Central Information Commission
Mr.Khageswar Padhan vs Indian Council Of Medical Reserch on 1 February, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003436/17937
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2011/003436
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Khageshwar Pradhan
H-82,Sector 2,Rourkela
Orissa-769006
Respondent : Dr. Pravin Kumar Atul
PIO & Scientist "D"
National Institute of Malaria and Research
Sector 8, Dwarka
New Delhi-110077
RTI application filed on : 29/01/2011
PIO replied : 03/05/2011
First appeal filed on : 27/03/2011
First Appellate Authority order : 08/04/2011
Second Appeal received on : 25/11/2011
Information Sought:
1)Whether income tax as admissible under rules has been deducted at source at the time of payment of consultation fees amounting Rs.80,000/- each to Dr.Sanjib Mohanty and Dr.S.K.Mishra(during the year 2007).If so, complete information on the same along with certified copies of relevant records on TDS may be provided.
2)If tax deduction at source(TDS) has not been done as stated in above point certified copies of relevant guidelines/rules on the basis of which TDS has not been done at the time of payment of consultation fees amounting Rs.80,000/- each to Dr.Sanjib Mohanty and Dr.S.K.Mishra may be provided.
3)If TDS has not been done in violation of statutory rules/guidelines, please provide name and designation of the officer who is accountable for the lapse of causing a loss of Rs.48,000/- (@ 30% of the amount paid to the concerned person towards income tax) to the public exchequer.
4)Complete information on the amount paid to Dr. Sanjib Mohanty and Dr.S.K.Mishra and any other doctor/employee of IGH and Government Of Orissa towards consultation fee, honouria, per diem and any other charges by the Director, NIMR, New Delhi/Officer-in-charge, NIMR, Rourkela from 01/04/2003 to 31/01/2011.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
The RTI-cell have provided the RTI reply vide letter no. CPIO/NIMR/RTI/KP/148/10/190 dated 25/02/2011. The NIMR has no more information as supplied to appellant vide our above mentioned letter. It is stated that if the appellant require more information then he may visit NIMR,Delhi on any working day on appellant's own cost.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
No reply from PIO.Page 1 of 2
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA): FAA asked CPIO to reply to appellant's basic RTI application and also sent a detailed list of the 16 appeal filed by the appellant.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing: The following were present Appellant: Mr. Khageshwar Pradhan on video conference from NIC-Sundargarh Studio; Respondent: Dr. Pravin Kumar Atul, PIO & Scientist "D";
The PIO has not provided information on query-4 and does not appear to have any rational explanation for this. The PIO is warned that such lapsed would invite the penal provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as directed above to the Appellant before 20 February 2012.
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 01 February 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(AS) Page 2 of 2