Central Information Commission
Vikram Ramakrishnan vs Auroville Foundation on 12 March, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: -CIC/AFOUN/A/2018/636746/03110
File no.: - CIC/AFOUN/A/2018/636746
In the matter of:
Vikram Ramakrishnan
... Appellant
VS
Assistant Administrative Officer & CPIO
Auroville Foundation, Auroville Foundation Bhavan,
Auroville, Viluppuram - 605101
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 26/08/2018 CPIO replied on : 26/10/2018 First appeal filed on : 27/09/2018
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record Second Appeal dated : 11/12/2018 Date of Hearing : 11/03/2020 Date of Decision : 11/03/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC Respondent: Pradumna Tiwari, Assistant Administrative Officer & CPIO, present over VC.
Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Auroville Foundation has centres and bank accounts outside India. It is also known that Foundation has a Swiss Bank account. Have all these been furnished in your returns to the Government of India (GOI)? Who is/are operating/authorised signatory's of these overseas bank accounts of Auroville Foundation?1
2. How many foreign Aurovillians are earning commercial income through activities like acting in movies? Provide names of those people who have been given permission by Aurovillie Foundation and quantifying their income.
3. How many foreign Aurovillians are registered under Ministry of Corporate Affairs? Provide names of those people with copies of their DIN.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has provided the inaccurate and vague information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not provided to him. He stated that the Institute is embroiled in mis-management and corruption, tax evasion, money laundering, land grabbing and other activities against the Laws of the Union of India. Further to this, Auroville Foundation and other bodies use the name of Auroville Foundation to collect donations overseas which are not being accounted for. Since, Auroville operates very secretively and is in between two states and all land and assets being vested in the Central Government, it has gone unchecked for years. He submitted that he himself is a victim of a land grabbing attack in Auroville, hence not only as a citizen of India, he also has a locus standi to get the desired information.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his reply dated 26.10.2018.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties and from a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the reply of the CPIO was highly improper as the CPIO while denying the requisite information has failed to claim any exemption under the RTI Act. It is relevant to mention here that in order to deny information, it is important that the denial should be as per the provisions of the RTI Act and also if any of the exemption clauses mentioned under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 is claimed, the Respondent is required to provide justification or establish the reason why such exemption was claimed. Reference is drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 2 File no.: - CIC/AFOUN/A/2018/636746 in the matter of Dy. Commissioner of Police v. D.K. Sharma, WP (C) No. 12428 of 2009 dated 15.12.2010, wherein it was held as under:
"6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been unable to discharge that burden. The mere fact that a criminal case is pending may not by itself be sufficient unless there is a specific power to deny disclosure of the information concerning such case."
Under such circumstances, the CPIO is directed to consider the RTI application afresh and provide a point-wise reply to the appellant. The CPIO should note that numbers of the foreign Aurovillians as sought by the appellant on points no. II, III, IV, VI & VII can be provided. On point no. VII, complete information is to be provided. With regard to the rest of the information sought by the appellant, the CPIO should examine the queries and the submissions of the appellant in detail and thereafter should give a categorical reply and in case the CPIO is claiming any exemption under the RTI Act, the same should be properly justified.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant on all of the points raised in the RTI application within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
A warning is also issued to the CPIO for giving an incomplete reply to the appellant without justifying the denial of the required information as mandated under the provisions of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) 3 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4