CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000722/8864Adjunct
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000722
Complainant : Mr. M.K. Singhal
A- 46, Suryanagar, Ghaziabad
U.P. - 201011
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Regional Office, Bhavishya Nidhi,
Hawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial area,
Wazirpur Delhi
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
Mr. M.K. Singhal filed a RTI application with the PIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Regional Office, 28/08/2009 asking for certain information. However on not having received the
information within the mandated time, a Complaint was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the
Commission. On this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the PIO, Employees Provident Fund
Organisation Regional Office,. Bhavishya Nidhi, Hawan, 28, Wazirpur Industrial area, Wazirpur, Delhi,
on 28/05/2010 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further provide an
explanation for failing to furnish the information within the mandated time.
The Commission received a letter from the PIO, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional
Office, dated 08/07/2010 wherein it has been stated that the information has been provided to the
Complainant. However, the PIO has neither shown proof of having provided the information on a certain
date nor stated as to when the information was provided. On perusal of the copy of information enclosed it
has been observed that the same has been signed on 27/01/2010. In view of this, prima facie it appears that
the information has been provided to the Complainant on 27/01/2010. Further the PIO has given no
explanation for the delay in providing the information. There appears to be a delay of above 100 days in
responding to the RTI Application dated 28/08/2009.
Decision dated August 6, 2010:
The Complaint was allowed.
“The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the PIO
within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed PIO, Employees Provident
Fund Organization, Regional Office, is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under
sub-section (1) of Section 7 by not replying within 30 days as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears
that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action of Section 20 (1) and (2) of the
RTI Act.
Page 1 of 2
The PIO is hereby directed to present himself before the Commission on 10/09/2010 at 12.00 pm
along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary
action be recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further, the deemed PIO
may serve this notice to such person(s) who are responsible for this delay in providing the information, and
direct them to be present before the Commission along with the deemed PIO on the aforesaid scheduled date
and time. The PIO should also bring along proof of seeking assistance from other person(s), if any.”
Relevant facts emerging at show cause hearing held on September 10, 2010:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent: Mr. Ajay Kumar, APFC on behalf of Mr. Suraj Sharma, CPIO/RPFC.
Mr. Ajay Kumar stated that the Complainant had filed RTI applications on 24/12/2008 and 09/02/2009 with
the EPFO, Wazirpur Industrial Area. These RTI applications were clubbed together and came before the
Commission by way of Second Appeal and were heard on 21/07/2009 by Mr. M. L. Sharma, Information
Commissioner and subsequently on 10/12/2009 by Mrs. Deepak Sandhu, Information Commissioner. On
perusal of the Commission’s order dated 10/12/2009, the Commission observed that information in relation
to the RTI applications was to be provided on 23/12/2009. Mr. Kumar stated that complete information in
response to both the RTI applications were provided to the Complainant on 23/12/2009. Mr. Kumar
submitted that the information sought in the RTI application dated 28/08/2009 was same as that sought in
the RTI applications dated 24/12/2008 and 09/02/2009, information in relation to which was already
provided on 23/12/2009. A copy of the information provided to the Complainant on 23/12/2009 was
submitted to the Commission.
On perusal of the RTI application dated 28/08/2009, the Commission noted that query 1 of the RTI
application dated 28/08/2009 pertained to the information provided in relation to the RTI applications dated
24/12/2008 and 09/02/2009. At the hearing held on 10/09/2010, Mr. Kumar did not produce copies of the
RTI applications dated 24/12/2008 and 09/02/2009. Therefore, it was not possible for the Commission to
ascertain whether complete information was provided on 23/12/2009 to the Complainant in response to the
RTI applications dated 24/12/2008 and 09/02/2009. Consequently, the Commission could not determine
whether information in relation to query 1 of the RTI application dated 28/08/2009 was provided. Further,
the information provided in relation to query 3 of the RTI application dated 28/08/2009 does not appear to
be satisfactory. Moreover, the Commission also noted that no information was provided in response to
queries 2 and 4 of the RTI application dated 28/08/2009.
Adjunct Decision:
In view of the aforesaid, the Commission directs the PIO to provide complete information point- wise on
each query of the RTI application dated 28/08/2009 to the Complainant before October 1, 2010 with a copy
to the Commission. The PIO shall also enclose copy of the RTI applications dated 24/12/2008 and
09/02/2009 with the information so provided.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per section 7(6) of RTI, Act, 2005
Shailesh Gandhi
. Information Commissioner
September 10, 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(JA)
Page 2 of 2