Central Information Commission
Ms. Lilavathi vs Jipmer on 11 August, 2008
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.2638 & 2639/ICPB/2008
F.No. PBA/2007/1292
PBA/2008/051
August 11, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18/19
[Hearing at Puducherry on 24.7.2008 at 5.00 p.m.]
Appellant: Ms. Lilavathi
Public authority: JIPMER
Mr. P. Rajendran, CPIO
Dr. K.S.V.K. Subbarao, Appellate Authority
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. P. Rajendran Dr. K.S.V.K. Subbarao Dr. Madanmohan, Director Ms. Lilavathi-Appellant Mr. K.A. Jayakumar DECISION These two cases were taken up together for hearing on 24.7.2008, which was attended by the concerned officials of the Department. The appellant attended the hearing in person along with hher companion. I have gone through the RTI application and other replies received in this connection. I have heard both the parties in detail. The appeals are discussed and decided as under:
File No. CIC/PBA/2008/051: The appellant has sought information under RTI Act by her application dated 19.4.2007 regarding various information. The PIO vide letter dated 7.6.2007 has informed that the information is awaited for comments from the vigilance officer. Not satisfied the appellant preferred appeal before the Director & AA on 18.5.2007. It appears that the first AA has fixed an enquiry but the appellant did not turn up and hence he disposed of the case ex- parte. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal before the Commission. Comments were called for from the public authority, which was received on 26.2.2008.
2. The appellant has raised lot of queries in her application which do not qualify the provisions of section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It is learnt during the hearing the PIO has stated that the report given by the Vigilance Department has been furnished to the appellant. However, the appellant contended that they have given all false information. Though the application is not according to the RTI Act, the reply given by the PIO is also not matching. The RTI application has not 1 been handled properly by the public authority. The Director/AA has contended that they do not have adequate staff and from July, 2008 they have been made autonomous and now they will be able to fill up the posts themselves. It is directed the director of the Institute should take all possible steps to improve the functioning of RTI in the Institute by imparting training to staff. He should take up the matter with the concerned Joint Secretary in the Ministry also. As far as this appeal is concerned, it is directed the first AA should go through the RTI application once again and give a speaking order to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this decision. In these lines, the appeal is disposed of.
File No. CIC/PBA/2007/1292: The appellant by her RTI application dated 29.3.2007 has asked for various details by raising various queries. For example she has asked how Mr.Muthukumaran was allowed to sign in the attendance register by Dr. Madan Mohan; why Dr. Madan Mohan allowed Mr.Kuthukumaran specially when he did not allow others who attended the interview; why Dr. Madan Mohan did not give any complaint to Inspector General of Police etc. etc. Vide letter dated 16.05.2007 the CPIO has informed the appellant by enclosing the reply received from the Head of Department of Physiology, wherein point- wise reply has been given. Not satisfied the appellant preferred first appeal on 21.06.2007 before the First AA. Aggrieved the appellant preferred this appeal before the Commission on 12.11.2007.
2. Comments were called for and received vide letter dated 12.1.2008 and 10.3.2008. In the comments, the Director of the Institute has stated that the appellant has been asking for information pertaining to Dr.Madan Mohan Trakoo, Director-Professor of Physiology, JIPMER with regard to appointments made for various research projects on Yoga which were conducted more than six years ago in the Department of Physiology. On her another complaint to Ministry, the Vigilance Officer, JIPMER wanted to conduct enquiry, but the appellant refused to attend the enquiry. In the meantime she has approached Lok Adalat for out of court settlement. He contended that whatever information available with the Institute have been made available to the appellant. During the hearing, the appellant denied that she has been given any information. In view of the above, it is directed the PIO should give the following information to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this decision:
(i) Attendance Register for the months of Nov & Dec 2000 for the staff of yoga project, if available;
(ii) Dr. Madan Mohan's date of birth, as available in the records;
(iii) Since the project is over, project report in respect of Yoga Project of Physiology;
(iv) Information about Dr. Ananda Balayogi as available in the records need to be given;
(v) For rest of the information, if the appellant is interested she can go to the office of the Director of the Institute on a mutually convenient date and time, where the files relating to her queries would be kept.2
After inspection she can be provided with the copies that she wanted, free of cost.
T The PIO is directed to file his reply after compliance of the above directions within 30 days.
In these lines, both the appeals are disposed of.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar) Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar Address of parties :
1. Mr. P. Rajendran, CPIO, JIPMER, O/o Public Information Officer, Puducherry-6.
2. Dr. K.S.V.K. Subbarao, Appellate Authority, JIPMER, O/o Appellate Authority, Puducherry-6.
3. Ms. Lilavathi, 23, Bharathiyar Salai, Ashok Nagar, Lawspet, Puducherry-
605008 3