Right to Information Act
1] I filed an application u/s 6(1) of RTI Act seeking certified copies of certain information to CPIO (Central Public Information Officer of a Public Authority)
2] The CPIO rejected the application asking to get the information from website.
3] I filed a complaint u/s 18 and 20 of RTI Act to Central Information Commission. In the complaint I mentioned that the same CPIO was earlier directed by the CIC in some other case that certified copies must be supplied even if information is available on the internet.
4] The CIC held in his order that certified copies should have been supplied but did not order the CPIO to supply the certified copies as it was complaint u/s 18 and not second appeal u/s 19 and dismissed the complaint on the ground CPIO had not deifed any specific order of CIC.
5] I have decided to file a wp in person against the CIC order on the following grounds
a) The CIC held in his order that information should have been supplied. Thus, contravention of section 18 has been judicially established.
b) Once it is established that section 18 has been contravened sec 20(1) manadates that CIC shall impose the penalty.
My question is
Section 20(1) says that if CIC is of the opinion that CPIO contravenes section 18 without reasonable cause then it shall impose penalty.
In this case CIC simply says information should have been provided. It does not say section 18 has been contravened without any reasonable cause.
So can the HC say that CIC cannot be compelled to impose penalty invoking sec 20(1) on the ground that CIC order does not specifically mention that sec 18 has been contravened without any reasonable cause?
If so, can I counter argue that since CIC does not specifically say that information was denied with a reasonable cause it must be presumed that information was denied without any reasonable cause?
