Central Information Commission
Mahadev Mahto vs Cimfr, Dhanbad on 4 April, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.313, CIC Bhawan, Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067)
Before Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), CIC
CIC/CMRID/C/2017/185424
Mahadev Mahto v. PIO, Central Institute of Mining & Fuel
Research
Order Sheet: RTI filed on 16.09.2016, CPIO reply - Nil, FAO - Nil, Second appeal filed on
02.11.2016, Hearing on 16.02.2018;
Proceedings on 16.02.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by Mr.
Rakesh Kumar, ACPIO. Directions for compliance and Show-cause issued.
Proceedings on 03.04.2018: Appellant absent, Public Authority represented by CPIO.
Mr M.S. Alam from NIC Dhanbad
Date of Decision - 04.04.2018: Disposed
ORDER
FACTS:
1. Appellant sought information about the eligibility criteria of selected candidates at the post of project Assistant Level-I and requested the CSIR to issue verification report of eligibility of selected candidates. CPIO replied on 07.02.2018 stating that information of one page was received from the Administrative Officer on 21.09.2016 and the appellant was required to deposit Rs. 2 for the copy of that document. Since there was no response from the FAA, the complainant approached this Commission.
2. The Commission's order dated 20.02.2018:
2. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, ACPIO submitted that Dr. M.S. Aalam, CPIO as on 13.10.2016 had demanded Rs. 2 for the certified copy of the documents containing the information sought by the appellant. He agreed that there was delay in furnishing the information and stated that they had not received any communication form the appellant.
3. The Commission finds the delay of around one year and four months; and demand of Rs. 2 from the appellant is an act of irresponsibility that is beyond reason and integrity of the Public Authority.
The CPIO is directed to provide the information sought by the appellant, within five days.
CIC/CMRID/C/2017/185424 Page 1
4. The Commission directs Dr. M.S. Alam, CPIO as on 13.10.2016, to show-cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him for not furnishing the information sought and for unreasonably demanding Rs. 2 from the appellant for one page of public document. The CPIO is directed to send his explanation, before 20.03.2018. The matter is posted for penalty proceedings and compliance on 20.03.2018.
Decision :
3. Mr. M.S. Alam, CPIO submitted his written explanation on 20.03.2018 and stated that complete information was furnished in compliance of this Commission's order dated 20.02.2018. Mr. Alam explained that he responded to the appellant's RTI application within 30 days and demanded the photocopying charges. The appellant had addressed the RTI application to the Director instead of the CPIO but inspite of the technical deficiencies in the RTI application, it was addressed by the Public Authority.
4. The appellant was furnished complete information in compliance of this Commission's order and besides the RI application was responded duly within 30 days.
5. The Commission finds that the CPIO has complied with the order dated 20.02.2018 and the explanation of Mr. Alam is reasonable, therefore, the penalty proceedings are dropped. Disposed of.
SD/-
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Central Information Commissioner
CIC/CMRID/C/2017/185424 Page 2