Central Information Commission
Mrsanjay vs Central Pollution Control Board, Delhi on 26 March, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2014/1008
Mr. Sanjay v. PIO, Central Pollution Control Board
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 6.3.2014 Reply: 15.5.2014 Time:
FAA: 29.4.2014 FAO: Time:
SA: 12.6.2014 Hearing:20.1.2015 Decision:26.03.2015
Result: Show Cause Issued
Parties Present:
Appellant is present. Respondent authority is represented by Mr. R.D Pandey.
Information sought:
2. Appellant sought information with respect to Mr Santlal, against whom a FIR lodged in response to his complaint, namely, whether he was on casual or any other leave from 8.2.2014 to 12.2.2014 and purpose for seeking leave for that period.
Ground for First Appeal:
3. No reply furnished by the PIO within prescribed time.
PIO response after making FA:
4. CPIO deny the information by claiming exemption of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Ground For Second Appeal :
5. CPIO has malafidely claim exemption of section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
6. Both the parties heard and made the submission. Appellant submitted before the Commission that Mr Santlal had murdered his father and attacked on him and his soninlaw, in respect of which case is pending before the court under several section of Indian Penal Code, 1870.In order to have the substantive evidence in support of his case he filed this RTI application, to know from the public authority whether Mr Santal was present in their office 8.2.2014 to 12.2.2014.In response to RTI application public authority replied that Mr Santlal was present but has not provided the proof of the same.
7. Having heard the submission and perusal of records, the Commission directs the PIO to provide the proof of Mr Santlal on that particular dates mentioned above and if he was absent proof of reason for seeking leave within 21 days from the date of receipt of order. The Commission also warned the PIO that any separation of information and making illegal claims will amount to illegal support to accused person & will cause obstruction to the trial of the accused. The Commission also directs the CPIO, Mr R. D Pandey to show cause as to why penalty u/s 20 should not be imposed upon them for not responding to the RTI application appropriately. He is directed to submit his written response so as to reach the Commission within three weeks of receipt of this order.
8. The Commission ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Dy. Registrar Address of the parties
1. The CPIO Central Pollution Control Board, (M/o Environment Forest) Parivesh Bhawan, East Arjun Nagar New Delhi110032.
2. Sh. Sanjay H.No 1, Bansi Colony, Near Chaudhary Hospitalm Jaatal Road, Panipat, Haryana