Central Information Commission
Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik vs Sangeet Natak Akademi on 6 February, 2009
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CIC/PB/C/08/972
February 6th , 2009
Name of the Appellant: Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik
Public Authority: Dy. Secretary & CPIO
Sangeet Natak Akademi
Background of the case
1. The Appellant herein vide letters dated 29.08.2008 and 08.09.2008 sought information from the Akademi invoking the provisions of the RTI Act 2005. The information sought varied from information on the funding of the activities viz. dance, music, drama festivals; procedure followed in deciding about such process of funding, channels of supervision and accountability adopted; progress reports and utilization certificates of the grant, if at all, submitted by all such agencies funded by SNA; press report, if at all, received on mismanagement of funds sanctioned for such festivals; budget estimates, revised estimates and actual expenses of SNA during FYs 2007-08, 2006-07 and 2005-06. The Appellant was assigned a research study by the Planning Commission with the objective of studying and critically assess the role of Central Sangeet Natak Akademi as a nodal autonomous Central Government agency in promoting, propagating and disseminating the diversity of India's cultural expressions.
2. The CPIO of the Akademi in his reply dated 16.09.2008 while denying the furnishing of information stated that the information sought by the Appellant about the various activities of the Akademi are documented in the Annual reports year-wise which are accessible in the SNA Library, open to public and researchers on all working days (Monday to Friday) 09.30 am to 05.30pm.
3. The Appellant upon consulting the SNA Library was able to obtain copies of the Annual Reports for the years 2006-07 and 2005-06. However the Annual Reports for the year 2007-08 was not available hence only incomplete information could be procured by the Appellant. The Appellant filed an appeal on 31.10.2008 before the CIC, being aggrieved by such denial of access to information and being provided with incomplete, misleading and false information and obstruction in furnishing of information by the Akademi. The Appellant submitted in her appeal that she was aggrieved at the malafide denial, at the causing of obstruction in furnishing of any information and at having been provided incorrect, incomplete and misleading information by the CPIO, Sangeet Natak Akademi. It was further contended by the Appellant that in doing so the Akademi has intentionally contravened the provisions of Sections 4 (1) (a), (b), (c), Section 4(2) and (3) of the RTI Act 2005.
5. The Commission vide its communication dated 27.11.2008 sent notice for hearing to the concerned CPIO, Sangeet Natak Akademi, Appellant and also the Appellate Authority, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Culture.
6. The Appellant had filed four separate RTI Applications in this issue and one complaint for non-compliance. Accordingly on the denial of information on all of them, four separate Appeals being Nos. CIC/PB/A/2008/01221, CIC/PB/A/2008/01222, CIC/PB/C/2008/972/AD & CIC/PB/A/2008/01354/AD had been filed before the CIC. The Respondent vide letter dated 02.01.2009 communicated to the CIC that since the CPIO, Akademi had met with an accident; adjournment was sought by the alongwith the request for clubbing the hearings of all the four appeals on a single day. Hence the Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, rescheduled the hearing on 6th February 2009 at 10.30 am.
7. The Respondent Public Authority, vide communication dated 05.02.2009, sent their submissions/reply to the appeals filed by the Appellant. In their submissions the Respondent stated that the Secretary, Ministry of Culture had taken strong exception to the decision of the Planning Commission in assigning the research project on the Akademi without consulting the concerned Ministry (Culture) or even the Akademi raising the basic issue of integrity and capacity of the Appellant's NGO to conduct such a study. While rejecting the RTI request of the Appellant herein the Respondents submitted their reservations on the facts that a) the Appellant, representing an organisation does not fall within the definition of "citizen" as laid down in the Section 3 of the Act; b) The Act while ensuring secure access of information from public authority to citizen, does not lay down any mandate for the public authority to provide services of gathering and supplying information for completion of research projects assigned to organization; c) Hypothetical assumptions of the researcher and and/or opinions or advice sought in the form of information do not fall within the definition of 'information' as per the provision of the Act, hence only the material or information available in records in physical form can be supplied by the CPIO. It was further submitted by the respondent in his written submission that information considered relevant and necessary for proactive disclosure has been duly posted on the website of the Akademi and the violation of the provisions of Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act can be ascertained by an audit of the proactive disclosure by a competent authority.
8. Dr. A N Chakravarty, Consultant represented the Respondent Public Authority, since the concerned CPIO was reportedly on medical leave.
9. The Appellant, Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik and Dr. Ajaya Kumar Mishra were present during the hearing.
DECISION
10. The submissions of the Respondent Akademi dated 05.02.2009, mentioned hereinabove clearly indicate the difference in opinion among the Ministry of Culture, Respondent Akademi, Appellant and the Planning Commission with respect to the assigning of such a research to an organization like SANKALP in view of the basic issue of integrity, capacity and competence of the Appellant NGO in question. In fact there has been strong observation from the Secretary, Ministry of Culture to the Planning Commission for withdrawal of the assignment as also for blacklisting of the NGO headed by the Appellant. Be that as it may, the said difference in opinions is out of the ambit of the instant appeals and the issue therein is not within the jurisdiction of the Commission, hence the said facts though noted are not dealt with while deciding these RTI cases.
11. The detailed arguments of both the parties and the documentary records produced before the Commission indicates the fact that the questionnaire as put forth by the Appellant pertain to queries which should form part of records maintained by the Akademi in compliance with the provisions of Section 4(1) (b) of the RTI Act 2005 and hence the said information may be furnished to the Appellant.
12. The Appellant shall approach the concerned CPIO with the revised RTI request, as directed hereinabove within a period of 15 days and the CPIO is directed to furnish the information available with him within a period of 30 days thereafter. The Commission further directs the CPIO of the Akademi to ensure compliance of the provisions of the Section 4(1) (a), (b), (c), 4 (2) and 4 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 by putting up all the relevant and necessary information pertaining to the various activities, programmes, policies etc on their website. In the event that the Appellant is still dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, she shall be free to approach the Commission seeking appropriate remedy available in law for the non compliance of the order.
[ANNAPURNA DIXIT] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair) Designated Officer Cc:
1. Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik B-1/8, 2nd Floor, Africa Avenue Road, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110 029
2. Dy. Secretary & CPIO Sangeet Natak Akademi National Academy of Music, Dance & Drama Rabindra Bhavan, Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi - 110 001
3. Jt. Secy. & First Appellate Authority Ministry of Culture 334 (A), 'C' Wing Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC