"Pressure of work" - a reasonable cause for delay in info ?

[karira]

RTI application dated: 21.1.2010
CPIO reply date: 29.3.2010

Is "Pressure of work" a reasonable cause of delay ?

The new ICs in the CIC seem to think so. IC Rajiv Mathur has passed the following order:

http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_deci...22_M_82046.pdf

The Appellant also raised the issue of delay in reply to his RTI
request. The then PIO who was also present, submitted that due to
pressure of work, the reply was delayed by a few days and apologized for
the same. The Commission accepts his apology and does not deem it
necessary to impose any fine.

================

It seems that new ICs have not been briefed on previous CIC orders as well as High Court judgments on "administrative difficulties cannot be cited for delay in providing information"

[dr.s.malhotra]

Sponsorer

Is "Pressure of work" a reasonable cause of delay ?

Work Pressure is no ground for condoning the violation of s.7(1) of the Act , but , in view of the Order of the AA and over all emerging picture in this case , there does not appear to be mala fide , though negligence on part of PIO may be made out .

[karira]

This new IC is passing totally "unreasoned" orders. Just read a few of them which have been uploaded today.

[digal]

A cheer for errant Public Information Officers. Nonchalant PIOs will be encouraged to neglect the time factor.

Forgetting his past experience, the IC must read the following order by kerala High Court to upgrade himself with the new job.

5. The last contention..........His only answer to the complaint levelled against him was that due to pressure of work in the office, he could not furnish the information in time. Apart from that contention he had no other explanation for the delay in furnishing the information. If the said ground is taken as a reasonable explanation, every Government servant can escape from the consequences of non disposal of applications for information within the period of 30 days by pleading that he had attend to other official duties and therefore he could not furnish the information sought within 30 days. After the Right to Information Act was enacted and brought into force, every Government servant who is designated as the State Public Information Officer is bound to discharge the duty cast on him under the Act. He cannot decline to take any action on the requests under the Right to Information Act on the ground that he has other duties to attend to. As the State Public Information Officer, the petitioner has a duty to discharge his functions under the Right to Information Act also.
Therefore the mere fact that there was pressure of work on the petitioner, is not a ground to hold that he was not bound to furnish the information within the stipulated period of 30 days...........In the result, even while declining to interfere with Ext.P4, I dispose of this writ petition with the direction that in the event of the petitioner remitting the sum of Rs.21,750/- in five equal monthly installments commencing from 10th December 2009 onwards, recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance

[jps50]

Time has come when we should [social] audit decisions of ICs and give them feedback. This will be a learning process for new ICs also. In this case I will write to concerned IC after my return from tour.