The State Information Commission has called for an explanation from the Public Information Officer of the Madras High Court on why he should not be penalised for not furnishing within the prescribed timeframe, information sought by a person under the Right to Information Act.
In 2009, P. Kalyanasundaram of Pattalam, in his application before the Public Information Officer of the High Court of Madras, had sought to know the list of registers, forms, ledgers and records maintained by the office of High Court registry.
Contending that the Public Information Officer had not provided the information even after two years, he filed an appeal before the State Information Commission. He also sought compensation for the loss.
However, the Public Information Officer in his counter said it was confusing as to what kind of information the applicant was seeking. He had sought information in a casual, indiscriminate and haphazard manner. Such an attitude would defeat the purpose of the Act. The information sought was already published on the website of High Court. Hence, he sought dismissal of the application.
After hearing both sides, the State Chief Information Commissioner K. S. Sripathy in his order said the public authority should have understood at the first instance itself what kind of information had been sought and the correct details could have been provided. The public authority should have provided some concrete answer whether the information could be given or not within the timeframe. Nearly two and half years had passed since the information was sought and refusal to provide information was violative of the provisions of the RTI Act.
The order said, “Since it failed to respond in time on whether the information could be given or not to the applicant, there is room to believe that the public authority was adopting delaying tactics by not providing information. In the circumstances, under section 20(1) of RTI Act, the Public Information Officer should explain within 15 days why a penalty of Rs.25,000 should not be imposed.”
However, the commission dismissed the applicant's prayer seeking compensation, stating that the denial of information would not be detrimental to his interests.
