Central Information Commission
Mr.. Rajender Singh Bhati vs I.A.S.E on 27 March, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no. 415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/OK/A/2008/00781/SG/1018a
Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/00781/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr.. Rajender Singh Bhati
Bhawani Niketan
Near Purva Guest House,
Bahadur Singh Colony,
Sardarshahar, Churu,
Rajasthan
Respondent : The Registrar &
PIO I.A.S.E., Vishwavidhyalaya, Sardarsheshar, Churu, (Rajasthan).
RTI application filed on : 27/10/2007 Reply from PIO : Not Replied First Appeal filed on : 09/12/2007 First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned Second Appeal filed on : 11/08/2008 Information Sought:
The appellant had sought certain information from "IASE-University, Shardarshahar, Raj through his 15 questions asking Approval of Distance MBA program by University Grant Commission, approved by IGNOU, copy of the advertisement published in national daily newspapers after approval, degrees are approved in government services, University provides study center or not, What is EDBA degree, how many students are in EDBA degree, Physical education course is approved by University Grant Commission, list of officers/officials having age of 65 years etc."
PIO's Reply:
The PIO IASE, Churu, Rajasthan did not reply to his 15 queries. However, Mr. R.K. Arora, PIO, IGNOU, Distance Education, New Delhi on 7/11/2008 had replied to the 4 queries sought by the appellant.
First Appellate Authority Ordered:
Not mentioned.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The following were present.
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Absent Mr. Y.V.Ramakrishna Rao, PIO, IGNOU, New Delhi was present during the first hearing on dated 13/01/2009. He submitted proof before the Commision that the information has been provided to him. He also submitted a list of about 20 RTI applications submitted by the appellant, which he has replied in the last one year. Hence in view of PIO's statement and proof the appeal was dismissed.
Since replies to the RTI application filed by appellant on 27/10/2008 to the PIO, IASE, Churu was not provided hence a notice of final hearing was sent to PIO, IASE, Sardarshahar, Churu, Rajasthan directing him to present himself on 27/03/2009 at 10.00 AM. The appellant has sent a letter sating that he has not received any information. He also telephonically informed the Commission about this. The respondent has not sent any reasons for not sending the information to the appellant.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO, IASE, Sardarshahar, Churu, Rjasthan is directed to provide relevant information in all the 15 queries sought by appellant before 20/04/2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 25 April, 2009. He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 27th March, 2009 Encl: A copy of RTI Application dated 17/10/2008 (In any case correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)