O R D E R

FACTS The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information, as under:- Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Complainant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Complainant: Present in Person Respondent: Mr Kailsh Bhasin Chairman, Mr Rakesh Babu HOS, Mr Kanwar Pal APIO, Present in Person The Complainant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application submitted that he had asked for the CCTV footage of an incident which took place on 13.02.2023 in the school premises. He said that he had applied for the footage through the RTI application dated 17.02.2023z, well before the end of the record retention period of CCTV footage but till now no information has been furnished to him.

The Respondent in reply stated that the Complainant has not satisfied the requirements of Section 7(1) of the RTI Act , as he wrongly sought the the information within 48 hours without establishing the fact that it is affecting his life and liberty.

The Complainant countered and said that he needed this CCTV footage as the PIO had filed a complaint against him in the police station.

The Respondent informed that they had handed over the CCTV footage to the concerned police officials and the Complainant should have directly take it from them.

The Complainant said that the Respondent authority is the actual custodian of the said records, and hence they had applied for the CCTV footage within the record retention time period.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case the Commission observes that the instant matter is a Complaint under the RTI Act where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given and it is only required to be ascertained if the information has been denied with a malafide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Taking into consideration, the submission made by both the parties, the Commission observes that the Respondent authority has ignored the principle that “justice delayed is justice denied” by not providing information to the Complainant despite the complainant having applied for CCTV camera footage before the end of the expiry period. Therefore the Commission instructs the CPIO to show-cause why action should not be taken against him for this misconduct and negligence which constitutes serious violation of the provisions of the RTI Act and also directs him to explain why a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- should not be imposed on him as per Section 20(1) and disciplinary proceedings under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated against him/her for not appearing before the Commission and for not responding to the RTI application under the RTI Act, 2005, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उिय माहूरकर)

(Information Commissioner) (सचू ना आयुक्त)

Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत एवं सत्यानित प्रनत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के. राव)

(Dy. Registrar) (उि-िंजीयक)

011-26182598 / drtoic8@cic.nic.in निनांक / Date: 25.07.2023