LINION OF INDIA v. MAHEBUB RAMZAN SHEIKH & Ors.

ORDER 26.09.2012 By these writ petitions order of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dated 29.05.2009 is sought to be assailed. The challenge in the writ petition is limited to the imposition of penalty of Rs 250001 - under Section 20(l) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short RTI Act) on the CPOI w.p.(c) tzz63lzoog &. t77r2oto ' Page I of6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA i1 of the Ministry of Minorities Affairs, and the directions issued qua Secretaries to the Department of Personnel & Training (in short DOPT) and the Ministry of Minorities Affairs, calling upon them to pay a compensation of Rs 10,000i- each, in favour of the original complainanL/respondent. There is a further direction issued, which is that, upon failure to pay the compensation, which incidentally has been awarded under Section 19(8Xb) of the RTI Act, penal interest at the rate of llYo per annum would run on the awarded compensation. The CIC had given ten days for complying with the order. To be noted writ petition no. 1226312009 has been filed by the Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, DOPT alongwith the CPIO of the said ministry, i.e., DOPT; while writ petition no. 17712010 has been filed, once again, by Union of India, albeit through the Secretary, Ministry of Minority Affairs. The impugned order to the extent assailed, is common to both petitions. Briefly, the controversy in issue arises in the background of the following broad facts: The original complainant/respondent had sought information qua the status of recruitment of minorities in different Central Government departments. In particular, information was sought qua annual reports regarding recruitment of minorities in the services of all groups, in all ministries/departments of the Central Government and, especially those, recruited in the Government of Maharashtra. The original complainant/ respondent filed an application for the said purpose in the first instance with the DOPT. The DOPT taking recourse to provisions of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, referred the application to the w.P.(c) 12263/2009 & t77120t0 Page 2 of6 \I Ministry of Minorify Affairs. This reference was made by the CPOI of the DOPT vide communication dated 01.08.2008. On 05.09.2008, the Ministry of Minority Affairs informed the original complainant/respondent that the said information will be furnished by the DOPT. This was followed by DOPT informing the original complainant/respondent, on 19.11.2008 that the information sought was available rvith the Ministry of Minority Affairs. On 31.10.2008, DOPT intimated the original complainant/respondent that the appeal preferred by him had been transfened to the Ministry of Minority Affairs. The Ministry of Minority Affairs vide communication dated 2I.11.2008 informed the original complainant/respondent that in view of the office memorandum of even date, i.e., 21.11.2008, DOPT rvas the nodal department in respect of the matters pertaining to recruitment including that, rvhich pertained to minorities and hence, the appeal preferred by him was transferred to the DOPT for appropriate directions. It appears that the mattcr did not end there. On 25.1 1.2008 DOPT, in turn, informed the original cornplainant/respondent that the information sought for had to be disclosed if at all by Ministry of Minority Affairs. Aggrieved by the same, on 31 .12.2008 the original complainant/ respondent preferred what appears to be another appeal to the Ministry of Minority Affairs. This appeal was dismissed by Ministry of Minority Affairs, on 15.01 .2009. Being aggrieved by the said decision, an appeal was prefened by the original complainant/respondent with the CIC. The CIC by virtue of the impugned order directed that the information sought had to be disclosed to w.P.(C) t2263/2009 & t77120t0 the original complainant/respondent. There is no dispute that the information sought has been since then disclosed to the original complainant/respondent, which is why, the captioned writ petitions assail a very limited part of the order of the CIC, as has been indicated above by me. Notice in WP(C) 72263/2009 was issued on 13.70.2009, while in WP(C) 17712010, notice was issued on 14.01 .2010. After the said dates, the matters have come up in court on several dates. As per the report of the registry, the original complainanVrespondent appears to have been served. This fact is recorded in the order of this court dated 20.04.2012 in WP(C)

1226312009. On that date, the court in the interest of justice, deferred further orders in the matter, and as a matter of fact, granted the original complainant/respondent six weeks time to file a counter affidavit. Today, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent nor any counter affidavit has been filed. Mr Mehra, learned ASG alongwith Mr Dubey, who appears for the UOI in the captioned writ petitions, says that the inrpugned directions contained in the order of the CIC dated 25.09.2009, ought to be set aside for the reason that there were no malafides in not supplying the information sought, which is discernible from the fact that ultimately information sought was supplied to the original complainant/respondent. It is further submitted by the learned ASG that the delay, if at all, which arose in supplying the information to the original complainanVrespondent, was on account of the fact that two ministries could not resolve as to which Ministry was responsible for supplying the information sought for. W.P.(C) 1226312009 & t77/20t0 {c Mr Mehra has referred to the office memorandum dated 26.08.2009 wherein the Cabinet Secretariat of the Government of India has taken a decision that henceforth, it will be the DOPT which will co-ordinate issues, such as the one which arose in the present writ petitions and be responsible for supplying the necessary information. Mr Mehra submits that this would only show that there were no malafidies and, therefore, the penalty imposed on the CPIO and the order directing compensation to be paid by the two Secretaries, is completely, uncalled for. I have heard the learned counsels for the petitioners. Since there is no representation on behalf of the respondent, I have, with the assistance of the leamed ASG, perused the record. In my view, the directions contained in the order of the CIC cannot be sustained for the reason that there is no reasoning as to why the cost has been imposed. The power to impose costs under Section 20 of the RTI Act is at the rate of Rs.250/- per day subject to a maximum of Rs.25000/-. There has to be broadly, if not for every day, a reasoning as to how the delay has taken place and who is responsible for the delay. There is no such reasoning disclosed in the order of the CIC dated

29.0s.2009. Similarly, in so far as the direction issued, qua the two Secretaries is concerned, that is also not in consonance with the provisions of Section 19(8Xb) of the RTI Act. The said provision reads as follows: "19. Appeal . - XXXX XXXX (8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or w.P.(c) t226312009 & t77120t0 State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to, - XXXX XXXX (b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;..." The provision clearly indicates that the CIC is conferred with the power to compensate the complaint for any loss or other detriment suffered. There is no articulation in the order of any injury caused and, therefore, the necessity to compensate the original complainant/respondent. A direction, simplicitor without reasoning, cannot be sustained. Lastly, evidently, there is no power conferred on the CIC under RTI, and none was shown to me, to award 'penal' interest. The said direction is therefore decidedly beyond the ken of the CIC. In view of the above, the impugned directions are set aside. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of. SEPTEMBER 26.2012 - r(1^\\^JL RAJIV SHAKDHER, J w.P.(c) t226312009 & t77120t0 Page 6 of6