Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
B.B. DASH – Petitioner
Versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 624 of 2017
Decided On : 24-01-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Aditya Singh with Mr. Raju Dalal, Advocates
The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the CPIO to provide information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the requirement to give sufficient reasons for denying the supply of information, only in terms of the Act.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Failure to Provide Information - Section 18, Section 20 - [ICAR-Proiect Directorate on Foot and Mouth Disease] - [Section 18, Section 20] - The court discussed the petitioner's failure to provide information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The court highlighted the petitioner's responses to the queries and the lack of sufficient explanation, leading to the conclusion of wilful denial of information. The court imposed the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the CIC holding the petitioner - CPIO liable for not providing information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide the information without any cogent reason, and the nature of the petitioner's replies showed wilful denial of information.
Issues: Failure to provide information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the CPIO is required to provide the information sought and give sufficient reasons for denying the supply of information, only in terms of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the order of the CIC imposing the maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.
CM No. 2874/2017 (exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 624/2017 & CM No.2873/2017 (stay)
1. The petitioner impugns order dated 22.11.2016, whereby, the CIC has held the petitioner – CPIO liable for not providing the information to the respondents. It has been held that the petitioner has failed to provide information without any cogent reasons. Maximum penalty, as prescribed, of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner.
2. The respondent No.2 had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) dated 25.08.2015 seeking certain information. The reply to the said information was given on 28.09.2015. The queries and the replies thereto are as under:-
“ICAR-Proiect Directorate on Foot and Mouth Disease Information sought under Right to Information on Foot and Mouth Disease
3AB3 DIVA Statement of Cost Sheet for the year 2012-13 by Dimpal Kaushik
The above referred Right to Information reads as under:
A: Please inform weather the above document and/or its contents are in the knowledge of ICAR Team at Headquarters at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi (Yes or NO)?
Ans: It is an institute matter
B: When did this document and/or its contents come into knowledge of ICAR Team at Headquarters at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi (DD/MM/YYYY)?
Ans: How the document from file was obtained?
C: Please provide the copy-of covering letter under which this price of Rs 196.9733333 per unit was disclosed to ICAR Team at Headquarters at Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi or to the appropriate financial body of ICAR?
Ans: It is an institute matter
D: Please provide the copy of the Minutes of Meetings' in which the figure of Rs 196.9733333 per unit was stated and recorded by ICAR and/or its institutes. Please provide all minutes and any observations/noting made?
Ans: NO minutes
E: Please provide the name and designation of the ICAR officials who had instructed and/or authorized PDFMD to hold and utilize all the funds of AICRP-FMD with regards to purchase of 3AB3 Indirect ELISA Kits without allocating the funds for purchase of 3AB3 Indirect ELISA Kits to individual FMD centers/network units/any other public institutes engaged in FMD Sero-surveillance?
Ans: It is an institute matter
F: Please provide the particulars and a photocopy of financial directive vide which ICAR has permitted PDFMD to hold and utilized all the funds of AICRP-FMD with regards to the purchase of 3AB3 Indirect ELISA Kits without allocating the funds to the individual FMD centres/network units/any other public institutes engaged in FMD Sero-surveillance for the purchase of 3AB3 Indirect ELISA Kits?
Ans: No purchase of kit for supply to AICRP center
G: Please provide the name and designation of the ICAR officials who had instructed and/or authorized PDFMD to issue 3AB3 Indirect ELISA Kits at no charge basis to the individual FMD centers/network units/any other public institutes engaged in FMD Sero-surveillance?
Ans: It is an institute matter
H: Please provide the particulars and a photocopy of the directive/instruction vide which PDFMD has been authorized to issue 3AB3 Indirect ELISA Kits at no charge basis to the individual FMD centers/network units/any other public institutes engaged in FMD Sero-surveillance?
Ans: It is an institute matter”
3. Since the respondent No.2 was not satisfied with the reply given, a complaint under Section 18 of the Act was filed with the CIC. The said complaint under Section 18 culminated in proceedings under Section 20 of the Act leading to the impugned order dated 22.11.2016.
4. By the impugned order, the CIC has held as under:-
“5. We asked Dr. B. B. Dash, CPIO of Project Directorate on Foot and Mouth Disease to explain his reply dated 28.9.2015 in response to various queries of the RTI application, in which he disposed of most of the queries by stating that it was an institute matter. He explained that by institute, he meant the Project Directorate on Foot and Mouth Disease. Explaini
