In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/001065
Date of Hearing : December 30, 2010
Date of Decision : December 30, 2010
The Applicant was present during the hearing
Parties:
Applicant
1. Dr. Varun Kumar Agarwal
H.No. 321 (Top floor)
Basant Envlave
Near Tagore Intl. School
Vasant Vihar, 'C' Block
New Delhi 110057
Respondent(s)
1. All India Institute of Medical Sciences
O/o the Registrar
Ansari Nagar
New Delhi
Represented by: Dr. Rakesh Yadav (SubDean & CPIO)
Sh. V.P. Gupta (ACPIO & Registgrat)
Shri Sanjay Kumar (PA to SubDean)
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
The Commission having noted that the Respondent was not able to invoke any exemption clause from the RTI
Act to deny information to the Appellant, directs the PIO to provide the comments by the legal counsel on the
writ petition to the Appellant by 10 February, 2011.
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/001065
Adjunct to the captioned CIC Order dated November 22, 2010.
Background
1. The decision in the captioned order is as given below:
“The Commission while noting that the Respondents had not provided any reason for not disclosing
the information which is tenable under the law holds that the matter being subjudice cannot be held
as a reason for with holding the information and hence directs the PIO to allow inspection of relevant
files by the Complainant on 26.11.2010 (Friday) and provide copies of information he seeks. The
information which has already been provided may not be provided to him again”.
The appellant on 29.11.10 filed a complaint with the Commission stating that the CIC’s Order has
not been complied with.
Decision
2. During the hearing the Complainant submitted that he was allowed inspect a file which is not the
same which the Respondents had brought to the Commission for the hearing. He also sought the comments
of the legal counsel sought by AIIMS in the matter of the WRI petition no. 4272/2010. The Respondents
maintained that the same file which had been brought to the Commission had been inspected by the
Complainant .
3. The Commission after hearing the Appellant allowed immediate inspection of the file by the
Appellant in the Commission in the presence of a Commission’s official. The Complainant took copies of 69
additional pages of information from that file after inspecting the same. As for some other documents which
the Complainant complained are not available in the file, it was noted by the Commission, that all the available
information in the file had been provided to the Appellant. As for the comments of the legal Counsel on the
Writ petition, the Respondent submitted that the file is available with the legal Counsel and that the next
hearing in the Delhi High Court is scheduled for the second week of January and that information cannot be
provided at this late stage.
4. The Commission on careful consideration of the request and having noted that the Respondent was
not able to invoke any exemption clause from the RTI Act to deny information to the Appellant,
directs the PIO to provide the comments on the writ petition by the legal counsel to the Appellant by
10 February, 2011.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Dr. Varun Kumar Agarwal
H.No. 321 (Top floor)
Basant Envlave
Near Tagore Intl. School
Vasant Vihar, ‘C’ Block
New Delhi 110057
2. The Public Information Officer
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
O/o the Registrar
Ansari Nagar
New Delhi
3. Officer Incharge, NIC