Gujarat Information Commission

Bureau of Economics & Statistics Building

1st Floor, Sector 18, Gandhinagar.

Appeal No. 138/06-07

Appeal under Section – 19 of the Right to Information Act 2005

The 18th day of June, 2007.

Appellant :
Architect Sureshchandra B.Jaiswal
509, Swastik Society
Ajwa Road
Vadodara – 16.

Respondents :

(1) Shri Sailesh Mistry

Public Information Officer
Vadodara Municipal Corporation
Khanderao Market
Vadodara.
(2) Appellate Authority under the RTI Act and
Deputy Municipal Commissioner
Vadodara Municipal Corporation
Khanderao Market
Vadodara.

Before Shri R.N. Das, Chief Information Commissioner.

1. The appellant, vide his application under the Right to Information Act,

2005 dated 18.2.2006, had sought certain information, that is, copies of

the order Nos. F-651/05-06, F-846/05-06 dated 21.11.2005 and 1095/05-

06 dated 2.2.2006, from the respondent no.1. Since he did not get any

information from the respondent no.1 within the time specified in section 7

1
 (1) of the said Act, he filed his first appeal on 22.3.2006 before the

respondent no. 2. His first appeal was not heard and not disposed of

within the stipulated time. Therefore, he filed the present appeal with the

Commission. His appeal was heard on 14.11.2006 and after hearing, the

Commission was of the view that, prima facie, the respondent no. 1 has

failed to furnish the information sought for by the appellant/applicant within

the time specified in section 7 (1) of the said Act and therefore, a notice

was required to be issued to him to give an opportunity as to why penalty

should not imposed upon him under 20 (1) of the said Act. Hearing in the

matter was kept on 9.3.2007. The respondent no.1 and the appellant

were present. The Commission heard them.

2. In his written comments/remarks, the respondent no.1 contended that the

appellant was a "blacklisted architect" in the Vadodara Municipal

Corporation. In the initial stage, there were doubts whether information

should be furnished to such "blacklisted" persons and therefore, the

matter was placed before the Municipal Commissioner. The respondent

no.1 had also produced copy of the file notes dealing with the issue. It

was contended in the files notes that the appellant was in the habit of

making applications/allegations and the Gujarat Vigilance Commission

had also filed his complaints. In addition, the respondent no.1 contended

that he had to shoulder the responsibility of the P.I.O. alongwith the

normal routine work of the Municipal Corporation, that he was holding

charge of two to three departments, that his supporting staff was not fully

2
 conversant with the provisions of the Right to Information Act and

therefore, there was delay in providing the information.

3. The appellant's main contentions were as follows:

3.1 The written remarks/explanations of the respondent no.1 did not mention

any valid reasons for the inordinate delay in providing him the simple

information sought by him. He calculated the delay exceeding one

hundred days after giving allowance for the thirty days given to provide the

information. According to him while his application seeking information

was dated 18.2.2006, he got the information only on 1.7.2006. He further

contended that the first appellate authority, that is, the respondent no.2

had also commented adversely on the delay by the respondent no.1

including the delay in submitting the papers relating to the appellant's first

appeal before him for disposal. The respondent no.2 had further ordered

to provide information to the appellant, free of charges, as provided under

the Right to Information Act, 2005.

3.2 As regards the allegation made that the appellant was a "blacklisted

Architect", there was no such mention in the decision of the respondent

no.2 and therefore, it was contended that the respondent no.1 had

attempted at his charter assassination.

4. The Commission has considered all the submissions. Its

findings/observations are as follows:

4.1 The respondent no. 1's principal defence is that since the appellant was a

"blacklisted architect" in the respondent public authority, that is, the

3
 Vadodara Municipal Corporation, it was to be decided whether the

information sought by him would be provided to him. The respondent's

contention is that this decision took considerable time and therefore, there

was delay in providing the information. The Commission is constrained to

observe that the respondent no.1 being the Public Information Officer

under the RTI Act, 2005, is required under the law to treat the appellant as

a "citizen" or as "person" and not as an architect, and not on the basis of

the appellant's professional or occupational status. The RTI Act, 2005 is

a great leveler. It does not differentiate the status of the person seeking

information. The respondent no.1 behaved only as the Town Planning

Officer in treating the appellant as a "blacklisted architect" forgetting his

duty under the RTI Act, 2005 to treat him only as a "citizen" or a "person".

4.2 The Commission is also further constrained to observe that if a person is

blacklisted as an architect by the respondent public authority, that does

not take away his right to information under the said Act. The RTI Act,

2005 does not have provision for exempted category of citizens or

persons to whom information can be denied. The said Act has provisions

only on the exempted categories of information in respect to which there

could be no obligation to provide information by the public authority,

Therefore, the relevant issue before the respondent no.1 was to examine

whether the information sought for was in the exempted categories of

information as provided for in the said Act. He should have concerned

himself with the "content" of the information, that is, whether the

4
 information sought for was falling within the admissible category or

exempted category. In this case, the information sought for did not fall

within the exempted category at all. Therefore, the delay in providing the

information is not tenable and valid.

4.3 The other explanation given by the respondent no. 1 regarding the "intent"

of the appellant in seeking the information is also not tenable as under the

Right to Information Act, 2005, the purpose for seeking the information is

not to be probed or asked for. It is only the "content" of the information

sought for which is relevant and not the "intent" of the person seeking the

information.

4.4 The third defence given by the respondent no.1 regarding lack of

familiarization of the staff with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and his

other responsibilities which hindered the timely furnishing of information,

do not provide any reasonable explanation to the inordinate delay in

providing the information to the appellant.

4.5 The Commission observes that the appellant had sought certified copies

of three specific orders. Neither the "content" of the information sought

for, nor its "extent" would justify the inordinate delay beyond the stipulated

period of thirty days from the date of the receipt of the request for

information for providing the simple information. Therefore, the

Commission is of the opinion that there was no reasonable cause for the

respondent no.1 for not furnishing the information sought for by the

appellant within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 of

5
 the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent no.1, having been

given opportunity of being heard and having heard him, the Commission

holds that is a fit case for imposing penalty on the respondent no.1 under

sub section (1) of section 20 of the said Act. The Commission is of the

opinion that a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only)

would meet the ends of justice in this matter.

5. Having regard to the above, the Commission makes the following

decision/order in the matter:

Decision/Order.

(1) In exercise of the powers vested in the Commission under sub-section

(1) of section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Commission

imposes a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) on

Shri Shailesh Mistry, PIO, Vaodara Municipal Corporation, that is, the

respondent no.1 in this appeal. The said penalty shall be credited

within thirty days from the receipt of this order into the following

Government account:

Major Head : 0070 – Other administrative services.

Sub Major Head : 60 – other services

Minor Head : 800 - other receipt

Sub Head : (17) – Fees and other charges

under the Right to Information

Act/Rules.

6
 (2) Shri Shailesh Mistry, PIO, Vadodara Municipal Corporation, shall

ensure that the above mentioned penalty is paid and credited

into the above mentioned Government account either from his

personal resources or deducted from his salary and credited

into the said account within the stipulated period. He should

inform the Commission about the credit of the penalty within

forty five days from the receipt of this order.

(3) A copy of this order be also sent to the Municipal Commissioner,

Vadodara Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Commissioner

should ensure that this order is complied with within the

stipulated time specified herein.

(R.N. Das)
Chief Information Commissioner
Gujarat Information Commission
Gandhinagar.