CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION22
Club Building (Near Post Office),
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001316/4023
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001316
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Dr.Pramila Sharma
40, Arjun Marg,
DLF Phase-I,
Gurgaon (Haryana).
Respondent : Principal & PIO
Daulat Ram College
(University of Delhi)
4, Patel Marg, Maurice Nagar,
Delhi-110007.
RTI application filed on : 21/01/2009
PIO replied : 09/02/2009
First appeal filed on : 09/03/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 17/04/2009
Second Appeal received on : 20/05/2009
Information sought: -
Details of academic staff of Daulat Ram College who availed Study leave for
postdoctoral studies from 1985-2008 in following format:-
• Name,
• Department
• Purpose of postdoctoral study leave
• Topic of study
• Degree to be earned (if any)
• University affiliation (if any)
• What documents they submitted when applied for leave
• Period of leave applied for
• Period of leave granted for
• Proof of work done submitted after completion of period of leave
• Year on which degree earned (if any)
• Details of publication of their work.
• Details of comments of experts on their work.
Reply of PIO:
Since the details asked by the Appellant relate to the period from 1985 to 2008 and the
records pertaining to this period are to be taken out/verified/checked individually in
respect of all the teachers and from the files etc., it involves additional manpower to do
this job. One person has to be engaged for at least a month after office hours and one
daftary to assist him. Daftary will take out the records and the assistant has to read/verify
the particulars required by the Appellant and then mark it for photocopying. Therefore
the Appellant had required to deposit a sum of Rs.14,000/- for getting this job done.
After depositing the amount (demand draft to be made in the name of Principal, Daulat
Ram College), the information/details as available/as traced out from the records will be
sent to the Appellant within a month from the date of deposit of the amount in the
college.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory response.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
The FAA stated that additional Manpower was required to collate the information
requested by the Appellant. “In view of your request, we are trying our best to locate the
details as available in the record. Since it involves the details of over a span period of 23
years, though there may be only few cases, we need some more time to do this job and
whatever information is available in our records we will be able to sent to you preferable
by 31st May, 2009”
Grounds for Second Appeal
To Direct PIO of Daulat Ram College to impart with desired information without any
further delay. The Appellant also appeal to impose penalty for the delay under section
20(I).
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant: Dr.Pramila Sharma
Respondent: Mr. P.L. Nayar, PIO
The PIO first ask for a sum of Rs. 14, 000 as a additional fees claiming that
it will require many people to collate and provide the information.
Mischievously the PIO became wise later on and provide information
consisting of five pages on 29th May 2009 to the Appellant free of cost. The
Appellant alleges that there is a willful denial of information and that the
PIO has deliberately provided the incomplete information. She shows that in
the list of teachers who availed studily post doctorate studies for 1985 –
2008, some names are missing. She produces the annual of college of 1985-
86 in which the names of some teachers are there which are missing in the
list given to her. She also alleges that the names of Dr. S. Kaushik, Dr.
Bhakti S and Dr. Indu Kumar are not on the list but have been provided to
her in response to her RTI dated 11.02.2008. The Appellant also points out
that in the information provided to her the comment regarding the
submission of report shows not submitted in her case as well as in some
other faculty names. On the other hand against certain faculty members the
comment is that ‘Report not available’. She alleges that this is being done
mischievously since the PIO can’t explain how he arrived at the conclusion
that some staff members’ reports have been submitted when they were not
available on the record and others like her were guilty of non-submission.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO will give the correct information before 30th July 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.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO 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. He also appears to have
given incomplete information knowingly. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the
penal provisions of Section 20 (1).
A show cause 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 24th August 2009
at 03.00 pm alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be
imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He will also submit proof of having
given the information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free cost as per Section
7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
7 July 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
AK