Central Information Commission
Mr. M.L. Gouhari vs Educational Consultants India Ltd on 11 January, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002758/6350
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002758
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. M.L. Gouhari
A-1/107, Janak Puri,
New Delhi - 1100058
Respondent : Mr. U.S.Gaikwad
Public Information Officer & DGM (HR) Educational Consultants India Ltd 18A, Sector 16A, Noida - 201301 RTI application filed on : 07/03/2009 PIO replied : 25/05/2009 First appeal filed on : 15/04/2009 First Appellate Authority order : No Order.
Second Appeal received on : 11/09/2009
Date of Notice of Hearing : 09/12/2009
Hearing Held on : 11/01/2010
S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO (after first appeal had
been filed)
1. Details of the nature of other issues Information requested was not specific.
regarding letter no. RTI/63/08- Admin dated 30/01/2009.
2. Details as to whether such issues Same as above.
related to Shri N.S. Padmanabhan, Shri Bishwambher Datt, Ms. P. Jayanthi and Ms. Isha Rikhi who had been issued memos.
3. Copy of recommendations of the Information requested was not specific investigating authority, if such and hence could not be provided. investigation has been completed.
4. Copy of action taken by CMD on Same as above.
recommendations of the investigating authority.
5. Whether Shri. N.S. Padmanabhan The information pertained to Shri N.S. had disclosed about his making Padmanbhan before he joined EdCIL and claims of Rs. 165678/- and Rs. was third party information.
9720/- on 23/07/2001 and
24/07/2001 while in service with
NSIC.
First Appeal:
The PIO had not supplied any information.
Order of the FAA:
No Order.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
That the Appellant has still not been supplied with the proper information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. M.L. Gouhari;
Respondent : Mr. U.S.Gaikwad, Public Information Officer & DGM (HR);
The PIO was initially not clear about the information sought but has subsequently provided the information on 08/01/2010 to the Appellant. He has pointed out that an investigation has been conducted under PIDR by CVC. They have provided certain inputs through MHRD to CVC and it is not possible for them to understand whether disclosure of this is likely to impede the process of investigation. In view of this they have claimed the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Since the matter has been investigated by CVC only CVC would be able to justify this exemption. In view of this the Commission directs the PIO to transfer this RTI application to CVC under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to transfer the RTI Application to the PIO of CVC before 15 January 2010.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 11 January 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PS)