Central Information Commission
Mr. Aman Kumar vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 August, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000669/8683Adjunct
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000669
Complainant : Mr. Aman Kumar
2A, DDA, Pocket-B
Flats, Hari Nagar
New Delhi-110064
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Guru Gobind Singh Indrapastha University
Kashmere Gate, New Delhi-110403
Facts arising from the Complaint:
Mr. Aman Kumar had filed a RTI application with the PIO, Lt. Governors' Secretariat, New Delhi on 08/04/2010 asking for certain information. Subsequently the RTI Application was transferred to the PIO, Guru Gobind Singh Indrapastha University (GGSIP), New Delhi vide a letter dated 12/04/2010 by the OSD, Lt. Governor's Secretariat. However on not having received the information within the mandated time, the Complainant filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. On this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the PIO, GGSIP, New Delhi on 21/05/2010 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission has neither received a copy of the information sent to the Complainant, nor has it received any explanation from the PIO for not supplying the information to the Complainant. Therefore, the only presumption that can be made is that the PIO has deliberately and without any reasonable cause refused to give information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Failure on the part of the PIO to respond to the Commission's notice shows that there is no reasonable cause for the refusal of information. Further, the Complainant has also informed the Commission vide a letter dated 01/07/2010 that he has not received any information till date.
Decision dated July 23, 2010:
The Complaint was allowed.
"In view of the aforesaid, the PIO is hereby directed to provide the complete information in regard to the RTI Application dated 08/04/2010 to the Complainant before 15/08/2010 with a copy to the Commission. From the facts before the Commission, it appears that you have not provided the correct and complete information within the mandated time and has failed to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. The delay and inaction on the PIO's part in providing the information amounts to willful disobedience of the Commission's direction as well and also raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may be malafide.Page 1 of 2
The PIO is hereby directed to present himself before the Commission on 20/08/2010 at 02.30 pm along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, the PIO may serve this notice to such person (s) who are responsible for this delay in providing the information, and may direct them to be present before the Commission along with the PIO on the aforesaid scheduled date and time. If the information has already been supplied to the complainant, bring a copy of the same to the Commission with your written submissions, and also proof of seeking assistance from other person(s), if any."
Encl: RTI Application dated 08/04/2010 Relevant facts emerging at show cause hearing held on August 20, 2010:
The following were present:
Complainant: Mr. Aman Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. A. K. Verma, PIO & Joint Registrar (Planning & Policy) and Mr. Ajay Kumar, Section Officer (Planning).
From a perusal of the documents, the Commission noted that the RTI application was received at the office of the PIO on 15/04/2010 and information in response to the same was sent to the Complainant on 19/05/2010. In that regard, information was received from I & PRO vide diary number 1343 dated 22/04/2010, Personal Branch vide diary number 2598 dated 30/04/2010, Director (SW) vide diary number 8341 dated 22/04/2010, Dean (USMS) vide diary number 479 dated 26/04/2010 and Affiliation Branch vide diary number 275 dated 29/04/2010 of the university. Further to the Commission's notice dated 21/05/2010, the PIO resent the information to the Complainant on 09/07/2010. However, the Complainant stated that he had neither received letter dated 19/05/2010 nor letter dated 09/07/2010 till date.
The PIO and the Section Officer brought copies of the information sent to the Complainant i.e. vide letters dated 19/05/2010 and 09/07/2010 in response to the RTI application of 15/04/2010. The same was provided to the Complainant before the Commission.
The Commission observed that in relation to queries 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the RTI application of 15/04/2010, the information provided was incomplete. The PIO stated that information in relation to the aforementioned queries was sought from Col. P. K. Upamanyu, the deemed PIO & Joint Registrar (Academic Branch). In relation to query 14 of the RTI application of 15/04/2010, the Affiliation Branch stated that the committee had been constituted by the Competent Authority and the inquiry of the said committee was under process. Further, the disclosure of information in exempted under Section 8(1)
(h) of the RTI Act. The Commission observed that information provided in regard to query 14 of the RTI application was unsatisfactory. The PIO stated that information pertaining to query 14 of the RTI application was sought from Dr. Nitin Malik, the deemed PIO & Joint Registrar (Affiliation Branch). The Commission is of the view that no grounds were provided by the Affiliation Branch in order to justify non- disclosure of information sought, under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.Page 2 of 2
Adjunct Decision announced on August 30, 2010:
The deemed PIO & Joint Registrar (Academic Branch) Col. P. K. Upamanyu is directed to provide the complete information in relation to queries 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 of the RTI application of 15/04/2010 to the Complainant before September 20, 2010.
Further, the deemed PIO & Joint Registrar (Affiliation Branch) Dr. Nitin Malik is directed to provide the complete information in relation to query 14 of the RTI application of 15/04/2010 to the Complainant before September 20, 2010.
Furthermore, the Commission directs Col. P. K. Upamanyu, the deemed PIO & & Joint Registrar (Academic Branch) and Dr. Nitin Malik, the deemed PIO & Joint Registrar (Affiliation Branch) to appear before the Commission on September 29, 2010 at 4:00 pm along with their written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Col. P. K. Upamanyu and Dr. Nitin Malik are directed to produce before the Commission any relevant document that they may have relied on in their written submissions. If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information who have not been included in this show cause notice, Col. P. K. Upamanyu and Dr. Nitin Malik are directed to serve this show cause to them and direct them to appear before the Commission on 29/09/2010 along with them.
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 per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner August 30, 2010 CC: Col. P. K. Upamanyu, The Deemed PIO & Joint Registrar (Academic), Guru Gobind Singh Indrapastha University, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi-110403 Dr. Nitin Malik, The Deemed PIO & Joint Registrar (Affiliation), Guru Gobind Singh Indrapastha University, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi-110403 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SP) Page 3 of 2