Central Information Commission (CIC): Taking serious note of denial to
provide information by Government officers on the casual defence of
‘file missing’, Central Information Commission held that the said
conduct would amount to denial of information under RTI Act attracting
imposition of penalty upon the responsible personnel(s). CIC passed the
said order on an appeal filed by a person who sought information from
SDM Office regarding marital status of his ex-wife alleging that
she was already married when she married appellant but she hid the same
fact and after getting divorce from the appellant she remarried and
again got divorced on the ground that she suppressed information
regarding her previous marriages. The appellant contended that he was
denied the information on the ground of absence of records. The
appellant further stated that the information sought by him was
essential to prepare his defence against the criminal cases filed by his
wife which included charges under Section 498A. The Commission observed
that whenever the Public Authority makes a claim that the relevant file
is missing, it is expected to give detailed explanation as to when did
they discover that the file was missing, what action they had taken to
trace the same and what could be done, if the file is not traced, what
is the policy, procedure and regulatory mechanism available in the
office when the files are missing or claimed to have been missing, etc.
Rendering relief to the appellant, CIC held that as there is no detailed
explanation, “Claiming that a particular file is missing establishes
the fact that the file was with them, till it was found missing or
misplaced or deliberately removed. Hence, that information would fall in
the category of information held by the Public Authority and thus it is
the responsibility of the Public Authority to share that information
with the appellant.” (Rahul Kumar Goyal v. SDM Office, File
No.CIC/AD/A/2012/003063-SA, decided on February 26, 2014)
The appellant is present. The Public Authority is absent.
2. The appellant submitted that he is seeking the information through his RTI application dt.1342012, a copy of the affidavit of marital status submitted by his wife Ms. Swati Kalgaonkar, whom he had married on 24th Dec.,2003 and registered before the SDM on 29122003. The appellant further submitted that Ms. Swati Kalgaonkar was already married to one Mr. Abdul Aziz before his marriage with her. But she submitted a false affidavit to the SDM that she was not married. The appellant has shown to the Commission, a copy of the certificate of marriage of Ms.Swati Kalgaonkar with Mr. Abdul Aziz. Subsequently, Ms. Swati Kalgaonkar obtained an exparte decree of divorce with the appellant, from a court in USA. After this divorce with the appellant, Ms.Swati Kalgaonkar married another man, Mr. Sachin Brahmi, which was also dissolved because she did not disclose information about her previous marriages.
3. The appellant also submitted that the above affidavit is required in connection with the criminal cases filed by Ms.Swati Kalgaonkar accusing him and his family members under section 498A IPC. The affidavit is the key document which would prove his innocence in the criminal case.
4. The PIO/SDM(NW) replied to the appellant by his letter dated 21 May, 2012 stating st
that no records for the year 2003 are presently available in his office. But the FAA by his order dated 572012 did not agree with the PIO and directed him to get the concerned file located and provide the required documents to the appellant and furnish the reply to the appellant within 15 days. In spite of this FAA Order, the appellant could not get the required information from the PIO so far.
5. In view of the above, the Commission views this matter seriously as the PIO has failed to comply with the orders of FAA, which amounts to obstructing the delivery of information, thereby breaching the provisions of section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission also observes that whenever the Public Authority makes a claim that the relevant file is missing, it is expected to give detailed explanation as to when did they discover that the file was missing, what action they had taken to trace the same and what could be done, if the file is not traced, what is the policy, procedure and regulatory mechanism available in the office when the files are missing or claimed to have been missing, etc. In the absence of detailed explanation, the Commission cannot accept the reply of PIO given in a casual manner, amounting to denial of information under RTI Act, as nowhere in the Act, such a defence is available to the Public Authority. Claiming that a particular file is missing, establishes the fact that the file was with them, till it was found missing or misplaced or deliberately removed. Hence, that information would fall in the category of information held by the Public Authority and thus it is the responsibility of the Public Authority to share that information with the appellant.
6. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority as under: (a) To show cause why penalty cannot be imposed on the PIO for obstructing the delivery of information; his explanation should reach the commission within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order
(b) To institute an internal enquiry immediately and take necessary action against the persons found involved in the missing of the file; (c) To comply with the order dated 572012 of the FAA within one month.
7. The Commission also recommends to the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of NCT Delhi, for immediate enquiry into this matter involving the obstruction of furnishing the information to the appellant, as the said information is highly relevant for his life and liberty. The Commission advises the Secretary, Deptt. Of Revenue, GNCTD to direct the concerned officer to trace the information and furnish the same to the appellant. A copy of this order shall be given to the Secretary, Deptt. Of Revenue, GNCTD for information and necessary action.
8. The Commission ordered accordingly.
Print Page
Mr.Rahul Kumar Goyal vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 26 February, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSIONThe appellant is present. The Public Authority is absent.
2. The appellant submitted that he is seeking the information through his RTI application dt.1342012, a copy of the affidavit of marital status submitted by his wife Ms. Swati Kalgaonkar, whom he had married on 24th Dec.,2003 and registered before the SDM on 29122003. The appellant further submitted that Ms. Swati Kalgaonkar was already married to one Mr. Abdul Aziz before his marriage with her. But she submitted a false affidavit to the SDM that she was not married. The appellant has shown to the Commission, a copy of the certificate of marriage of Ms.Swati Kalgaonkar with Mr. Abdul Aziz. Subsequently, Ms. Swati Kalgaonkar obtained an exparte decree of divorce with the appellant, from a court in USA. After this divorce with the appellant, Ms.Swati Kalgaonkar married another man, Mr. Sachin Brahmi, which was also dissolved because she did not disclose information about her previous marriages.
3. The appellant also submitted that the above affidavit is required in connection with the criminal cases filed by Ms.Swati Kalgaonkar accusing him and his family members under section 498A IPC. The affidavit is the key document which would prove his innocence in the criminal case.
4. The PIO/SDM(NW) replied to the appellant by his letter dated 21 May, 2012 stating st
that no records for the year 2003 are presently available in his office. But the FAA by his order dated 572012 did not agree with the PIO and directed him to get the concerned file located and provide the required documents to the appellant and furnish the reply to the appellant within 15 days. In spite of this FAA Order, the appellant could not get the required information from the PIO so far.
5. In view of the above, the Commission views this matter seriously as the PIO has failed to comply with the orders of FAA, which amounts to obstructing the delivery of information, thereby breaching the provisions of section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission also observes that whenever the Public Authority makes a claim that the relevant file is missing, it is expected to give detailed explanation as to when did they discover that the file was missing, what action they had taken to trace the same and what could be done, if the file is not traced, what is the policy, procedure and regulatory mechanism available in the office when the files are missing or claimed to have been missing, etc. In the absence of detailed explanation, the Commission cannot accept the reply of PIO given in a casual manner, amounting to denial of information under RTI Act, as nowhere in the Act, such a defence is available to the Public Authority. Claiming that a particular file is missing, establishes the fact that the file was with them, till it was found missing or misplaced or deliberately removed. Hence, that information would fall in the category of information held by the Public Authority and thus it is the responsibility of the Public Authority to share that information with the appellant.
6. The Commission, therefore, directs the respondent authority as under: (a) To show cause why penalty cannot be imposed on the PIO for obstructing the delivery of information; his explanation should reach the commission within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order
(b) To institute an internal enquiry immediately and take necessary action against the persons found involved in the missing of the file; (c) To comply with the order dated 572012 of the FAA within one month.
7. The Commission also recommends to the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of NCT Delhi, for immediate enquiry into this matter involving the obstruction of furnishing the information to the appellant, as the said information is highly relevant for his life and liberty. The Commission advises the Secretary, Deptt. Of Revenue, GNCTD to direct the concerned officer to trace the information and furnish the same to the appellant. A copy of this order shall be given to the Secretary, Deptt. Of Revenue, GNCTD for information and necessary action.
8. The Commission ordered accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment