Central Information Commission
Mr.Rashad M Shaikh vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation on 18 September, 2012
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26101592
File No.CIC/SG/A/2011/001332/BS/0836
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Rashad M.Shaikh
1715, R.S. Kedari Road
Pune-411001, Maharashtra.
Respondent : CPIO & Regional P.F. Commissioner,
EPFO 2nd Floor, Pune Cantonment Board Building, Pune-411001, Maharashtra.
RTI application filed on : 24/12/2010 PIO replied : 27/01/2011 First appeal filed on : 15/02/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 23/03/2011 Second Appeal received on : 19/05/2011 Information Sought:
Appellant has sought information regarding the following:
• Information has been sought regarding status report and case history of case/appeal no. 328(9) of 2010 of Loyola primary school, MH/300863. • Provide details of case history with all relevant case papers, photocopies of all documents submitted, citations referred to by the appellant and respondent in the above mentioned case.
• Details of applicable penalty payable by the institution concerned for the default as decided by tribunal.
• Details of exemption in penalty/relief granted in the matter, if any and under which section of the EPF & MP Act 1952.
• Details as to, can the appellate tribunal in case of a double default exempt penalty or grant any relief to the appellant and under which section of the EPF & MP Act 1952.
Reply of the CPIO:
Appeal filed by M/s Loyola primary school, Pune and is pending before Hon'ble EPF appellate tribunal, New Delhi.
The documents and information desired by appellant are relating to files and records of EPFAT, therefore, this office cannot provide the same.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
CPIO has not provided information.
Order of the FAA:Page 1 of 2
CPIO has clearly explained the reason for not furnishing information as matter is before EPFAT. Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory order by FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Rashad M. Shaikh through videoconferencing Respondent: Mr. A K Mandal, CPIO through videoconferencing The appellant stated that information was denied to him citing that the matter is sub-judice and even after receipt of EPFAT's order dated 09/03/2011 no information was furnished till 15/09/2012 when notice of this hearing was received. The CPIO stated that the FAA has upheld his contention that the information cannot be furnished as the matter is pending before the tribunal. He added that the information requested by the appellant is available in the EPFAT's order dated 09/03/2011 which has been recently furnished to him.
Decision Notice:
It is noted that the information requested by the appellant has been furnished to him.
The RTI Act provides no exemption from disclosure requirement for sub-judice matter. The only exemptions in sub-judice matters is regarding what has been expressly forbidden from disclosure by a Court or a Tribunal and what may constitute contempt of Court.
By not furnishing the complete, correct and timely information the concerned CPIO has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. However, before imposing any such penalty, we would like to give an opportunity to the CPIO to explain whether he had any reasonable cause for not providing complete, correct and timely information to the appellant. Accordingly, we direct the concerned CPIO, who had received the RTI application, to furnish his written explanation as aforesaid by 18/10/2012. In case he fails to provide any satisfactory reply the Commission will proceed to impose penalty on him.
If there is/are other person(s) responsible for not providing the complete, correct and timely information to the Appellant the CPIO is directed to inform such person(s) of the show cause and direct him/them to submit his/their written explanation(s) to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
BASANT SETH Information Commissioner September 18th, 2012 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PS) Page 2 of 2