CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room no.415, 4th Floor, Block IV,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi 110066.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC /OK/A/2008/00771/SG/0772
Appeal No. CIC/OK/A/2008/00771/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Manish Kr. Singh,
S/o Mr. Santosh Kr. Singh,
Village- Gotwa, P.O. Jamua Bazar,
District-Mirzapur, U.P.-231314
Respondent 1 : PIO, Banaras Hindu University,
Office of the Registrar, Varanasi, U.P.
Respondent 2 : Office Superintendent and PIO,
Office of the Chief Administrative Officer,
BHU, Varanasi,U.P.
RTI filed on : 17/01/2008 PIO (Respondent 1) forwarded it to Respondent 2 on : 19/01/2008 First appeal filed on : 29/02/2008 First Appellate Authority order : No Order Second Appeal filed on : 28/04/2008
Information Sought and Reply if Any
The following table gives details of the information sought by the appellant and the PIO,s
reply to the same.
Information Sought PIO’s Reply
1.Does BHU have the legal authority to
impose fine on vehicles running in its
campus?
2.How does the University fix liability on
speeding vehicles in the absence of No Reply
speedometer?
3.No. of Vehicles on which the University
has imposed fines illegally and total income
from such fines
4.Will the University return back the amount
collected as fines if the imposition of fine has
been illegally done and also the time frame
with in which amount will be returned?
5. In the event University is not permitted to
impose fines, what action will be taken
against it and by when?
First Appeal: No orders Passed
The appellant filed the first appeal on 29/02/2008 and the same was forwarded to the First
Appellate Authority on 3/03/2008. The First Appellate Authority has not passed any orders.
Pleadings before the Commission
The appellant has filed second appeal before the Commission alleging non-supply of
information and has prayed for a direction for the supply of information.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Absent
Respondent: Mr. Sankatha Prasad PIO
The PIO has not supplied the information on all the points. He has shown evidence that he
has given an answer to the query number 3 on 19 February, 2008. He is able to give no
explanation for not answering the other queries.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the information on all the queries to the appellant before 10 January, 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions of Section 20 (1) .
A showcause notice is being issued to him, and he is directed give his reasons to the
Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on him.
He will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on
him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 15 January, 2009, with proof of having given
the information.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
29th December, 2008.
(For any further correspondence please mention the decision No)