Central Information Commission
Yash Marwah vs Auroville Foundation on 15 February, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/AFOUN/A/2022/654034
Yash Marwah ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Auroville Foundation,
Tamil Nadu ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 16.06.2022 FA : 25.07.2022 SA : Nil
CPIO : 13.09.2023 FAO : 05.10.2023 Hearing : 12.02.2024
Date of Decision: 13.02.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.06.2022 seeking information on the following points:
(i) Requesting a copy of the standing order issued by the Secretary, Auroville Foundation in 2022 regarding appointment of Auroville Town Development Council members.
(ii) Please provide a copy of the Office Order cited in an Auronet posting on 8 June 2022 appointing Shri Chandresh Patel, Mr. Torkil Dantzer, Mr. Sathyamoorty Patchaiappan (Kalya), Shri B. S. Sathyanarayan, Ms. Jocelyn Brynhild and Ms. Geeta Hemant to the Funds and Assets Management Page 1 of 5 Committee of Auroville in 2022 (hereafter referred to as the "the new FAMC").
(iii) The message of 8 June 2022 stated that the Secretary of the Auroville Foundation was the convenor of this newly appointed FAMC. Dr Jayanti Ravi, as Secretary and Convenor, is asked to confirm:
(a). The selection criteria adopted for the selection of the new FAMC
(b). The selection panel for the new FAMC
(c) Confirmation of the extent to which the Governing Board and herself were involved in selecting the new FAMC.
(d). The extent to which conflicts of interest were considered in the appointment of the new FAMC and the extent to which it will be considered for all decisions they make hereafter.
(e). The reason for withholding the Office Order from the Residents 'Assembly when announcing the existence of the new FAMC and its composition.
(iv) Please provide a copy of the Office Order appointing Dr. G. Seetharaman, Jaya Berggreen-Clausen, Mr. Hemant Shekhar, Ms. Sindhuja Jagadeesh, Mr. Toby Neuman, Mr. Jothi Prasad Rajan, Mr. Ponnusamy Murugesan and Mr. Govind Ranjan to the Auroville Town Development Council of Auroville in 2022.
(v) On 4 June 2022, a mass mail was sent to the Residents of Auroville. Amongst other matters, that mass mail said, "The OGC recommended to reconstitute the FAMC, which has now been done vide an Office Order." Please confirm:
(a). The extent of the Secretary's participation in the drafting of that mass mail.
(b). Whether it was the advice of the OGC that it would be appropriate to reconstitute the FAMC by means of Office Order. If it was not their explicit advice who took the decision to draft and implement an Office Order regardless?Page 2 of 5
(c) Whether Dr Jayanti Ravi, in her capacity as Secretary and Convenor of the new FAMC, took legal advice on the correct methodology of attempting to reconstitute the new FAMC that she has convened.
(d). If such legal advice was taken, when and with whom? etc./ other related information.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.09.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Auraville Foundation appointed the members in the various committees as per the approval of the authorities and follows the Auroville Foundation Act and Rules.The confidential documents such as orders cannot be shared with the third party."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.07.2022. alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 05.10.2023 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
5. The appellant's representative Ms. Madhunika Varadarajan and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Anshuman, Account officer and PIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant's representative Ms. Madhunika Varadarajan while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that the appellant had sought a copy of the standing order issued by the Secretary, Auroville Foundation in 2022 regarding appointment of Auroville Town Development Council Members and other related issues. She further stated that there was an undue delay of more than one year in responding to the RTI application and the First Appeal. She submitted that the RTI application was rejected by the respondent, stating that the documents sought were confidential in nature, Page 3 of 5 thus, it could not be shared. She also submitted that the respondent, while denying the information, had not specified any of the exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. Accordingly, she requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide point-wise information, as sought, and if the information is denied, proper reasons for exemption as well as applicable clauses be given.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 13.09.2023.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the reply given by the respondent was evasive and misleading. The respondent, without applying his mind, had simply denied the information and most importantly they had not specified any of the exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to provide a revised point-wise reply to the appellant, specifying the correct exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, wherever applicable, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.
8.1 Besides, there was considerable delay in disposing the RTI application and the first appeal and the respondent failed to explain the cogent reasons for such inordinate delay. Further, the Commission expressed its displeasure over the conduct of the CPIO for not responding to the above-mentioned RTI application within the stipulated time frame. Therefore, the Commission directs the CPIO to submit a written statement before the Commission, explaining his above-said conduct, along with the comments of the First Appellate Authority, before 22.03.2024, both by post and by uploading on http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add. With this observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.
Page 4 of 5Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 13.02.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड )
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1.The CPIO
Auroville Foundation, Nodal CPIO,
RTI Cell, Administrative Area,
Town Hall, Aurovelle,
Tamilnadu - 605101.
2. Yash Marwah
Page 5 of 5