Applicant applied for information to the
PIO on 16.10.2006
On not getting a reply from the
PIO, applicant filed Second Appeal before the
SIC on 1.12.2006
The
PIO gave partial information on 1.2.2007 and 14.2.2007
The
SIC asked the appellant to file a First Appeal before approaching the Commisison under Sec 19(3)
Applicant filed First Appeal on 2.1.2007
But the PA designated a FAA only on 2.3.2007
In the meantime, appellant waited for the mandatory 30+15 days and again approached the
SIC on 20.2.2007
Although part information was given and inspection also allowed,
SIC issued a show cause notice under Section 20(1) and thereafter imposed a penalty of Rs. 19,250.00
PIO and the PA filed a WP in the High Court contending that:
a) The
SIC cannot impose penalty without recording findings that the
PIO has persistently refused and delayed information
b)
SIC cannot impose penalty without first ensuring that the
PIO is properly trained
c) No second appeal was maintainable without first filing and getting heard a first appeal
High Court overruled all objections stating:
a) Bare reading of Sec 20(1) implies that penalty can be imposed by
SIC even for simple delay because the
SIC has enough powers under the
RTI act to do so and decide whether the delay was intentional or not.
In any case the
PIo was getting confused between Sec 20(1) and Sec 20(2)
b) Sec 26 (for training) and Sec 20(1) are not interlinked at all. In fact even 3 years after the
RTI Act came into force, the PA has ignored it has provisions by not appointing a FAA and only doing so after the appellant filed a First Appeal
c) The last contention did not hold ground because as per Sec 19(3), the applicant had waited for the mandatory period and then filed his Second Appeal.
The full order is uploaded to
www.rtiindia.info in the Judgement section (Ramesh Sharma v/s Haryana
SIC)