Central Information Commission
Pradip Banerjee vs Indian Institute Of Management, ... on 27 October, 2022
CIC/IIMKO/A/2021/138566
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या/ Second Appeal No. CIC/IIMKO/A/2021/138566
In the matter of:
Pradip Banerjee ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Indian Institute of Management,
Calcutta, IIM-Calcutta,
Diamond Harbour Road, Joka,
Kolkata, West Bengal -700104
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI Application filed on : 21.04.2021
CPIO replied on : Not on Record
First Appeal filed on : 22.06.2021
First Appellate Authority order : Not on Record
Second Appeal received on : 16.09.2021
Date of Hearing : 19.10.2022
The following were present:
Appellant: Shri Pradip Banerjee along with his brother Shri Sudip Banerjee,
participated in the hearing through video conferencing from NIC Nizam
Palace.
Respondent: Shri Animesh Chandra Banerjee, PIO and Manager
(Personnel), IIM-Calcutta, participated in the hearing through video
conferencing from NIC Nizam Palace.
Page 1 of 6
CIC/IIMKO/A/2021/138566
ORDER
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI Application dated 21.04.2021 seeking information on the following two points:
Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.06.2021, which has not been adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority as per available records.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The Appellant filed a Second Appeal u/s 19 of the Act on the ground of non- receipt of information from the Respondent. Appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide complete information sought for.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing: The Appellant stated that he has not received the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application from the Respondent till date.Page 2 of 6
CIC/IIMKO/A/2021/138566 The Respondent submitted that first reply qua the instant RTI Application has been given to the Appellant vide letter dated 20.09.2021, wherein they have denied the information to the Appellant under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act as a related matter is pending adjudication in the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in W.P. No. 28578 of 2015.
At the instance of the Commission that how the disclosure of the information sought in the instant RTI Application would impede the process of investigation to which the Respondent could not provide a cogent reply. The Commission again queried the Respondent that whether there is any speaking order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta not to disclose the information to which the Respondent replied in negative.
A written submission has been received by the Commission from Shri Animesh Chandra Banerjee, PIO and Manager (Personnel), IIM-Calcutta, vide letter dated 18.10.2022, wherein the Commission has been apprised as under:Page 3 of 6
CIC/IIMKO/A/2021/138566 Decision:
Upon perusal of the facts on record as well as on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, the Commission observes that reply provided by the Respondent vide letter dated 20.09.2021 is inappropriate and that too has been sent to the Appellant after an inordinate delay and the said approach of the concerned Respondent, towards dealing with the instant RTI Application is viewed adversely by this bench and he is admonished for the same. The Commission further observes that Shri Animesh Chandra Banerjee, PIO and Manager (Personnel), IIM-Calcutta, has denied the information to the Appellant citing the matter is sub-judice. The Commission counsels him that there is no provision in RTI Act which allows denial of information on the grounds of sub-judice until and unless a specific direction of a higher court has been passed not to disclose the information. In this regard, the Commission relies on an order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of MCD vs. R.K. Jain vide W.P.(C) No. 14120/2009. The relevant extract of the order is reproduced hereunder:
"... the matter being sub judice before a court is not one of the categories of information which is exempt from disclosure under any of the clauses of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act."Page 4 of 6
CIC/IIMKO/A/2021/138566 In view of the above, the Commission opines that merely stating that a matter is sub-judice would not be sufficient ground for withholding information under the RTI Act. The Commission cautions Shri Animesh Chandra Banerjee, to be careful in future while dealing with matters pertaining to the RTI Act. Hence, the Commission deems it fit to direct Shri Animesh Chandra Banerjee, PIO and Manager (Personnel), IIM-Calcutta, to provide a revised and categorical reply qua the instant RTI Application, with a copy marked to the Commission, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.
With the above observations, the instant Second Appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
The Appeal, hereby, stands disposed of.
Amita Pandove (अिमता पांडव) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date: 26.10.2022 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) B. S. Kasana (बी. एस. कसाना) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105027 Page 5 of 6 CIC/IIMKO/A/2021/138566 Addresses of the parties:
1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, IIM-Calcutta, Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, Kolkata, West Bengal -700104
2. The Central Public Information Officer Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, IIM-Calcutta, Diamond Harbour Road, Joka, Kolkata, West Bengal -700104
3. Mr. Pradip Banerjee Page 6 of 6