Central Information Commission
Mrd Shekhar vs Ut Of Andaman & Nicobar on 18 February, 2014
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/DS/C/2013/000615/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (18)/(19)
Date of first hearing : 18th February 2014
Date of first order : 18th February 2014
Date of second hearing : 7th April 2014
7th April 2014
Date of second order :
Name of the Complainant : Shri D Shekhar,
Social Worker, # 95, Mary Niwas,
Mazar Road, Civil Wireless Mazar Phars,
South Point, Port Blair
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
Directorate of Education,
Andaman & Nicobar Administration, Port
Blair
The Complainant was present at the NIC Studio, Port Blair, during the first hearing.
On behalf of the Respondents, Dr. Rajendra Nath Prasad, CPIO was present at the
NIC Studio, Port Blair during both the hearings.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal First hearing on 18.2.2014 According to the complaint, the Complainant filed an RTI application on 17.9.2013 to the CPIO, Directorate of Education, seeking a list of all private recognized schools, registered under the Andaman and Nicobar Administration from 2008 till the date of the RTI application. Not having received any reply from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a complaint before the CIC on 20.10.2013, praying that appropriate action be taken under "Section 18 (1) (c)" and information may be provided under Section 7 (6) of the RTI Act.
2. We heard the submissions of the Complainant and the Respondents. The CPIO stated that the information sought by the Complainant had been provided to him on 31.1.2014. The Complainant submitted that the information had been provided in a time frame beyond the time limit laid down in the RTI Act. We note that our notice for hearing on this complaint was issued on 22.1.2014 and it appears that the CPIO provided the information upon receipt of this notice and far beyond the time limit laid down in the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO sought to explain the delay by submitting that he had forwarded the RTI application to the concerned officials in the Department with the request to provide the information. We are not inclined to believe this explanation. Dr. Rajendra Nath Prasad, CPIO must explain why he failed to provide the information in time to the Complainant. We, therefore, direct Dr. Rajendra Nath Prasad, CPIO to show cause why he should not be penalised in terms of the provisions of sub section 1 of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act for his failure to provide the information sought by the Complainant within the time limit laid down by the RTI Act. He is directed to appear April, 2014 at 10.45 a.m. at the NIC Studio, Port Blair th before us on 7 , and give his st explanation. His written submissions, if any, should reach the Commission's office by 31 March, 2014.
Second hearing on 7.4.2014
3. As directed in paragraph 2 above, Dr. R. N. Prasad, CPIO appeared before us today. He had earlier sent his written submissions to us vide his letter dated 24.3.2014. According to him, the RTI application dated 17.9.2013 was received in his office on 19.9.2013, but the application fee was paid by the applicant only on 23.9.2013. On 23.9.2013, the CPIO forwarded the application to AD(A)II for furnishing information to the CPIO for being sent to the applicant. The Dealing Assistant submitted the file to AD(A)II through the Office Superintendent on 25.9.2013, stating that the applicant had not applied for information in the prescribed format. On 26.9.2013, it was clarified by I/c RTI that it was not mandatory to apply for information in the prescribed format and the file was returned to AD(A)II. On 27.9.2013, the Dealing Assistant recorded a note with her signatures, stating that the applicant be asked to make the prescribed payment for copies required to be furnished to him and two days time be given for photocopying the documents. She marked the file to the Office Superintendent, but it was not seen by him. It surfaced again only on 30.1.2014 after a notice was received from the Commission for the first hearing on 18.2.2014. The information was furnished to the RTI applicant on 31.1.2014. According to Dr. R. N. Prasad, explanation was sought from the Dealing Assistant, Smt. Suma Nair, LGC on 19.3.2014. In her reply dated 20.3.2014, Smt. Nair stated that the documents/information sought by the CPIO from the general Section were kept ready by her on 27.9.2013. However, due to oversight, which resulted from the heavy workload in the section, the concerned file got wrapped with some other files/ papers and could not be attended to. She has further stated that the matter was not followed up by the RTI section or the CPIO and that LGC, being at the tail end of the administrative machinery, cannot be solely held responsible for the above lapse on the part of the entire chain of system.
4. In his letter dated 24.3.2014, the CPIO also states that the information seeker did not approach the FAA and directly approached the CIC by superseding the proper channel. In this context, we note that not having received a reply from the CPIO within the stipulated time frame, the RTI applicant was not obliged to approach the FAA before filing a complaint to the CIC under section 18 of the RTI Act.
5. We would like to give a hearing to Smt. Suma Nair, LGC before we issue our final th order. Accordingly Dr. R. N. Prasad, CPIO is directed to appear before us on 8 May, 2014 at 2.00 p.m. at the NIC Studio, Port Blair along with Smt. Suma Nair, LGC. They should appear at the following address: NIC, 1st Floor, 'A' Block, General Pool Office Accommodation Complex (GPOA) Complex, Ranchi Basti (Near Diary Farm), Port Blair, Andaman & Nicobar Islands - 744103 The Contact Officer is Mr. Narasimha Rao, Scientist -C & Cont.
6. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/
(Sharat Sabharwal)
Information Commissioner
Copy to: Smt. Suma Nair,
LGC, Directorate of Education,
Andaman & Nicobar Administration,
Port Blair
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar