Central Information Commission (CIC): The Commission recently was hearing an appeal from an RTI applicant who appealed against the CPIO’s decision to not provide him the information sought by him.
While the Commissioner Divya Prakash Sinha was hearing the arguments of both the parties, the CPIO pleaded that the appellant is in a habit of filing multiple RTI Applications as he is aggrieved with the disempanelment of his firm and has vested commercial interest in seeking the information of third parties. The CPIO contended that such repetitive RTI applications do not deserve any reply and are nothing, but harassment to public authority. He also gave the argument that he was not the relevant CPIO at the time when application was filed.
On hearing the pleadings and arguments of CPIO, the Commission admonished the present CPIO for making such feeble representations at the hearing. Commission further observed that CPIO might be bothered by the number of RTI applications filed by the appellant, but the RTI Act casts a statutory duty upon him to reply to all the applications and he cannot avoid his duty by citing mere conjectures.
The Commission making an interim decision directed the then CPIO through the FAA to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20(1) & (2) of RTI Act for not replying on the RTI application. However, the Commission made an important observation that it was unnerving to note that the present CPIO is not even aware of who the CPIO was at the time of receipt of the RTI application under reference. [Naveen Kumar Anand v. CPIO, Directorate General Resettlement, RK Puram, New Delhi, CIC/DEXSW/C/2017/140512/SD, decided on 16.11.2017]
