RTI AND SECTION 217 & 218 OF IPC
upendra kumar gupta
(Querist) 09 April 2010
This query is : Resolved
Sir,
1)Informations under RTI are being continuously being denied by the Public Information Officer under section 8(1(d) &(j)under RTI act without any justification .
(2)I enclosed the copy of the decisions of the Central Information Commissioner stating that the denial of information under the above sections will be malafide denial of the legitimate information and the PIO will be penalised.
(3) I made these decisions as part of my RTI application. I am attaching the file of the decisions of the CIC for your perusal.
(4) Thus it is clear that the PIO is intentionally disbeying the law.
(5) Even the First Appellate Authority is not giving the information under RTI Act within the time frame.
(6) My queries are
(a) May section 217 and 218 of IPC can be invoked against the PIO disobeying the law to save a person involved in fraud and misuse of bank's money ?
(b) At what stage these sections can be invoked ?
(c)In this connection what will be the position section 23 of chapter 24 of RTI act?
(d) May you tell me any decisions regaring using of section 217 and 218 of IPC
(7) My mobile No. is 098264-55460
Upendra Kumar Gupta
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 02 November 2010
No the penal provision does not apply to PIO.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 02 November 2010
Dear Mr. Upendra,
(1)If you are not satisfied with the answers given to you by the PIO under RTI, you have every right to make an appeal.
(2) If you are not satisfied with the answers given by the Appellate Authority, then you have every right to approach the CIC.
(3) Merely because the PIO has taken refuge under Section 8 (1)(d) &(j)of the RTI Act, does not mean he is committing any offence chargeable under IPC 217 and 218.
(4) As for the decisions / instructions of the CIC are concerned, they are general in nature and not case specific. Therefore, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the PIO is disobeying any orders / decisions of the law or the CIC.
(5) I do not agree with your view that "Thus it is clear that the PIO is intentionally disbeying the law."
As rightly pointed out by Mr. Devajyoti and Mr. Arunagiri, I also strongly feel that the provisions of Sec. 217 and 218 do not at all get attracted in the present case.
