Central Information Commission
Mr.M. L. Gouhari vs Ministry Of Human Resource Development on 15 January, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000906/10973
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000906
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. M. L. Gouhari
A-1/107, Janak Puri,
New Delhi-110058.
Respondent : Mr. U. S. Gaikwad
Public Information Officer & Dy. General Manager (HR) EDCIL (India) Ltd., Ministry of HRD 18A, Sector 16A, Noida-201301.
RTI application filed on : 20/01/2010 PIO replied : 09/02/2010 First appeal filed on : 20/02/2010 First Appellate Authority order : 22/03/2010 Hearing Notice sent on : 22/12/2010 Hearing held on : 15/01/2011 S. No Information Sought Reply of the PIO 1. Whether the Mr. N. S. Padmanabhan and Ms. P. The applicant was informed that the
Jayanthi's case has since been submitted to Centralinformation sought was stated to have in Vigilance Commission, through CMD EdCIL connection with the CVCs letter No OM alongwith Charge Sheets and other documents. If conf/1482/08/62577 dated 12.11.2009 sent to so, then details of the letter number and date. JS/CVO, MHRD. No reference had been received from CVC/MHRD on the subject hence there was no information to be provided in this regard.
2. Whether CMD EdCIL had advised about the case There was no information to be provided to Shri N. K. Sinha, Joint Secretary, MHRD, who under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. was controlling the ADMINISTRATIVE and other matters of EdCIL (India) Limited. If not, then the details of time when CMD EdCIL was expected to do the needful.
Ground of First Appeal:
Incorrect information received from the PIO. First Appellate Authority ordered:
The FAA concurred with the reply given by the PIO.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Incomplete and incorrect information received from the PIO and unfair disposal of the Appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Mr. M.L. Gouhari;
Respondent : Mr. U. S. Gaikwad, Public Information Officer & Dy. General Manager (HR);
The PIO has given irrelevant reply to query-01. The Appellant had sought a copy of a letter sent to CVC by CMD of EdCIL in the matter of Mr. N. S. Padmanabhan and Ms. P. Jayanthi. The Respondent admits that such a reference has been made and verbally claims exemption from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. He states that the investigation is ongoing hence the information cannot be supplied. To qualify the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) the PIO would have to show that disclosing the information would impede the process of investigation. The PIO has not been able to justify how disclosing the information would impede the process of investigation. In view of this the Commission directs the PIO to provide the information sought by the appellant in query-01.
As regards query-02 the PIO states categorically that no such information is available in any record as sought by the Appellant. Since no information is available on the records it cannot be supplied.
Decision:
The Appeal is partially allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information on query-01 to the Appellant before 30 January 2011.
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 15 January 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND)