Central Information Commission
Mr.Nitish Bharadwaj vs Ministry Of Information And ... on 16 August, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/AD/C/2011/000819/SG/14090
Appeal No. CIC/AD/C/2011/000819/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:
Complainant : Mr. Nitish Bhardwaj
4th Floor, Allana Chambers (Hem Kirti Building),
6, Bomaji Petir Road, Next to Parsee Hospital,
Breach Candy, Mumbai - 400036
Respondent : Mr. Ashok Tripathi
PIO & Dy. Director General (Commercial and sales) Prasar Bharti, Doordarshan Commercial Service (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Doordarshan Bhawan, Mandi House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 25/11/2010 PIO replied on : 29/12/2010 & 22/02/2011 First Appeal filed on : 04/01/2011 First Appellate Authority order of : Not mentioned.
Complaint received on : 11/04/2011 Information Sought: a) Photocopy of the entire file, including all correspondence, letters and note sheets alongwith
the notings thereon regarding the approval & telecast of a serial "GEETA RAHASYA"
with respect to its Producer Isha Entertainment Pvt. Limited from the period 1995 till date.
b) Photocopy of the entire file, including all correspondence, letters and note sheets alongwith the notings thereon regarding the approval & telecast of a serial "GEETA RAHASYA"
with respect to its marketing agent Market Movers, from the period 1998 till date.
c) Minutes of the Prasar Bharti Board Meeting/s from January 2004 till today, regarding the dispute arisen out of serial "Geeta Rahasya", which was produced by Isha Entertainment Pvt. Limited & Marketed by its agent Market Movers.
d) Photocopies of all storyboards submitted of "Geeta Rahasya" promos (Free, paid branded & paid unbranded) along with their covering letters and Doordarshan's approval of them, from the period May 1999 to December 1999.
e) Photocopies of letters of all Promo Schedues submitted to Doordarshan Commercial Service, Mandi House, New Delhi, regarding booking of branded & unbranded paid promos of the serial 'Geeta Rahasya" from the period May 1999 to 31st December 1999.
f) Photocopies of all commercial contracts (Schedule A) submitted to Doordarshan Commercial Service, New Delhi regarding telecast of branded & unbranded paid promos of the serial "Geeta Rahasya" from the period 15/05/1999 to 31/12/1999.
g) Photocopy of "Schedule B" referred to in commercial contract "Schedule A".
h) Transmission Que Sheets/Telecast Certificates of both Non Prime-time & Prime-time bands of Doordarshan national network, for the entire months of August 1999, October 1999 & November 1999.
i) Any to & for letter or communications from Publicity section regarding promotion of the serial.
Page 1 of 3j) Any to & fro letters/correspondence/written communication between Doordarsha's Directorate General & the Election Commission of India regarding the telecast &/ or stoppage of telecast of the serial "Geeta Rahasya" in 1999,.
k) Any to & for letter to the Law Ministry of Union of India from the period Juyly 1999 to till date regarding stoppage of the serial.
l) Photocopy of the episodic synopsis of the serial "Shrikrishna" submitted to Doordarshan by M/s Sagar Arts, Mumbai. Submitted between 1994 to 1999.
m) Photocopy of agreement signed between Doordarshan & /or Prasar Bharti &/or Doordarshan'a authorised representative and the concerned cricket board for the telecast of Pepsi Cricket Test Series on Doordarshan in the Financial year 1999-2000.
n) In the last 1 year which are the prime time programmes on Doordarshan's national network which were marketed by Prasar Bharti's marketing division.
o) At what gross rates was the commercial time sold to different sponsors &/or their representative agencies with regards to 3(n) above? Furnish detail figures with correspondent.
p) In whose name/s were the 'Release Orders' issued by the sponsors &/or their representatives agencies with regards to 3(n) above.
q) Did prasar Bharti's marketing division get any commission from the sponsor's &/or their representative agencies with regards to 3 (n, o, p) above? a. If yes, what percentage of the gross spot buy rate? b. If no, then who got that commission & at what percentage of the gross spot buy rate.?
Reply of PIO dated: 29/12/2010:
It is stated that the records related to your questions are not at one place so the same are being searched. The concerned sections are asked to reply to the questions directly to the applicant as early as possible.
Reply of PIO dated: 22/02/2011:
The information sought with regard to serial "GEETA RAHASYA" since has already formed the subject matter of arbitration proceedings, therefore, it may not be feasible to oblige your request.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No proper and satisfactory reply given by the authority.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Complete information has not provided by PIO Prasar Bharti and Later, Prasar Bharti has completely refused to give any information at all under RTI Act 2005.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Complainant: Mr. Nitish Bhardwaj;
Respondent : Mr. Ashok Tripathi, PIO & Dy. Director General (Commercial and sales);
The respondent states that the complete file with respect to query-(a) is available with the Program Section who has refused to give the information on the ground that arbitration proceedings are goingon and hence information cannot be provided. As regards query-(b) the PIO Mr. Ashok Tripathi has refused to give the information claiming that arbitration proceedings are going on this information cannot be provided. The PIO has refused to give information without any basis in law in an arbitrary manner. The PIO claims that he thought the matter was subjudice he could refuse the information. Refusal of information in RTI can only be based on the exemption under Section 8(1) and the PIOs must give reasons how an exemption applies when refusing to give the information. The denial of all the information has been without any basis in the law.Page 2 of 3
The PIO states that as far as query (a) is concerned the person responsible for refusing the information was Mr. R. N. Mishra the then Dy. Director (Program).
Decision:
The complaint is allowed.
The Commission directs the PIO Mr. Ashok Tripathi to give all the information sought by the Complainant as per the RTI Application by taking the assistance of any other officer if require under Section-5(4). Mr. Tripathi will provide the complete information to the complainant before 05 September 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO Mr. Ashok Tripathi and the then PIO Mr. R. N. Mishra 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIOs are 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 deemed PIOs actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1). A showcause notice is being issued to them, and they are directed give their reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on them.
Mr. R. N. Mishra, the then Dy. Director(Program) and Mr. Ashok Tripathi will present themselves before the Commission at the above address on 12 September 2011 at 04.30PM. alongwith their written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on them as mandated under Section 20 (1). They will also bring the information sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent the information to the appellant.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the complainant the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with them.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 16 August 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (kh) Copy through Mr. Ashok Tripathi, PIO to:
1- Mr. R. N. Mishra, the then Dy. Director (Program)
Page 3 of 3