Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr.M R Saini vs Employees Provident Fund … on 31 May, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.M R Saini vs Employees Provident Fund … on 31 May, 2011
               CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                    Club Building (Near Post Office)
                  Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                         Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                           Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000934/12631
                                               Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000934

Complainant                          :      Mr. M.R. Saini,
                                            RZ-C-l-A Block
                                            Saini Colony, Laxmi Park
                                            Nangloi, New Delhi 110041.

Respondent                           :      PlO & Regional PF Commissioner
                                            Employees Provident Fund Organization,
                                                   Regional Office Delhi (South),
                                            Sector-23, Dwarka, Delhi

Facts

arising from the Complaint:

Mr. M.R. Saini had filed a RTI application dated 08/12/2009 with the PIO &
RPFC, Regional Office Delhi South, Delhi asking for certain information. On not having
received any information within the mandated time the Complainant filed a Complaint
under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission. On this basis, the Commission
issued a notice to the Respondent on 12/10/2010 with a direction to provide the
information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the
information within the mandated time.

The Commission has neither received a copy of the information sent to the
Complainant, nor has it received any explanation from the PIO for not supplying
the information to the Complainant. Therefore, the only presumption that can be
made is that the PIO has deliberately and without any reasonable cause refused to
give information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Failure on the part of the PIO
to respond to the Commission’s notice shows that there is no reasonable cause for
the refusal of information.

Decision:

The Complaint is allowed.

In view of the aforesaid, the PIO & RPFC is hereby directed to provide the correct
and complete information with regard to the RTI Application dated 08/12/2009 to the
Complainant before 20/06/2011 with a copy to the Commission.

From the facts before the Commission, it appears that the PIO has not provided
the correct and complete information within the mandated time and has failed to comply
with the provisions of the RTI Act. The delay and inaction on the PIO’s part in providing
the information even after the Commission’s direction dated 12/10/2010 amounts to
willful disobedience of the Commission’s direction and also raises a reasonable doubt
that the denial of information may be malafide.

The PIO is hereby directed to send his written submissions to the
Commission before 20/06/2011 showing cause why penalty should not be imposed
and disciplinary action recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of
the RTI Act for not providing the information to the Complainant within the
stipulated time period i.e. 30 days.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
31 May 2011

Encl: Copy of the RTI application dated 08/12/2009

(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(IT)