Central Information Commission
Smt.Upma Saxena vs Directorate Of Education, Gnct, Delhi on 23 April, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000040/17909Adjunct
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/000040
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. P. Elango
DTP Operator
Aberdeen (Post)
Govt. Press, Port Blair.
Respondent : Mr. V. K. Misra
PIO & Information Officer Directorate of Information, Publicity & Tourism Andaman and Nicobar Administration I.P. Division, Port Blair Andaman & Nicobar Island RTI application filed on : 25/05/2011 PIO replied : 07/06/2011 First Appeal : 04/07/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 07/07/2011 Second Appeal received on : 02/12/2011 Information Sought:
Certified copy of noting and correspondence side of entire file in which the approval of competent authority obtained to publish the Corrigendum Notification No. 121 dated June 6, 2007. Reply of the CPIO:
The relevant records could not be traced out due to the fact that this corrigendum vide notification No.121 dated 6th June 2007 was issued by the than Secretary IP&T on 06.06.2007 vide 00 letter No.SL.GIPSI2007 from the file created by the office of the Secretary to LG. In that context the information sought by the applicant may kindly be made available from the office of Secy to LG.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Information provided is unsatisfactory. Order of the FAA:
Director (IP) is directed to trace the relevant file in which he said proposal would have been put up and inform the same to the PIO of IP Department to supply the same to the appellant within 15 days. Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Information provided is incomplete and unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 23 March 2012: The following were present Appellant: Mr. P. Elango;
Respondent: Absent;
"The Appellant states that despite the order of the FAA he has not received any information from the PIO. The Commission directs the PIO to provide the attested photocopy of the entire file to the Appellant before 15 April 2012."Page 1 of 2
Decision dated 23 March 2012:
The Appeal was allowed.
"The PIO is directed to provide the information to the Appellant before 15 April 2012.
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 appears that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing complete information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer. The First Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. 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 present himself before the Commission at the NIC-Port Blair Studio on 23 April 2012 at 4.30pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him. If no other responsible persons are brought by the persons asked to showcause hearing, it will be presumed that they are the responsible persons."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 23 April 2012:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. P. Elango on video conference from NIC-Port Blair Studio; Respondent: Mr. V. K. Misra, PIO & Information Officer and Mr. K. R. Parikh, Manger (Government Press- Port Blair) on video conference from NIC-Port Blair Studio;
The PIO states that the file has not been found anywhere and therefore it appears that it may have been stolen/lost. The PIO states that he has filed a police complaint about this. The Appellant feels that there may be a duplicate copy of the file in the Law Department or the Personnel Department. The Commission directs the PIO to see if the file/duplicate file is available in the Law or personnel Department. If it is available the PIO will provide the information to the Appellant before 30 May 2012. If it is not found anywhere the PIO will inform the Appellant accordingly by that day.
Based on the submissions of the PIO it appears that the file was not available anywhere and hence he was unable to provide the information to the Appellant. It appears that there was a reasonable cause why no information could have been provided to the Appellant. In view of this the Commission is dropping the penalty proceedings in this matter.
Adjunct Decision:
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 30 May 2012.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 23 April 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(PRE) Page 2 of 2