Central Information Commission
Dr. Tariq Islam vs Aligarh Muslim University on 31 March, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi -110 067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000032/2549
Appeal No. CIC /SG/A/2009/000032
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Dr. Tariq Islam,
Reader, Department of Philosophy,
Aligarh Muslim University,
Aligarh-202002.
Respondent : Assitt. Finance Office (Purchase) & PIO,
Aligarh Muslim University, Central Purchase office, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202002. (U.P.).
RTI application filed on : 17/06/2008 PIO replied : 15/07/2008 First appeal filed on : 15/09/2008 First Appellate Authority order : not replied. Second Appeal filed on : 03/01/2009
The appellant had asked in RTI application for composition of the Purchase Committee, together with name and designation of each member. Total value of each of the purchases. About the facts and reasons. Total number of cases in which University Purchase rules were followed and Total number of cases in which University purchase rule were not followed together with facts and reasons for the same. Appellant like to be informed on the number of cases of purchases in which this clause was exercised and the reasons stated in it. S. No. Information Sought. The PIO replied.
1. The composition of the Purchase Committee, together with name and designation of each member.
2. Total value of each of the purchases, No purchase for the Department together with the date of issue of open of Philosophy was made, as tenders/notices inviting tenders through desired. national newspapers and for posting on the AMU website.
3. The number of occasions of not issuing No purchase for the Department open tenders/notices inviting tenders of Philosophy was made. through national newspaper and of not posting on the AMU website, together with facts and reasons for the same.
4. The date from when the department has adopted Central Vigilance Commission guidelines in its purchase.
5. Total number of cases in which Central No purchase for the Department Vigilance Commission guidelines were of Philosophy was made and not followed, together with facts and this office did not receive the reasons for the same. guidelines of Central Vigilance Commission in any case.
6. Total number of cases in which No purchase for the Department University Purchase rules were followed. of Philosophy was made.
7. Total number of cases in which There is no case, in which University purchase rule were not University Purchase Rules are followed together with facts and reasons not followed. for the same.
8. Under clause 13 (ii) (b) of the purchase In no case, the purchases are rules of the University "When the made under clause 13(ii) (b) of purchase committee certifies that the the University Purchase Rules. demand is urgent, the calling of competitive rates be dispensed with. In all such cases the Central Purchase Committee/purchase Committee must place on record the nature of urgency" I would like to be informed on the number of cases of purchases in which this clause was exercised and the reasons stated in it.
The First Appellate Authority ordered. Not replied.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Dr. Tariq Islam Respondent: Mr. Mohammed Naseeb PIO & Mr. Fazal Haque PIO & Mr. Mohammed Muqim CPIO The proper reply has been given by the CPIO Mr. Mohammed Muqim on 21 January 2009. It also appears that various PIOs were asked to reply completely unnecessarily. Aligarh Muslim University is one Public authority and the PIO can only seek the assistance of other officers within the University under Section 5 (4). Mr. Mohammed Muqim claims that the system within the University is such that papers travel for upto 20 days and it is not conducive to providing information within 30 days. The Vice Chancellor is directed to implement processes which will ensure that the University can meet the requirements of RTI.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The complete information was given to the appellant on 21 January 2009. The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the PIO's actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) . A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 April, 2009 This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner March 31, 2009.
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)