Respondent Union Petroleum Ministry came into working through their response dated 22.12.2009 only after I mailed a copy of my petition filed before the Commission to CPIO there on 16.11.2009 itself. Since an unsatisfactory and delayed response much after filing petition before the Commission was received from the respondent, a first appeal was filed against the CPIO’s delayed response. Subsequently a reply to my satisfaction was received from Union Petroleum Ministry as late as on 26.03.2010 before a hearing-date was fixed at CIC in April 2010.

Since I never intended to get the CPIO penalized for late response when I had managed to get proper though delayed reply from the Petroleum Ministry, I did not attend the hearing at Commission where rules stipulate that the petitioner may or may not attend the hearing. I was shocked to receive a copy of CIC order on 01.06.2010 where harsh strictures were passed against me that I opted to file petition at CIC and before first Appellate Authority simultaneously thus uselessly adding to burden the Commission, and that I was shying to face the hearing at Commission.

All this confusion emerged because the concerned Information Commissioner did not look into chronology about RTI petition as is otherwise noted on verdicts by several other Information Commissioners including like Shailesh Gandhi and others. Procedural changes in working of CIC should be there to compulsorily mention chronology about date of RTI petition, response-date, date of first appeal and order on first appeal. Public-authorities with late response should face automatic penalties rather than hiding such facts resulting in strictures against petitioners.