Central Information Commission
Siddharth Joshi vs Indian Institute Of Management, ... on 20 August, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.:- CIC/IIMKO/C/2017/606710-BJ+
CIC/IIMKO/C/2017/606712-BJ
Mr. Siddharth Joshi,
.... िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Indian Institute of Management Calcutta,
P. O. Joka, Diamond Harbour Road,
Kolkata 700104
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.08.2018
Date of Decision : 20.08.2018
ORDER
RTI-1: CIC/IIMKO/C/2017/606710-BJ Date of filing of RTI application 23.06.2017 CPIO's response Not on record Date of filing the First appeal Not on record First Appellate Authority's response Not on record Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding a copy of letter sent from the office of Mr. K.K. Sharma, IAS, Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development dated April 19, 2017.
None of the record relating to CPIO's reply, First Appeal and FAA's order is available on the record of the Commission.
Page 1 of 3
RTI-2: CIC/IIMKO/C/2017/606712-BJ
Date of filing of RTI application 23.06.2017
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of filing the First appeal Not on record
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarised receipt of Complaint by the Commission Nil
FACTS:
The Complainant vide his RTI application sought information regarding a copy of the letter dated February 4, 2013 received from Mr. Ashok Thakur, Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development along with the copy of the response sent by their institute and issues related thereto.
None of the record relating to CPIO's reply, First Appeal and FAA's order is available on the record of the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Siddharth Joshi through VC;
Respondent: Mr. B. S. Panda, PIO / Sr. AO, Kolkata through VC;
The Complainant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that no reply had been received by him, so far. He prayed for imposition of penalty on the Respondent and action taken under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. Complaining that a large number of RTI applications (29) being filed by the Complainant on similar subject matters, attention of the Commission was drawn by the Respondent to the voluminous work entailed in answering such queries and the precious time of the Faculty / Staff being engaged in this matter. In the instant matter it was submitted that due to technical fault, the RTI application could not be traced and that on receipt of the notice of hearing from the Commission, they were able to retrieve the subject matter and were in the process of replying. The Complainant drew attention of the Commission to several reminders issued by him to the CPIO and that he did not receive any response.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Complainant dated 16.08.2018 (Complaint No.(s) CIC/IIMKO/C/2017/606710 and CIC/IIMKO/C/2017/606712) wherein he had enclosed the copy of email-reminders sent to the Respondent and the First Appellate Authority as well as the Director of the Institution regarding the unduly long pendency of his RTI applications. The Reminders were sent on 17.06.2018, 27.03.2018, 16.03.2018, 29.01.2018, 18.12.2017, 03.12.2017, 24.11.2017, 08.11.2017 and 09.10.2017.
The Commission observed that there is complete negligence and laxity in the public authority in dealing with the RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards the RTI Act, 2005 itself. The Commission expressed its displeasure on the casual and callous approach adopted by the Page 2 of 3 respondent in responding to the RTI application. It was felt that the conduct of Respondent was against the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 which was enacted to ensure greater transparency and effective access to the information.
However, it was observed by the Commission that during the course of hearing while dealing on a similar subject matter in Appeal Nos. CIC/DHEDU/A/2017/181765-BJ, CIC/DHEDU/A/2017/181630-BJ and CIC/DHEDU/A/2017/181758-BJ, the representatives of MHRD present at the hearing confirmed that a copy of the letters sought by the Complainant had already been furnished to him by them. The Complainant acknowledged having received the letters. Nonetheless, the CPIO should have been careful in responding to the RTI application within the stipulated time period.
The Commission noted that similar matters had been dealt by it in Appeal Nos. CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/611225-BJ+CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/611227-BJ+ CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/616957- BJ+ CIC/IIMAH/A/2018/616959-BJ dated 16.08.2018.
DECISION Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of aforesaid details, the Commission cautions the CPIO to be alert and vigilant in dealing with the RTI matters failing which action u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 shall be initiated. The FAA is however directed to examine the matter and reply suitably in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The Complaint stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 20.08.2018
Copy to:
1- The Director, Indian Institute of Management, P. O. Joka, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata 700104 2- The FAA, Indian Institute of Management, P. O. Joka, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata 700104 Page 3 of 3