Central Information Commission
Mr.Sandeep Kumar Gupta vs Ministry Of Culture on 6 September, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/C/2011/001235, 1236 & 1237
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 6 September 2012
Date of decision : 6 September 2012
Name of the Appellant : Shri Kuldeep Singh Khaira,
C/o. Vigilant Citizens Forum,
#3344, Chet Singh Nagar,
Ludhiana - 141 003.
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta,
1778, Sector 14,
Hissar, Haryana - 125 001.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak
Committee, Teja Singh Samundri Hall,
SRI Amritsar.
The Appellant was present in person.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Simerjeet Singh, PIO, was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard all these three cases together. Sri Kuldeep Singh Khaira (first Appellant) was present in the Ludhiana studio of the NIC. He represented his own case as well as in the cases filed by Dr Sandeep Kumar Gupta (second Appellant). The Respondent was present in the Amritsar studio. We heard their submissions.
3. In three separate RTI applications, one filed by the first Appellant and two by the second Appellant, a variety of information had been sought. The first CIC/SM/C/2011/001235, 1236 & 1237 Appellant had, in his RTI application, sought a number of information regarding the implementation of the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act by the SGPC. The second Appellant and had wanted a large number of details about the students admitted to the medical and dental colleges run by some trusts set up by the SGPC as well as several details about the Sri Guru Ramdas Charitable Hospital Trust. Claiming that the CPIO did not respond in any of these cases, both the Appellants had complained to the CIC. The CIC had directed the CPIO in each of these cases not only to provide the desired information within a specific time period but also to show cause why penalty should not imposed on him for not providing any information within the stipulated period.
4. In response to the show cause notice issued by the CIC, the CPIO had furnished some reply.
5. During the hearing, the first Appellant submitted that in none of these three cases, the CPIO had provided any information. He complained that, even after the CIC issued specific directions, the CPIO did not care to write to the Appellants or provided any information. He demanded that maximum penalty should be imposed on the CPIO concerned.
6. In regard to the RTI application of the first Appellant, the CPIO submitted that no reply had been sent to him since similar information had already been provided to him earlier in response to several other RTI applications.
7. In respect of the RTI applications of the second Appellant, the Respondent submitted that, as per the available records, the CPIO had made all efforts to collect the desired information from the respective Trust. However, he submitted that the Trust concerned had claimed that it was not a public CIC/SM/C/2011/001235, 1236 & 1237 authority and was not covered under the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and, therefore, provided no information. He clarified that this was communicated to the information seeker. He further informed that the information seeker had challenged the claim of the Trust before the Punjab Information Commission which had decided that the Trust was a public authority within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act but the Punjab and Haryana High Court had since stayed this order.
8. After carefully considering the facts of these cases and the submissions made before us, we find that, in all these cases, the CPIO had not taken care to respond to the information seeker in time. Specially in the case of the first Appellant, no effort had been made to provide any information even after the CIC expressly directed the CPIO to do so. In the other two cases, the Respondent claimed that the CPIO had made efforts to collect the information and to provide to the Appellant since the SGPC itself did not hold the desired information. In both the cases, the CPIO concerned has rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty in terms of the provisions of subsection 1 of section 20 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act unless he has any reasonable cause for this. We, therefore, direct the CPIO concerned to appear before the Commission (Room No. 306, 2nd Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 066) on 10 October 2012 at 10.00 a.m. and show cause along with all relevant records why we should not impose the maximum penalty on him for not providing any information to the information seekers in all these cases within the stipulated period. If he fails to provide any satisfactory explanation, we will proceed to decide on the penalty without giving any further opportunity of hearing.
9. We also direct the CPIO to provide to the first Appellant the information desired by him, point wise, within 15 working days of receiving this order. We CIC/SM/C/2011/001235, 1236 & 1237 also direct him to ensure that the SGPC publishes all information in its website in terms of Section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI Act within a month of receiving this order. He must report compliance of our order thereafter.
10. As far as the information desired by the second Appellant is concerned, we do not intend to give any direction or order in view of the stay granted by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the status of Sri Guru Ramdas Charitable Hospital Trust since the entire information has to be provided by that organisation and not by the SGPC.
11. All the appeals are disposed off accordingly.
12. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/C/2011/001235, 1236 & 1237