In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001012
Date of Hearing : July 1, 2011
Date of Decision : July 1, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Shri J.B. Sharma
Maya Bhawan, H 961,
Palam Extension, Sector 7,
Dwarka,
New Delhi 110 077
The Appellant was present.
Respondents
Indian Council of Medical Research
V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan,
Ansari Nagar
New Delhi
Represented by: Shri B.P. Singh, Sr A.O. and Ms. Lalita Anand, A.O
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001012
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTIapplication with the PIO, ICMR, New Delhi on 27.12.2010, seeking certain
information, which appeared to be futuristic in nature (like, date, month and year by which DG, ICMR
proposes to apprise the Executive Committee of the facts given in ICMR letter dated 24.05.2007…),
in relation to the matter of his supersession by his junior, Shri Prem Singh in the grade of
Administrative officer & Senior Administrative officer, since 08.12.1995 and consequent development
thereafter in the matter. The PIO, on 31.01.2011, declined to answer the Applicant’s RTIqueries as,
according to him, they are not covered by the RTIAct. The Applicant, being aggrieved with the PIO’s
reply, filed his 1stappeal with the Appellate Authority on 28.01.2011 who, vide his order dated
25.02.2011, endorsed the PIO’s view. The Appellant, thereafter, filed the present petition before the
Commission on 23.03.2011 challenging the decision of the Respondents.
Decision
2. Like his previous case no. CIC/AD/A/2011/001015, the Appellant in this case as well requested the
Commission to ask the Respondents to place all the information furnished to him with respect to the
present subject before the Executive Committee of the Public Authority keeping in view his
(Appellant) belief that the revelation of this information to the Executive Committee would expose
wrongdoing and corrupt practices of several officials of the public authority.
3. Since the Appellant’s demand in the present case is identical to the previous one, the PIO is urged to
take action as per the advice/observation given in the previous case no. CIC/AD/A/2011/001015. The
advice given in the previous case reads as follows:
“The present demand of the Appellant is not permissible under the RTIAct. It is, nevertheless,
considering the Appellant’s belief that placement of the information before the Executive Committee
would uncover several corrupt practices of the officials of the public authority and thereby would
serve the public interest in large, it is suggested that the PIO may consider to place all the
information furnished to the Appellant with respect to the present subject before the Executive
Committee through proper channel. He may do so within 3 weeks of receipt of this order.”
4. The matter is accordingly closed at the Commission’s level.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri J.B. Sharma
Maya Bhawan, H 961,
Palam Extension, Sector 7,
Dwarka,
New Delhi 110 077
2. The Appellate Authority
Indian Council of Medical Research
V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan,
Ansari Nagar
New Delhi
3. The Public Information Officer
Indian Council of Medical Research
V. Ramalingaswami Bhawan,
Ansari Nagar
New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC