Central Information Commission
Sandesh Badkas vs Institute Of Cost Accountants Of India on 1 March, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 302, CIC Bhawan,Baba Gang NathMarg,
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision No. CIC/ICWAI/A/2017/100989 Dated 26.02.2018
Sandesh Badkas vs. Chairman, The Institute of Cost Accountants of
India, Nasik.
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI:24.08.2016 FA:12.10.2016 S.A.30.12.2016
CPIO:28.09.2016 FAAO:No order Hearing:23.02.2018
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Chairman/ deemed Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Nasik Ojhar Chapter of Cost Accountants, The Institute of Cost Accountants of India (ICAI), Nasik seeking information on fourteen points pertaining to award of computer training to NIIT by the ICAI, including inter alia, copy of letter correspondence/advice/office memo etc. received from the Institute by the Nasik - Ojhar Chapter regarding award of computer training to NIIT ; (ii) copy of complaints received from the students of the Nasik - Ojhar Chapter or the students of the Institute regarding computer training by NIIT forcing Nasik - Ojhar Chapter to award computer training to Infosoft Systems and not to NIIT; (iii) copy of decision taken to change the organization from NIIT to Infosoft Systems; (iv) the data collected from Infosoft Systems; (iv) qualification of the Proprietor of Infosoft Systems; and (v) the names, educational qualifications, experience of the faculty engaged by Infosoft Systems for imparting computer training to students during the period 2001 to 2015.
2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that neither the CPIO has provided information nor the FAA passed any order on the first appeal filed before him. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide information as sought by Page 1 him and also penalize the CPIO under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for not responding to the RTI application.
Hearing:
3. The appellant Shri Sandesh Badkas was present in person. The respondent Shri Suraj Lahoti, Chairperson, & Shri Deepak Joshi, Secretary, ICAI, Nasik attended the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant submitted that the CPIO has provided incomplete and misleading information on point nos. 1, 4, 9, 12, 13 and 14 of the RTI application. On point nos. 2 and 8 of the RTI application he was informed that the relevant records, in this regard, are not traceable. No information has been provided on the remaining points 3, 5, 6, 11 on the grounds that only verbal communication was made in the matter. He further stated that incorrect information has been provided in response to point 7 of the RTI application, that Shri Ashok Nawal had disclosed his interest in the firm Infosoft Systems, whereas in response to his RTI application dated 12.06.2015 the Chairperson of the Nasik Chapter had informed him that no communication regarding disclosure of relationship/interest by CMA Ashok B. Nawal with Infosoft Systems was received.
5. The respondent submitted that point wise reply was furnished to the appellant as per available records. The information sought by the appellant pertained to the period of the earlier Managing Committee of ICAI. He further clarified that the tenure of the Managing Committee of ICAI is for a period of two years (including Chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer).
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that incomplete and irrelevant information has been provided by the respondent on point nos. 1, 4, 9, 12 13 and 14 of the RTI application and on point nos. 2 and 8 the appellant was informed that information was not traceable. The Commission, therefore, directs the CPIO, ICAI, New Delhi to provide a reasoned point wise Page 2 reply, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, on the above mentioned points of the RTI application to the appellant, if required by seeking assistance of the officers of Nasik Ojhar Chapter ICAI, Nasik, under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act. In case, information is not traceable/available on specific points of the RTI application the CPIO shall file an affidavit with the Commission deposing that no records on these points of the RTI application are available with respondent. Hence, no information can be provided to the appellant. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the appellant. The above directions of the Commission shall be complied with, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(SudhirBhargava) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.S. Rohilla) Designated Officer Page 3 Addresses of the parties:
1. Ms. Vibhu Agrawal, Deputy Director/CPIO, The Institute of Cost Accountants of India, CMA Bhawan, 3, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
2. The Deemed Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), The Institute of Cost Accountants of India, Nasik Ojhar Chapter, 2nd Floor, Prasanna Arcade, Near Mazda Hotel, Old Agra Road, Nasik-422002/
3. Shri SandeshBadkas, Page 4