Central Information Commission
Mahaveer Nagar vs Ministry Of Youth Affairs & Sports on 27 March, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/152912
Mahaveer Nagar v. PIO, Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 10.04.2017, CPIO replied on 20.04.2017, FAO on 16.06.2017, Second
appeal filed on 17.07.2017, Hearing on 01.02.2018;
Proceedings on 01.02.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority by Mr. Nand Kumar Singh,
Deputy Director.Directions for compliance, Show-cause issued.
Proceedings on 26.03.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by CPIO. Mr
Mahendra Singh Sisodhiya from NIC Baran:
Date of Decision - 27.03.2018: Penalty dropped.
ORDER
FACTS:
1. The appellant sought information on expenditure incurred on Yuva Committee Development Program conducted at various placed during the year 2014-15; details of the team members at Atroo NYC, Shahbad NYC, Kishanganj NYC etc. through 8 points. The CPIO on 20.04.2017 stated that the entire information was provided to the appellant vide letter no. NYK-Bara/2016-
17/681-82 dated 30.03.2017. The FAA directed the CPIO to provide a copy of the response along with the reply. Being dissatisfied, the appellant approached this Commission.
2. The Commission's order dated 05.02.2018:
2. Mr. Nand Kumar Singh, officer representing the respondent authority stated that the appellant has withdrawn his appeal and produced his letter of withdrawal dated 23.01.2018. But signature of the appellant is not legible. In corruption related information or requests, the Public Authority has to probe into the public interest in matter and disclose the information unless exempted.
3. The Deputy Director failed to give details of the expenditure and vouchers on which the appellant alleged fraud to have been committed by certain officers.
The budget or expenditure incurred for the Yuva Committee Development Program was not provided by Mr. Nand Singh during the hearing.
4. The appellant is generally under the pressure for withdrawal of appeal/RTI request, especially when the disclosure could expose corruption. Sometimes, there is possibility of collusion or match fixing. The RTI Act 2005 is aimed at transparency and accountability. The information sought is about expenditure and action on complaint or fraud.
CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/152912 Page 1
5. The Commission directs the Public Authority to provide the list of complaints filed alleging fraud in budgeting and expenditure of Yuva Committee Development Program and status/ action taken report in the said matters, within 21 days of receipt of this order. This information shall be placed in public domain in website marking a copy of to the Commission as ordered by the First Appellate Authority.
6. The Commission directs the CPIO as on date of RTI application to show- cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for non- compliance of the order of the Appellate Authority. The CPIO is directed to submit his explanation, before 06.03.2018.
7. The case is posted on 26.03.2018.
Decision :
3. The respondent authority submitted that complete information has been provided to the appellant after collecting it from the concerned department. They further submitted that they tookextra time in collection of information as the same was scattered in various files andthey tendered unconditional apology for that. The appellant vide his letter dated 23.02.2018, submitted that he is satisfied with the information provided to him and also requested the commission to withdraw his case. Hence, the penalty proceeding is dropped and the instant appeal is disposed of.
SD/-
(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/MOYAS/A/2017/152912 Page 2