RTI - CIC - FALSE INFORMATION - WRIT

The only option before you is:  First Appeal.

It will be dangerous for anybody give a reply to your query, without first knowing the complete facts.

In any case, the question of filing WRIT against the CPIO seems to be misconceived.

If you know the correct facts, based on that correct fact, you better take whatever appropriate action/steps that action you want to take against the bank which according to you charged exorbitant interest.

Originally posted by : raja
	Dear experts,1. On 20.03.2018 during second appeal of rti act, CPIO - Punjab National Bank furnished false informatikn as exhorbitant intetest is not charged.My query1. Writ can be filed against name of CPIO ?2. Can i get stay as, promotion and others increments should not be given to CPIO till the disposal of the writ?RegardsDr. Raja

RTI is separate body having its own powers under RTI Act.

If you have got wrong information from RTI PIO, then you should go for First Appeal within appeal time.

In your appeal you explain your blah blah blah.  The First Appellate authority will ensure that the PIO gives you correct information.

Going for writ no use.  High Court wont entertain your application as matter can be adjudicated by First Appellate Authority under RTI Act.  If FAA don’t give you information, then go second appeal in SIC.  There they will catch hold of the minnis of both PIO and FAA and tie them plus punish them and levy fine also.  Hope this helps.

Shri Raja

Dear Sir

I'm sorry, I didn't read your query correctly.     My previous Reply is wrong.

The CPIO furnished wrong information.      This comes under FORGERY.     You can prosecute him without the necessity of getting sanction.

You can request for penalizing and express yourself….

The decision is with authority that is empowered to decide by ITself or directing the establishment to which officer belongs...on facts and merits of the matter..

GO thru;

RTi Act;5(5), 6(3), 20

https://rti.gov.in/rtiact.asp

https://rti.gov.in/rti-act.pdf

Central Information Commission

Mrharinder Dhingra vs Andhra Bank 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116700375/?type=print

Central Information Commission

Mrr K Jain vs Ministry Of Environment & Forests 

H. It is pathetic that CPIOs are driving the RTI applicants to the CIC just because they do not  implement   FAA   order.     Creating   such   a   situation   where   the   RTI   applicants   have   to  approach the CIC to seek implementation of the orders of FAA of the respective Public  Authority, it's very serious disobedience and in­subordination on the part of the CPIOs. Not  giving information in response to RTI application can be excused if there is a reasonable  cause, but there is no excuse for defiance of the FAA order.  But the response of the CPIO  does not show any inclination to obey the orders of his own senior.   The Commission  CIC/SA/A/2015/000348 Page 8 advises  the respondent  Public  Authority  to  initiate  disciplinary  proceedings  against  Mr.  Chetan Chawla, CPIO in the interests of discipline for this kind of defiance and indiscipline. 

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80860415/

JN Kapur vs VR Bansal                   vs                                            Public Information Officer & SE-I                                                              Municipal Corporation of Delhi, West Zone

Decision: As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act 2005, the Commission finds this a fit case for levying penalty on Mr. K. D. Sharma, the then AE(West Zone), Mr. A. K. Gupta, present AE(WZ), Mr. T. C. Meena, JE (West Zone) and Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE-I(WZ). Since the delay in providing the correct information has been over 100 days, the Commission is passing an order penalizing all four officers `25000/ each, which is the maximum penalty under the Act. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi is directed to recover the amount of Rs.25000/- each from the salaries of Mr. K. D. Sharma, the then AE(West Zone), Mr. A. K. Gupta, present AE(WZ), Mr. T. C. Meena, JE (West Zone) and Mr. V. R. Bansal, PIO & SE-I (WZ) and remit the same by a demand draft or a Banker’s Cheque in the name of the Pay & Accounts Officer, CAT, payable at New Delhi and send the same to Shri Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar, Joint Registrar and Deputy Secretary of the Central Information Commission, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi – 110066. The amount may be deducted at the rate of `5000/- per month every month from the salary of each of the four officers and remitted by the 10th of every month starting from February 2011. The total amount will be remitted by 10th of June, 2011.

https://ciconline.nic.in/cic_decisions/CIC_SG_A_2010_002810_10280Penalty_T_49401.pdf

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 24.01.2017 + W.P.(C) 624/2017 B.B. DASH ..... Petitioner versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR ..... Respondents

1. The petitioner impugns order dated 22.11.2016, whereby, the CIC has held the petitioner – CPIO liable for not providing the information to the respondents. It has been held that the petitioner has failed to provide information without any cogent reasons.

Maximum penalty, as prescribed, of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner.

9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIC has not erred in returning a finding that information sought has not been provided to the respondent No.2. No cogent explanation has been rendered for non-supply of the information. Thus, the order of the CIC dated 22.11.2016 cannot be faulted. 10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

https://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SAS/judgement/27-01-2017/SAS24012017CW6242017.pdf

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 Decision No. CIC/YA/C/2016/900230, dated 26.09.2017 Shri Manjit Singh v. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL)

In view of the above ratio, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for the imposition of a penalty on the CPIO.

https://dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-10-09-111711900230.pdf

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 24.01.2017 + W.P.(C) 624/2017 B.B. DASH ..... Petitioner versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION & ANR ..... Respondents

1. The petitioner impugns order dated 22.11.2016, whereby, the CIC has held the petitioner – CPIO liable for not providing the information to the respondents. It has been held that the petitioner has failed to provide information without any cogent reasons.

Maximum penalty, as prescribed, of Rs.25,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner.

9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIC has not erred in returning a finding that information sought has not been provided to the respondent No.2. No cogent explanation has been rendered for non-supply of the information. Thus, the order of the CIC dated 22.11.2016 cannot be faulted. 10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

https://lobis.nic.in/ddir/dhc/SAS/judgement/27-01-2017/SAS24012017CW6242017.pdf

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 Decision No. CIC/YA/C/2016/900230, dated 26.09.2017 Shri Manjit Singh v. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL)

In view of the above ratio, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for the imposition of a penalty on the CPIO.

https://dsscic.nic.in/files/upload_decision/2017-10-09-111711900230.pdf

Based on your posts you can pick up the relevant points from the inputs already posted.

LCI Experts Mr. Rajendra K Goyal, Mr. Parthasarthy Longanathan, Mr. Mallipedi Jaggarao are from Banks legal cells/banks…

Unfortunately Mr. Sastry has expired.

LCI Experts/members Mr. J.P. Shah, Mr. G.L.N. Prasad posts on RTI matters with deep insights.

If you wish you may get in touch with them..and benefit further.