High Court of Delhi
B.B. Dash v. Central Information Commission and Anr.
Right to Information
CPIO is to give sufficient reasons for denying supply of information on account of it being exempt
Petitioner impugns order dated 22th November, 2016, whereby, CIC has held Petitioner – CPIO liable for not providing information to Respondents. It has been held that, Petitioner has failed to provide information without any cogent reasons. Maximum penalty, as prescribed, of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed on Petitioner. In facts of present case, Respondent No.2 had filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 25th August, 2015 seeking certain information. Reply to said information was given. Since Respondent No.2 was not satisfied with reply given, a complaint under Section 18 of Right to Information Act, 2005 was filed with CIC. Said complaint under Section 18 of Act culminated in proceedings under Section 20 of Act leading to impugned order dated 22nd November, 2016.
CIC concluded that, Petitioner failed to provide information without any cogent reason. CIC came to conclusion that, nature of his replies, to various queries showed that these were meant to circumvent the queries raised by Complainant in her application, which amounted to wilful denial of information.
From reply, it is apparent that Petitioner has not responded to queries raised by Respondents. Response given by Petitioner “it is an institute matter” does not convey any meaning to Applicant. In response to an application, seeking information under Act, the CPIO is to provide information sought and in case information is not liable to be provided on account of it being exempt, give sufficient reasons for denying the supply of information. Denial of information can only be in terms of Act.
Response to the various queries “it is an institute matter”, neither answers the queries nor renders an explanation claiming exemption from providing information. Perusal of impugned order shows that, CIC has not erred in returning a finding that information sought has not been provided to Respondent No.2. No cogent explanation has been rendered for non-supply of the information. Thus, Delhi High Court while dismissing the Petition held that, order of CIC cannot be faulted.
B.B. Dash v. Central Information Commission and Anr.
Right to Information
CPIO is to give sufficient reasons for denying supply of information on account of it being exempt
Petitioner impugns order dated 22th November, 2016, whereby, CIC has held Petitioner – CPIO liable for not providing information to Respondents. It has been held that, Petitioner has failed to provide information without any cogent reasons. Maximum penalty, as prescribed, of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed on Petitioner. In facts of present case, Respondent No.2 had filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 25th August, 2015 seeking certain information. Reply to said information was given. Since Respondent No.2 was not satisfied with reply given, a complaint under Section 18 of Right to Information Act, 2005 was filed with CIC. Said complaint under Section 18 of Act culminated in proceedings under Section 20 of Act leading to impugned order dated 22nd November, 2016.
CIC concluded that, Petitioner failed to provide information without any cogent reason. CIC came to conclusion that, nature of his replies, to various queries showed that these were meant to circumvent the queries raised by Complainant in her application, which amounted to wilful denial of information.
From reply, it is apparent that Petitioner has not responded to queries raised by Respondents. Response given by Petitioner “it is an institute matter” does not convey any meaning to Applicant. In response to an application, seeking information under Act, the CPIO is to provide information sought and in case information is not liable to be provided on account of it being exempt, give sufficient reasons for denying the supply of information. Denial of information can only be in terms of Act.
Response to the various queries “it is an institute matter”, neither answers the queries nor renders an explanation claiming exemption from providing information. Perusal of impugned order shows that, CIC has not erred in returning a finding that information sought has not been provided to Respondent No.2. No cogent explanation has been rendered for non-supply of the information. Thus, Delhi High Court while dismissing the Petition held that, order of CIC cannot be faulted.
Comments
Post a Comment