.01.2024, furnished the
applicant with the requisite information.
10. Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 24.05.2024, the CIC came
to the conclusion that negligence on the part of the CPIO (Mr. Piyush
Chand) and FAA (Mr. Atul Kumar Chaudhary) appeared to be deliberate
and malafide, and consequently imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- each on
the said CPIO and FAA under the provisions of Section 20(1) of RTI Act.
Relevant portion of the order reads as under:
"Decision
The Commission after adverting to the facts, perusal of records and hearing
both the parties noted that the respondent has provided the information up to
the satisfaction of the appellant vide letter dated 30.01.2024 and thus, order
dated 11.01.2024 of the Commission is complied with. It is pertinent to
mention that information sought was provided after lapse of more than one
year and eight months and that too after intervention of the Commission.
The information sought by the appellant was related to his premature
repatriation which was denied partially by the respondents by claiming
exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act. However, the respondents
while replying to the RTI application and the first appeal failed to explain as
to how the disclosure of information would fall within the said exempted
provisions. The FAA did not apply his mind and simply endorsed the reply
given by the CPIO. The order passed by the F.A.A was cryptic and non-
speaking. At the seniority of FAA of the rank of a DDG that too of HR,
Administration and CVO, such casual approach can have very demoralizing
effect on the personnel working in the organization and also erodes their
confidence in the appeal mechanism enshrined in the RTI Act. Same holds
true for the CPIO also, who is the Director (HR) in the organization. Their
conduct in terms of fairness and judiciousness ought to have been exemplary
in the instant matter. The respondents during the hearing admitted their
mistake for wrongly claiming exemption under section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI
Act.
The Perusal of the record reveals that the concerned CPIO and the FAA have
evaded their responsibilities entrusted upon them and therefore, acted
against the true spirit of the RTI Act. The written explanations given by the
respondent in response to the show cause notices are not satisfactory. The
acts of the then CPIO and the then FAA show their non-seriousness and
lackadaisical approach towards the provisions of the RTI Act as well as
towards the Commission. The delay caused in the matter is attributable on
part of the respondents. The matter assumes higher gravity because both are
looking after HR matter and one of them is CVO also. In view of the above
malafide on part of both officials, the then CPIO and the then FAA are
established, the Commission finds it a fit case for imposition of penalty under
provisions of section 20 (1) of RTI Act.
The Commission observed that the negligence of duty as the then CPIO and
the then FAA appears to be deliberate and malafide are established on part
of Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary,
deemed CPIO, hence, both are found liable as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act.
In view of this, a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) on each
of them are imposed on both officers (total amount of Rupees Twenty
thousand only). This penalty amount should be deducted from the
salaries/pension of each of the two i.e. Shri Piyush Chand Gupta, the then
CPIO and Shri Atul Kumar Chaudhary, deemed CPIO/the then FAA, by the
Public Authority in two equal instalments and paid by way of demand draft
drawn in favour of "PAO, CAT", New Delhi, forward the demand drafts
addressed to the Deputy Registrar (CR- II), email: [email protected]
Room No. 106, First Floor, Central Information Commission, Baba
Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi 110067. The first instalment of penalty
amount should reach to the Commission by 15.07.2024 and the final
instalment of penalty amount should reach to the Commission by
15.08.2024."
11. Against the impugned order passed by the CIC, the CPIO (Mr. Piyush
Chand) and FAA (Mr. Atul Kumar Chaudhary) filed a
representation/application dated 25.06.2024 for modification of the
impugned order viz. removal of the finding of malafide against them as well
as the penalty of Rs.10,000/- each imposed upon them. It is stated that the
said representation has not been responded to till date despite repeated
follow-ups.
12. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner also submits that although
the aforesaid representation was filed by the CPIO and FAA; however, in
compliance with the directions laid down by the CIC in impugned order,
under protest the CPIO and FAA, deposited Rs.10,000/- each. It is stated
that the said compliance vide letter dated 12.07.2024 was duly informed to
the concerned authority.
13. It is the case of the petitioner that even if one is to assume that the
CPIO and FAA failed to supply certain documents which were ought to be
supplied, at the best it can be held to be erroneous/inadvertent application of
Section 8 of the RTI Act.
14. It is averred in the petition that the impugned order erroneously
observes that the CPIO and FAA have failed to explain as to how the
exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act was invoked. It is stated that
the CIC was apprised of the fact that the information sought by RTI
applicant at serial no.4 pertained to confidential communication/s related to
the repatriation of the applicant, and since at that time the issue of
repatriation was pending before the DoPT, the concerned officers deemed it
fit to not supply the same to the applicant. It is further averred that the
information sought by the applicant at serial no.7 was duly provided from
Notesheet no.17 onwards since the noting/s prior thereto had no direct and
proximate bearing with the curtailment of deputation tenure and pre-mature
repatriation of the applicant.
15. It is noticed that out of a total of eight separate points of information
which were sought from the petitioner department, the grievance of the
applicant before the CIC was limited viz. partial supply of Notesheet
pertaining to information sought at serial no. 7 and non-supply of
information sought under serial no.4.
16. It is evident that most of the information that was sought by the
applicant pertaining to his premature repatriation from UIDAI, was duly
supplied to him in a time-bound manner. The petitioner's appeal before the
CIC was confined only to denial of information sought vide serial nos. 4 and
7 of the RTI application.
17. Prima facie, it is untenable to conclude that the CPIO and the FAA
acted malafide with a view to cause prejudice to the applicant. This is belied
by the fact that only a portion of the information sought by the RTI
application was withheld/not supplied. The same was also predicated with a
view of the FAA as regards applicability of Section 8(h) of the RTI Act.
18. The power conferred by CIC under Section 20 of the RTI Act (to
impose penalties) is to be exercised judicially and not mechanically. The
same cannot be ipso facto invoked in every case where requisite information
has not been supplied. It may be that in a particular case, denial of
information is on account of misconceived application of the exemption/s
provided for under Section 8 of the RTI Act, however, that by itself would
not lead to an inference of malafides so as to entail levying of penalty under
Section 20 of the RTI Act. In this regard reference is apposite to the view
expressed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Registrar of Companies
and Ors vs Dharmendra Kumar Garg and Anr, 2012 SCC OnLine Del
3263. The same reads as under:
"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 fulfill 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."
19. In the circumstances, it is incumbent on CIC to consider the attendant
facts and circumstances to assess whether the conduct of the CPIO/FAA is
egregious so as to entail levying of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
20. A representation/application in this regard has already been submitted
by the petitioner on 25.06.2024. In the circumstances, it would be apposite if
the said application is duly considered and decided by the CIC taking into
account the facts and circumstances as highlighted therein. It is directed
accordingly. The CIC is requested to decide the same as expeditiously as
possible.
21. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application/s are also disposed of.
SACHIN DATTA, J
APRIL 17, 2025/sl
