Central Information Commission
Mr. Kishanlal vs Indian Institute Of Management (Iim), ... on 21 January, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/WB/A/2010/000447AD
Date of Hearing : January 21, 2011
Date of Decision : January 21, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri Kishan Lal
1305, Dhruv,
Ashok Van, Borivali East,
Mumabi 400 066
The Appellant was absent.
Respondents
Indian Institute of Management
Vastrapur,
Ahmedabad 380 015
Represented by: Shri N.V. Pillay, Appellate Authority (heard through teleconference)
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision.
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/WB/A/2010/000447AD
ORDER
Background
1. Through his application dated 24.03.2010, the Applicant sought 9 items of information (such as Minutes of meetings, No. of faculty position vacant, name of members of Board of Governors, details about faculty members etc.) from the CPIO, Indian Institute of Management, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad.
2. The CPIO, on 28.04.2010, gave pointwise information to the Applicant which the Applicant considered inadequate and hence filed his 1stappeal with the Appellate Authority on 04.05.2010.The Appellate Authority, vide his order dated 15.06.2010, asked the CPIO to provide to Applicant date wise information on the recruitment of faculty in the Institute during the last five years, and to forward the Applicant's application to the Government of India in respect of a) selection of BoG members, other than the members elected by the IIMA society, and b) the issue of Vigilance clearance of BoG members. He also stated that the decision on disclosure of the BoG minutes, as sought by the Applicant, would be taken by him subsequently. The Applicant, thereafter, filed his 2ndappeal in the Commission on 30.06.2010 stating that he was furnished 'incomplete information'; further 'the AA passed an incomplete order, claiming he will take decision on certain points later, the day has not yet arrived.' Decision
3. During the hearing, the Respondent Appellate Authority informed the Commission that information had been sent to the Appellant and that the Appellant had confirmed via an email to that he had received all information. However, Respondent Appellate Authority conveyed to the Commission the concern expressed by Appellant regarding absence of suomoto disclosure of information under Section 4(1) of the RTIAct by the Public Authority.
4. Considering the fact that the Appellant has received the desired information, this matter need not be pursued further so far as the dissemination of information is concerned. However, the Commission takes note of the Appellant's concerns about compliance with Section 4 of the RTIAct by the Public Authority, and, therefore, directs the Appellate Authority to ensure compliance with Section 4(1) and 4(2) of the RTI Act by 5 March, 2011 and to submit a detailed compliance report in this regard to th the Commission with a copy to the Appellant by 10 March, 2011.
5. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Kishanlal 1305, Dhruv, Ashok Van, Borivali East, Mumabi 400 066
2. The Appellate Authority Indian Institute of Management Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380 015
3. Public Information Officer, Indian Institute of Management Vastrapur, Ahmedabad 380 015
4. Officer Incharge, NIC