Central Information Commission
Siddharth Joshi vs Indian Institute Of Management, ... on 4 June, 2024
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMKO/A/2020/696914
... अपीलकताग/Appellant
Siddharth Joshi
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
Indian Institute of Management ...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Kolkata
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 07.01.2020 FA : 01.03.2020 SA : 19.12.2020
Hearing : 31.05.2024 &
CPIO : Not on record FAO : Not on record
10.11.2021
Date of Decision: 03.06.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.01.2020 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Please provide excerpts of the Minutes of meetings of the Boord of Governors held between Jan 2019 and Jan 2020 related where affirmative action or reservations in faculty recruitment were discussed.
2. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 01.03.2020. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Page 1 of 43. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 19.12.2020.
Hearing on 10.11.2021 Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through audio conference.
Respondent: Animesh Chandra Banerjee, PIO present through audio conference.
The CPIO submitted that a reply was provided to the Appellant on 08.09.2021 informing him that the RTI Application was forwarded to the concerned department and the information will be provided as soon as the relevant inputs are received. The CPIO further expressed his apprehension in sharing the averred minutes of the meeting as the same is confidential in nature and may concern various security aspects of the Institute and does not entail disclosure in larger public interest.
The Appellant contested that the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Governors does not contain any information which cannot be disclosed.
Decision:
The Commission at the outset takes grave exception to the omission of the PIO, in not having provided any reply to the instant RTI Application. The said omission of the PIO amounts to causing unwarranted obstruction to the Appellant's right to information and is a grave violation of the provisions of the RTI Act. Now, therefore, the PIO is directed to send his written explanation to show-cause as to why no reply was provided to the RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of the RTI Act. The said written explanation of the PIO along with supporting documents, if any, shall reach the Commission within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. Further, the CPIO is directed to procure the available and relevant information from the concerned record holder and provide the same to the Appellant after redacting personal information of any third party that may figure Page 2 of 4 therein that stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The severance of records will be carried out in consonance with Section 10 of the RTI Act. The information as directed above shall be provided free of cost to the Appellant by the CPIO within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order under due intimation to the Commission.
Hearing on 31.05.2024
4. The appellant remained present through audio conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Chandrakant Reddy attended the hearing through video conference.
5. The appellant inter alia submitted that the information has been received vide email dated 31.05.2024. He stated that the information has been received with a delay.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had received the confirmation from the Board of Governors just a day prior to the date of hearing. Therefore, they furnished the complete information with a delay and apologized for the same.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the Respondent has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application and further admonishes the conduct of the Respondent for furnishing the reply after a delay of approximately 2.5 years from the date of previous order. Based on the delay, the Commission sternly cautions the Respondent public authority that in future, they shall ensure that replies to the RTI Applications and replies in pursuance to Commission's orders' shall be provided within the mandated time frame, so as to avoid any penal action against them. Accordingly, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. With this observation, the Non-Compliance petition is closed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंिी रामललंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक/Date: 03.06.2024 Page 3 of 4 Authenticated true copy Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कनगल एस एस निकारा, (ररटायर्ग) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO (Under RTI Act) Indian Institute of Management Kolkata, RTI Cell, Joka, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata-700104
2. Siddharth Joshi Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)