Central Information Commission
Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik vs Sangeet Natak Academy on 2 June, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/PB/A/2008/1221
CIC/PB/A/08/1354
CIC/PB/C/08/972
CIC/PB/A/2008/1222
Dated June 2, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik
Name of the Public Authority : Sangeet Natak Academy
Adjunct to Order Nos. CIC/PB/A/2008/1221, CIC/PB/A/08/1354,
CIC/PB/C/08/972 and CIC/PB/A/2008/1222 dated 6.2.2009 regarding non
compliance.
Brief Facts about all the four appeals:
Appeal No. RTI filed on CIC Appeal dtd No. of Qs CIC/PB/A/2008/1221 19.05.2008 22.08.2008 135 CIC/PB/A/2008/1222 21.05.2008 22.08.2008 57 main qs. & sub qs CIC/PB/C/08/972 29.8.08 & 8.9.08 31.10.2008 CIC/PB/A/08/1354 01.08.2008 31.10.2008
1. The Commission, upon receipt of a communication dated 30.04.09 from the Appellant alleging non compliance, fixed a hearing to decide the matter and thus the Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for June 2, 2009.
2. Mr. B.B. Chugh, Dy. Secretary / CPIO and Ms. Sushma Tandon, Accounts Officer represented the Public Authority.
3. Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik and Dr. Ajay Kumar Mishra were present during the hearing.
Decision
4. The Commission received a communication dated 01.06.2009 from the Appellant enclosing therewith a letter dated May 14th 2009 received from the Respondent Akademi [Sangeet Natak Akademi, hereinafter referred to as "SNA"]addressed to the Commission. The Respondent in its letter dated 14.05.2009 raised the following contentions instead of furnishing the information as directed by the Commission:
i. The SNA in the para 1 of the letter dated 14.05.2009 has alleged that ".....the representatives of the Appellant were invited to discuss the matter ...... and the matter was already discussed in the absence of the representative of the Akademi..." The Commission is of the opinion that the said allegations by the Respondent regarding the CIC are contemptuous, vexatious, imprudent and completely baseless to say the least. In fact, though the hearing of the matter was re-scheduled to 10.30 am and both parties were informed accordingly, however, due to the absence of the Respondents at 10.30 am, the matter was reheard during the post lunch session by the Commission as a 'Specially Fixed' matter after hearing of the days' entire list of matters, simply in order that opportunity of fair hearing is extended to both parties, specially the Respondents, who remained absent at 10.30 am. The Respondents' allegation at this stage indicates their mala fide intentions and obvious after-thought, using this reason merely as a tool to escape the liability of furnishing the information as directed by the Commission. The statement by the Respondent [SNA] results not only in misleading one and all by portraying an incorrect and wrong picture but also is an audacious and impertinent attempt to taint the impartial and unbiased order by maligning the credibility of the CIC. This sort of allegation being cast upon the seat of trust is not expected from a Public Authority and is certainly not acceptable.
ii. The contention of the Respondent, in their letter dated 14th May 2009 dealing with the communication dated 13th February 2009 of the Planning Commission, addressed to the Appellant. The Planning Commission which had assigned the research study on "Promotion of Diversity of India's Cultural Expression - An Impact Assessment Study of Central Sangeet Natak Akademi"
to the Appellant, in its letter dated 13.02.2009, has pointed out inter alia "....the study was essentially an Impact Assessment Study and not an Evaluation Study...." Be that as it may, whether the study is an Impact Assessment Study or Evaluation Study and whether the Appellant has deviated from the scope of the study is not the issue to be decided before the CIC. Likewise the averments made by the SNA in the last para of the letter dated 14.05.2009 alleging that "....the Chairman, SANKALP is keen in getting the CPIO punished by lodging complaints..." is also not within the jurisdiction of RTI Act 2005 and hence not for the CIC to decide into such allegations. The CIC, acting well within its jurisdiction, has decided vide its order dated 06.02.2009 that the information as sought by the Appellant by the four appeals stated hereinabove qualify under provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005 and are not exempt under any of the provisions of the Section 8 and/or 9 of the RTI Act 2005. Since some information sought by the Appellant vide their RTI request was found voluminous, hence the CIC directed that the questionnaire be streamlined and it was agreed that the questions to be put by the Appellant be restricted to 8 relevant questions with a view so as to cause in disproportionate diversion of the resources of the Public Authority, as envisaged under provisions of Section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005.
iii. Another averment in the letter dated 14.05.2009 deals primarily with the allegedly threatening letter dated 24th Feb 2009 addressed by the Appellant to the Secretary, SNA. This does not pertain to the scope and ambit of RTI Act 2005 nor is CIC the appropriate forum to decide such issues. The Respondent Akademi has also reiterated the issue of information seekers' status being an organization and not an individual. The Appellant before CIC is covered under provisions of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act 2005, hence the contention does not hold merit and warrants no further discussion.
iv. The Respondent has clearly over reached its powers of making submission while pointing out in the paragraph 4 of its letter dated 14.05.2009 that "....When a number of complaints on the same subject by a single complainant against the same CPIO is heard, it was hoped that the Hon'ble Commissioner would pass a single order against all such complaints...". Seemingly the Respondent Public Authority needs a reminder as to where to restrict its hopes and aspirations since the CIC being a body constituted to promote transparency, accountability in the working of every Public Authority has the necessary powers to decide on the matters and the format of its decisions need not satisfy the hopes of Public Authorities by any stretch of imagination.
6. While discussing the merits of the four appeals in question, it is pertinent to note the relevant extracts of the order/s dated 06.02.09:
".... in view of the fact that the information sought by the Appellant is justified under the provisions of the Act, the Commission arrives at a decision with the consent of both the parties that the Appellant shall prioritize and revise the RTI request restricting the number of questions to 8 relevant questions, seeking information based on records available in physical form without asking information about hypothetical situations or queries which tend to be in the nature of asking for the opinion or advice of the CPIO...." ..... decision in the Appeals number: CIC/PB/A/2008/1221 & CIC/PB/A/2008/1222 ".......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. A status report of compliance in of the aforesaid provision of the RTI Act 2005 is directed to be furnished to the Commission within a period of 20 days from the receipt of this order. ..." ....... Decision in all four aforementioned appeals.
Perusal of records indicates that pursuant to the order dated 06.02.09 passed by the Commission, admittedly the Appellant sent communication/s dated 09th March 2009 to the SNA as directed by the CIC. However the Akademi responded vide their letter dated 23rd March 2009 urging the Appellant to address a single communication streamlining the information sought with reference to the Planning Commission's letter dated 13.02.2009. However, no information was furnished to the Appellant and instead of Status Report of compliance, the Akademi addressed the letter dated 14.05.2009 to the CIC containing allegations and excuses.
7. In view of the foregoing facts the Commission in its considered view directs the CPIO to provide information against all the complaints by 15th of July 2005. The Commission furthermore noted the defiant attitude as also attempt to escape liability by wrongful averments of the Respondent, that despite specific direction of the Commission of providing intimation within 30 days from receipt of Appellant's revised request [sent by Appellant on 09th March 2009], no information was furnished till the stipulated date [9th April 2009] and the Appellant reported non compliance vide communication dated 30th April 2009. Even on the date of hearing of the matter pertaining to non-compliance i.e. on 02.06.2009 no sufficient or reasonable explanation was offered by the Respondent for non furnishing of information and in fact acting as a hindrance in supply of information despite sufficient delay, as can be inferred from the above detailed and point-wise discussion.
Hence the Commission issues a Show Cause Notice upon the CPIO to explain as to why penalty at the rate of Rs. 250/- per day may not be imposed for non furnishing of information within stipulated time. In addition, the CPIO to also show cause as to why disciplinary action as envisaged under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act 2005 may not be initiated against the CPIO for malafide denial of information. The Respondent Public Authority is directed to bring their reply to this show cause notice with respect to all of the four aforementioned appeals and a hearing of all the four appeals is fixed on 03rd August 2009 at 10.30 am.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Asst. Registrar Cc:
1. Mrs. Kasturi Pattnaik, B-1/B, 2nd Floor, Africa Avenue Road, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029
2. The CPIO & Deputy Secretary, Sangeet Natak Academi, National Academy of Music, Dance & Drama, Rabindra Bhavan, Feroze Shah Road, New Delhi-110001
3. The Jt. Secretary & Appellate Authority, Ministry of Culture, Room No.334(A), "C" Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110001
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC