- NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
- shows RTI
- RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
- 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
- The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
- Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
- Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'section 20'.
Found 10 results
karira posted a file in Acts & Circulars
11 downloadsA perusal of Section 20 of the Act shows that it makes a provision to impose penalty either on Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer. However, there is no provision to initiate a departmental inquiry against the First Appellate Authority as per the Section 20 of the Act.
rtiindia posted a post in CIC DecisionsAlthough the information was not provided within the stipulated time, it cannot be said that the CPIO acted consciously and deliberately with intent to deny the information sought by the appellant and thus CIC refused to initiate penalty procedure under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. CIC instead has quoted High Court judgement for not initiating penalty procedure. Penalty only if applicant proves mala fide intent of PIO In WP© 3114/2007 Bhagat Singh Vs. CIC & Anrs. Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 03.12.2007 held that “……This Court takes a serious note of the two year delay in releasing information, the lack of adequate reasoning in the orders of the public information officer and the Appellate Authority and the lack of application of mind in relation to the nature of the information sought. The materials on record clearly show the lackadaisical approach of the second and third respondent in releasing the information sought. However, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that they malafidely denied the information sought. Therefore, a direction to the Central Information Commission to initiate action under Section 20 of the Act cannot be issued…..” You can discuss this article on our forum here! The decision can be read here!
While hearing the 2nd appeal, Central Information Commission decided that disclosure of information in relation to unauthorized construction and encroachment does not require clearance from any third party. The commission retreated that in a number of decisions, the CIC has held that when appellant seeks the sanctioned building plan of any third party, public authority should provide the (horizontal) sanction plan(s) of the properties of the Third Party by omitting the internal room arrangements in the plan(s). The external walls with openings and projections should be shown along with the Area Statement for all the floors which has been approved/ regularised. If you want to file RTI online, do read our guide here on how to file RTI Online. Earlier NDMC has denied information by invoking section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act on the ground that the sanctioned building plan and other information sought in the RTI application is personal, while the Appellant stated that due to the unauthorised construction, extensive damage was caused to his house. Appellant further stated that the house was inspected by a highly qualified Structural Engineer (M. Tech in Structural Engineering) at his request by the Institution of Engineers (India), who opined “The cracking of roof slab has seriously affected the safety of the house. The structural cracks are expected to widen further or new cracks may develop if the earth under the foundation is not yet fully settled, thus making the building at A-1/9 more unsafe. These cracks may be disastrous in the event of an earthquake. The building itself may collapse. The ideal solution would be to demolish and reconstruct the affected portion of the building at A-1/9 which is indeed cumbersome and very costly. Repairs may be attempted by injection grouting with non shrink cement grout by the experts in the field”. The appellant is aggrieved as his house is damaged because of construction on a neighbouring plot and is seeking compensation for the same. Unauthorized construction and encroachment does not require clearance from any third party The Commission directs the respondent to provide complete information in relation to Unauthorized construction and encroachment. As regards to the sanctioned building plan, the Commission directs the respondent to provide to the appellant the (horizontal) sanction plan(s) of the properties of the Third Party by omitting the internal room arrangements in the plan(s). The external walls with openings and projections should be shown along with the Area Statement for all the floors which has been approved/ regularised. The Commission also directed PIO, EE (B-II) and PIO, EE (B-I) /CLZ of NDMC to submit Written Submissions, latest by 5th September, 2014, to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him under Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, for not providing the information within the prescribed period under the RTI Act. CIC further recorded that: The Appellant has clearly been harassed and has had to file the first and second appeal completely unnecessarily. Because of the inept handling of this RTI Application this has occurred. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is abhorring and legally impermissible. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness and specially when a senior citizen is the victim. Many instead of complaining would succumb in such circumstances. Therefore the award of compensation in such cases is called for in the interest of justice. The Commission awards compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Appellant under Section 19(8) (b) of the RTI Act for the loss and detriment suffered by him in getting the information. The case citation is available here: Maj. Gen. Baldev Kumar Vs NDMC You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
While hearing the case and issuing compensation and show cause notice, the Central Information Commission also recommended to the Public Authority, Food & Supply Dept., GNCTD Delhi to develop a mechanism by which ration cardholders are informed about the change of shop in advance so that they are not put to undue hardship. If you are looking to understand how to file RTI Online, use this Guide of our's to learn about it. The Commission with the powers vested under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act directs the Public Authority to compensate a sum of Rs.400/ to the Appellant for the loss he suffered due to nonreceipt of information within the stipulated time period. The then PIO was also directed to show cause as to why penalty under Section 20 should not be imposed upon him for non furnishing of information within the mandatory time period. Change of shop in advance Earlier, the First Appellate authority has passed the order stating that "It is understood that the said information has not been handed over to the Appellant personally and the same has not reached him so far. Further, it appears that the requisite information has been supplied to the Appellant beyond the time prescribed under RTI Act which is highly despicable and regrettable. ..............It should be noted by the PIO that in future the requisite information be supplied to the Appellant within time prescribed under RTI Act. Further it reveals that the communication sent to the Appellant is not specific and point wise. It is directed that point wise and specific information would be supplied to the Appellant within ten days of receipt of this order after charging the requisite fees from him as the information sought by the Appellant is voluminous.’" However, no action was taken by the PIO and the applicant finally filed the second appeal with the Central Information Commission. The Decision can be read here: Dhaniram Goyal Vs Food and Supply Department GNCTD You can discuss this decision at our forum here! This is an extract of the decision available on the CIC public website, and is meant for generating interest in our readers only. For the true detailed and authentic copy you must download the decision from the CIC website!
When Public Information officer of Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board apologized for the clerical mistake, CIC accepted the explanation and dropped the penalty proceedings. Not only PIO had earlier given wrong reply stating that stay is pending in the High Court when actually stay was already vacated and the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court but also had destroyed the copies of previous question booklets in respect of LDC & Steno examination in spite of the fact that High Court and the CIC were seized of the matter. However, when CIC issued show cause notice to the PIO to explain why penalty cannot be imposed for (a) destroying the question papers in spite of the fact that High Court and the CIC were seized of the matter and (b) giving wrong reply stating that stay is pending in the High Court when actually stay was already vacated and the writ petition was dismissed by the High Court, the PIO not only traced out the distorted copies of previous question booklets in respect of LDC & Steno examination but also apologized for the clerical mistake committed by the then PIO who stated that there was a stay was granted by the Delhi High Court when actually the stay was vacated. The PIO while hearing has also stated that "the Board has decided to upload the question booklet on the website a day after the completion of examination conducted by the Board " What are your views? Is it a success story of RTI that now the question booklet are being uploaded on the website a day after the completion of examination? Or do you think that PIO was let go by CIC easily? Post your views in the comments below or at the forum here! Can clerical mistake condone penalty? As per section 18 (1) (e) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act; and & under Section: 20 Penalties (1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer has, knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, or destroyed information which was the subject of the request it shall impose a penalty. The decision can be downloaded from here! This article has been prepared from the decision posted by CIC on its website Kishan Lal Meena Vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board , CIC/AD/A/2012/003146SA dated 16.6.2014
If RTI is a common man tool, there are always Risk of RTI too. Information which was clearly in the nature of personal information relating to the Passport of a lady got disclosed to a third party. The lady rightly got aggrieved because of this decision of the CPIO which resulted in Loss of Privacy due to RTI. Her husband was living in Canada since 7 September 2011 while his brother lived here in India. She alleged that the brother living in India had applied for information by faking the signature of her husband and the passport office had issued a notice to her under section 11 of the RTI Act before disclosing the information. She had objected to the disclosure but, in spite of that, the CPIO went ahead and disclosed not only the fact that her passport had been impounded but also some other personal details, like the copy of her schools certificate. The CIC also got concerned with this Risk of RTI. After hearing CIC recorded that "we find the decision of the CPIO highly problematic. Very rightly, he had issued a notice under section 11 when he received the application seeking details about the Appellant's passport. After he received the objection from the Appellant, he did not take it into account before finally deciding to disclose the information. As a result, some information which is clearly in the nature of personal information relating to the Appellant got disclosed to a third party. The Appellant is rightly aggrieved because of this decision of the CPIO." Risk of RTI "We think that the CPIO must show cause why we should not impose penalty on him for this indiscreet act in terms of the provisions of subsection 1 of section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Therefore, we direct the CPIO concerned to appear before us in the next date of hearing on 26 August 2013 at 11.30 a.m. and show cause for his decision resulting in the disclosure of third party information. We will decide on the penalty only after hearing his explanation." In our earlier article: RTI and Privacy- Are they two sides of the same coin? CPIO’s must deal with numerous issues: Should officers names and other details be considered private? Is information in public registers and muster rolls available for any use? Are court and criminal records public? Personal life—Information relating solely to a public employee’s personal life rather than to his or her public actions is one such place of RTI and Privacy come in conflict. There is also significant agreement that information about elected or high-rank public officials is less restricted, even when it relates to their personal lives. Governments and private organizations that collect information related to government services and obligations (including Income tax,medical details, criminal records (NCRB), and citizenship records (UIDIA, National Population Register) and identification technologies (including identity card systems,fingerprints, IRIS Scan, Video survullence) have quickly evolved and expanded. New communications technologies create and collect substantial records about individuals in the process of providing communications. Services run by governments and private operators collect information about individuals, including emails, records of persons communicated with, lists of Web sites visited,and mobile locations. And, of course, people share information through social networking sites. Here are the participating discussions at our forums: Click Here!
rtiindia posted a post in Govt of NCT of DelhiFrom the past 24 months, information about 900 kiosks built during 1991 and onwards under IYD Scheme, that were supposed to be allotted to the disabled persons which includes leprosy affected persons, have totally disappeared. Under Right to Information, when the question was asked from the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, Central Information Commission found that the information was fragmented, does not offer complete picture and very difficult to know what happened to 900 kiosks and money spent on them. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board functions under the control of Govt. of NCT of Delhi and is primarily functioning under the purview of the DUSIB Act, 2010. This act empowers the DUSIB to notify certain areas as Slums, where with the passage of time, the buildings have become dilapidated and the basic civic services are missing. Apart from this, DUSIB has been also assigned the role of looking after the Jhuggie Jhomprie squatter settlements / clusters by way of provision of civic amenities and their resettlement too. The main mission of DUSIB is to improve the quality of life of Slum & JJ Dwellers by implementing number of approved plan Schemes on behalf of Delhi Govt. Following questions were raised under RTI Act 2005: How much of money was spent, How many kiosks were built till the time they were working, Whom they were allotted, If there is any irregularity in the disappearance of kiosks, whether any action was initiated to recover the kiosk or the money, Whether any particular officer or office is responsible for delaying or holding these kiosks and related information and any other information related to this, so that public money is safe and public interest is served. Having not received the reply under RTI, Shri Shankar Tiwari preferred First Appeal. First Appellate Authority (FAA) by his order dt. 12-12-2012 disposed of the appeal on the ground that the appellant is not interested to follow the case, as he failed to appear before him, in spite of two hearing notices. The appellant filed 2nd appeal before the Commission seeking complete information. CIC viewed the matter very seriously and directed the following in it's decision here: To give a comprehensive report after collecting the information from wherever it is held under their control and authority and inform the appellant Directed the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board respondent/PIO, PIO of allotment section and the New Delhi Officer, DRIA to comply with this order. They should cooperate with one another in furnishing a comprehensive information without resorting to technical grounds and all these three officers will be deemed to be PIOs and they shall be held responsible if they fail to furnish the information to the appellant within 45 days under intimation to the Commission. As this matter has been pending for the last 24 months, noncompliance of this direction will be viewed seriously as per Section 20 of the RTI Act. Kiosks meant for disabled persons During the hearing the appellant was represented by Dr. Brahm Dutt. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. S.C.Sharma, EE, Mr. T.S.Grover, Mr. C.P.Singh and Mr. N.H.Sharma, EE, Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board, GNCTD, Delhi. FACTS The appellant’s representative submitted that through the RTI application dt. 166 2012, he is seeking information regarding 900 kiosks built by the respondent authority, from 1991 onwards under IYD Scheme and the details of their allotment. Having received no reply within the prescribed period, the appellant preferred First Appeal. FAA by his order dt. 1212 2012 disposed of the appeal on the ground that the appellant is not interested to follow the case, as he failed to appear before him, in spite of two hearing notices. The appellant filed 2nd appeal before the Commission seeking complete information. Decision: Commission heard the submissions. The appellant was seeking information about 900 kiosks built during 1991 and onwards, supposed to be allotted to the disabled persons which includes leprosy affected persons, which have totally disappeared. He was seeking various kinds of details of information about the disposal etc. The respondent authority stated that they have collected information from different sections and departments and tried to give information. The information sought being very old pertaining to the period of 1991, they claimed that they need some more time to collect the information. CIC noted that the information given by the respondents was fragmented, does not offer complete picture and very difficult to know what happened to 900 kiosks and money spent on them. The respondent authority is directed to give a comprehensive report after collecting the information from wherever it is held under their control and authority and inform the appellant as to how much of money was spent, how many kiosks were built till the time they were working, whom they were allotted, if there is any irregularity in the disappearance of kiosks, whether any action was initiated to recover the kiosk or the money, whether any particular officer or office is responsible for delaying or holding these kiosks and related information and any other information related to this, so that public money is safe and public interest is served. The appellant expressed an apprehension that some of the case files are either missing or stolen. He insisted on registering an FIR for the crime of deliberate misplacement of files which might disclose the irregularities in kiosks’ affair. The Commission directs the respondent/PIO, PIO of allotment section and the New Delh Officer, DRIA to comply with this order. They should cooperate with one another in furnishing a comprehensive information without resorting to technical grounds and all these three officers will be deemed to be PIOs and they shall be held responsible if they fail to furnish the information to the appellant within 45 days under intimation to the Commission. As this matter has been pending for the last 24 months, noncompliance of this direction will be viewed seriously as per Section 20 of the RTI Act. The Decision is available here! Do you have anything to add to this story? Add it in the comments below.
rtiindia posted a post in High Court DecisionsIn most of the cases filed by a citizen for not receiving any reply from Public Information Officer (PIO) of various Departments, the Commission were merely directing the CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought instead of deciding the complaints on merits. There can be no dispute that while considering a complaint made under Section 18 of the Act, the Commission cannot direct the concerned CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought from him. The Commission has no power, while dealing with a complaint, to direct providing of the information subject- matter of the complaint. Thus Information Commission has no power to send the complaint back. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. Now in a landmark decision on 28.10.2013 J.K.MITTAL Vs CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR, Delhi High Court has quashed the practice of summary disposal of complaints by remanding the matter to First Appellate Authority/ CPIO, without even hearing the complainant or deciding the complaint on merits. So now onwards when you do not receive the reply from CPIO, insert this judgement that "Information Commission has no power to send the complaint back" and add the following link: "CPIO had failed to provide information sought in the application, therefore, the petitioner is filing a complaint before the Central Information Commission or State Information Commissioner under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, seeking imposition of penalty against the said CPIO under Section 20 of the Act." Information Commission has no power to send the complaint back Such a power can only be exercised when a Second Appeal in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 19 is preferred before the Commissioner. The scope of the powers of the Commission under Section 18 of the Act came up for consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Information Commissioner vs. State of Manipur 2012(286) E.L.T. 485(S.C.) Section 18 of the Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that it shall be the duty of the Commission to receive and enquire into a complaint from any person who has been refused access to any information requested under the Act or who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limits specified under the Act. It is, therefore, obligatory for the Commission to decide such a complaint on merit instead of simply directing the CPIO to provide information which the complainant had sought. If the Commission finds that the CPIO had without reasonable cause refused to receive an application for information or had not furnished information within the prescribed time or had given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information, it is required to impose prescribed penalty upon such a CPIO/SPIO, as the case may be. In the cases covered by Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the Commission is also required to recommend disciplinary action against the concerned CPIO or SPIO, under the service rules applicable to him. The standard procedure Information Commission has been adopting from quite a long time has been to decide the complaint as: (i) In case no reply has been given by the CPIO to the Complainant to his RTI- request dated 14.2.2012 CPIO should furnish a reply to the Complainant within two weeks of receipt of this order. (ii) In case CPIO has already given a reply to the Complainant in the matter, he should furnish a copy of his reply to the Complainant within one week of receipt of this order.” It is learnt that nearly 8600 matters have been summarily disposed by the CIC in recent years out of which more than 4000 have been disposed off by Information Commissioner Information Commissioner. In the present case of J.K.MITTAL Vs CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR, the same thing happened. Sh. J.K. Mittal filed an application dated 4th February, 2012 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) seeking certain information. Alleging that the CPIO had failed to provide information sought in terms of the aforesaid application, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Central Information Commission under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, seeking imposition of penalty against the said CPIO under Section 20 of the Act. The court has decided that "As regards, the grievance expressed by the petitioner that the Commission, despite its attention being drawn to the above referred decision of the Apex Court continues, while considering a complaint under Section 18 of the Act, to direct the concerned CPIO to provide information instead of deciding the complaint on merits, it is expected that the Commission henceforth will decide the complaints on merits instead of directing the CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought. Of course, it would be open to the Commission to give such a direction while entertaining a second appeal under Sub- section (3) of Section 19 of the Act." Citation: J.K.MITTAL Vs CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ANR Decision Number: W.P.© No.6755.12 dated 28.10.2013 Download: Click here to download the decision Forum Discussion Thread: Del H.C. quashes practice of summary disposal of complaints by CIC and remanding them back
sabharwal786 posted a post in SIC PunjabPublic Information Officers beware! Any lackadaisical attitude towards RTI Applicants will cost you fine, at least Punjab Information Commission are after non performers under under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. If the PIO is unnecessary delaying in conveying the correct State of affairs to the Appellant in regard to his request for information and / or failed to attend the hearing despite registered letters sent by CIC/SIC. As per Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005, CIC or SIC can either penalize the PIO or recommend Disciplinary action against the PIO. Section 20 of (1) reads as: "Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be." Punjab Information Commission are after non performers under RTI In the present case PIO-Respondent, Sh. Jasdev Singh Sekhon (PIO when the RTI application filed by the Appellant) O/o Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana has not performed his duties under the RTI Act 2005 in keeping with either the letter or the spirit of the statute. SIC also to be noticed that the Respondent-PIO Sh. Jasdev Singh Sekhon has been functioning in a most lackadaisical manner which deserves to be strongly deprecated. Sh.Jasdev Singh Sekhon, (PIO when the RTI application filed by the Appellant) has, therefore, become liable to be penalized under Section 20(i) RTI Act 2005. Sh. Jasdev Singh Sekhon was directed to submit an affidavit showing cause why action under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act be not taken against him vide order dated 29.08.2013. But, he has failed to attend the hearing despite registered letters sent to him. SIC noted that "I am, therefore, left with no other option but to decide the question of imposition of penalty upon Sh. Jasdev Singh Sekhon- the then PIO in his absence and without the benefit of any reply by him. From the material on record, it transpires that there has been unnecessary delay in conveying the correct State of affairs to the Appellant in regard to his request for information." Sh. Jasdev Singh Sekhon- the then PIO was, at the relevant time, holding the position of the PIO. No explanation for delay has been given by him. Rather, his failure to even respond to the show cause direction by the Commission reinforces the fact that he has been without any reasonable cause guilty of remissness in the discharge of his duties. He was, therefore, deserved to be penalized. As the delay is of more than six months, maximum penalty of Rs. 25000/- could be imposed upon Sh. Jasdev Singh Sekhon, Suptd. the delinquent PIO. However, taking a lenient view, SIC impose a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) on him. He has been directed to deposit this amount in the Treasury before the next date of hearing. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ludhaina was also directed to ensure that in case Sh. Jasdev singh Sekhon, the then PIO does not deposit the amount of penalty, the penalty amount is recovered from the salary of Sh. Jasdev Singh Sekhon and a compliance report in this regard be sent to the Commission before the next date of hearing. The Decision of the Pubjab SIC can be downloaded from here!
rtiindia posted a post in SIC PunjabCPIO had been sitting over the RTI application maintaining stoic silence and incommunicado by CPIO and did nothing to collect and furnish the requisite information to the applicant till he was woken from his deep slumber by a notice from the State Information Commission. CPIO preferred not to do give information and feigned to be proactive in collecting, collating and furnishing the information but kept the appellant in dark for months together. The First Appellate Authority had restrained himself to issuing a stern warning as imposing penalty or awarding compensation was not in his jurisdiction. In the Second appeal filed with State Information Commission Punjab, the appellant appealed against the decision of the FAA who had let off the behaviour of stoic silence and incommunicado by CPIO with a simple warning and approached the commission for imposition of penalty on the respondent PIO and compensation for himself. Stoic Silence and Incommunicado by CPIO [caption id=attachment_460" align="alignright" width="200] stoic silence and incommunicado by CPIO[/caption] The commission noted that "the reply and explanation of the Respondent-PIO for the delay is totally unsatisfactory. If the information was not available on record, Respondent-PIO was well within his right to inform the appellant that the information is not available and it cannot be created and thus, would have absolved himself of the responsibility of furnishing information. But he preferred not to do so and feigned to be proactive in collecting, collating and furnishing the information but kept the appellant in dark for months together. Secondly, the Respondent-PIO pleaded that the information was scattered with the PIOs of different zones is too not tenable as the respondent PIO could have returned the application and directed the appellant to approach each PIO individually by filing separate RTI applications. Even assuming that the respondent PIO started collecting information, he could have sought assistance from different zonal officers under Section 5(4) or through any other mode but he failed to show records of any communication addressed to different zones" All this suggests that the Respondent-PIO had been sitting over the RTI application till December 20, 2012 and had done nothing to collect and furnish the requisite information to the appellant till he was woken from his deep slumber by a notice from the State Information Commission. The Commission were of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for imposing penalty where the behaviour maintaining stoic silence and incommunicado by CPIO was not acceptable. The commission noted that "Therefore, a penalty of Rs.25,000/- is imposed on the Respondent-PIO, which he should deposit in the government treasury as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 before the next date of hearing. The Commission also awards a compensation of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the appellant which will be paid by the public authority as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 as he had to undergo mental agony and harassment for attending the Commissions’ hearings a number of times." If you are interested in reading the discussion thread started by Applicant, you may kindly visit here! The Appellant is Shri. Rohit Sabharwal.