Central Information Commission
Mr. Ardhenu Mohan Pradhan vs Aicte on 1 February, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/003170/6637
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003170
Appellant : Mr. Ardhenu Mohan Pradhan
Vrindavan 50 Ist floor,
Flat no.1/3,Sukapur,
New Panvel-410206
Respondent : Public Information Officer &
Dy.Director,AICTE 7th Floor,
Chandellok Building,Janpath
New Delhi-110001
RTI application filed on : 08/04/2009
PIO replied : 15/04/2009
First Appeal filed on : 08/07/2009
First Appellate Authority order : No order
Second Appeal Received on : 15/12/2009
Notice of Hearing Sent on : 02/01/2010
Hearing Held on : 01/02/2010
Information sought:
1.The Appellant passed from DRIET, Jagatsinghpur in Fitter Trade during 2004-06 session and applied for issue of the NCVT certificate from Secretary, AICTE but it was not issued even after expiry of three & half years. Intimate the date when the certificate will be issued.
2. What is the reason for delaying in declaration of ITI result of SCTE, Bhubneshwar which amounts to the losing of one year relaxation in Engg. Deploma provided to the ITI quota students.
PIO's Reply:
The application fee paid by the Appellant through IPO drawn in favour of PIO is not accepted and hence returned to him and the Appellant is requested to send the fee by IPO drawn in favour of Member Secretary, AICTE, New Delhi.
Grounds for First Appeal:
The Appellant has sent the fresh RTI with the fee as required by PIO dated 07/05/2009,but still no reply was given.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
No order Grounds for Second Appeal:
No order from First Appellate Authority and information not provided. Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Absent;
Respondent: Absent;
It appears that the appellant has sent the RTI application alongwith Rs.10/- IPO drawn in favour of Member Secretary, New Delhi as suggested by the PIO by speed post on 07/05/2009 receipt no. EM037252183IN yet he did not received any information. It appears that he had also filed first appeal but received no order form the First Appellate Authority.
The First Appellate Authority is guilty of dereliction of duty since he had not passed any order in the matter.
The Commission would like to point out to the PIO that as per Office Memorandum dated 23 March 2007 issued by the Department of Personnel & Training directing all public authorities to ensure that "Demand draft/Banker's Cheques/IPOs made payable to the Account Officer of the public authorities are accepted". Another Office Memorandum dated 05 December 2008 has been issued by the Department of Personnel & Training in which it is stated-"All the public authorities should therefore, ensure that payment of fee by demand draft/banker's cheque/IPO made payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority is not denied".
The PIO is warned that he must accept fees paid in the name of Account Officer of the Public Authority.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide complete information to the Appellant before 25 February 2010.
The First Appellate Authority directed to send his explanation why he did not do his duty and give an explanation to the Commission for his dereliction of duty before 25 February 2010.
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 28 February 2010. He will also submit proof of having given the information to the appellant.
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 2010 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj