Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000354
Dated August 27, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Col. N.K.Rishi
Name of the Public Authority : AI.I.M.S
Adjunct to the captioned Order by dt.26.4.10
Background
1. The relevant para 6 of the decision is reproduced below:
‘6. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides, directs the PIO as follows:
i) to provide an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant stating that the period
for which information sought is not available along with the reasons for its nonavailability, while
enclosing a copy of the rules for preservation of records. .
ii) to allow the Appellant to inspect all relevant files/registers of the last 5 years over a period
of 5 working days and to provide him with attested copies of documents he requires. In view of the
voluminous information being sought by the Appellant and the impact that use of such large quantity
of paper would have on the environment, the Commission advises the Appellant to inspect the
registers and identify only those documents he really requires. Information upto a maximum of 100
pages may be provided free of cost. For the remaining, the Appellant to pay at the rate of Rs.2/ per
page as photocopying charges’.
2. The Commission received a complaint dt.1.6.10 from the Applicant stating that consequent to the
directions for inspection of registers/records for 5 days, he was shown only some registers relating to
two security agencies (only 278 out of 441 registers) and that the inspection was completed in
approximately five hours on first two days. Similarly, AIIMS had not given him a copy of the records
of destruction of records older than 5 years or the affidavit for affirming that records had been
destroyed, nor rules for preservation of such records. He requested that the following information be
provided to him:
i) Photocopies of the documents listed at Paras 24, 6(a) for three agencies during the
previous five years i.e. 1.2.05 to date which have not been shown/provisioned to me.
ii) To show balance of 163 attendance register for his perusal and selection thereof for
provision of photocopies of selected registers.
iii) Complete record of exservicemen employed, duly certified by DCSO as per Para 6(b) of his
application dt.10.11.09.
iv) Photocopies of records of destruction of documents/registers, older than 5 years and copy
of the affidavit thereof. In case records have not been destroyed, he may be provided with
information as per paras 24 pertaining to agencies employed during the period 1.11.94 to date.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for August 27,
2010.
3. Shri Rajiv Lochan, Dy. CSO, Shri Deepak Kumar, Security Officer and Shri K.D.Sharma, Stores
Officer represented the Public Authority.
4. The Appellant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondents submitted that with regard to points 2(a) to 2(g), 2(k) to 2(n), and points 3, 4 and
6(a) they are not expected to keep the records and that no such clause is present in the terms and
conditions for contract with the agency providing security to the Institute. Only the concerned
contractor is expected to retain such records with him. With regard to point 2(i), he submitted that
information has already been provided which the Complainant denied having received. With regard
to point 2(j), the Respondent stated that immediately after the interview of the security guards had
been conducted by him, he had written either ‘accepted’ or ‘rejected’ on the documents and had
returned the documents to the contractor. The Complainant refuted this by stating that the
documents in his case had not been returned to him. The Respondents maintained their position with
regard to the documents . With regard to 6(b), the Respondents submitted that information related to
the attendance of security guards employed by the present contractor, as available with them has
already been provided.
6. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides, directs the PIO as follows:
i) to allow inspection of relevant files by the Complainant on a mutually convenient date and
time with regard to the information sought against points 2(h) and 2(i) and also of 163
remaining registers over a period of 3 consecutive days during working hours and toprovide him with attested copies of documents he requires, free of cost upto 50 pages and
to on payment of photocopying charges for the remaining.
ii) to provide an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the Complainant affirming the fact
the information against points 2(a) to 2(g), 2(k) to 2(n), points 3, 4 and 6(a) is not available
with them and giving reasons for their non availability . Complete information including
affidavit to be provided by 30 September, 2010.
7. The undersigned with the powers vested on her u/s 18(2) of the RTI Act directs the Appellate
Authority to conduct an enquiry with regard to the information sought against point 2(j) in view of the
contradictory submissions made by both the Complainant and the Respondent. The copy of the
enquiry report to be shared with both the Complainant and the Commission by 30 September,
2010. .
8. The complaint is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Col. N.K.Rishi
Director
VNA Security Services (P) Ltd
D7/7340
Vasant Kunj
New Delhi 110 070
2. The PIO
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
O/o Chief Admn. Officer
Ansari Nagar
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
O/o Prof. & Head (Pharmacology)
Ansari Nagar
New Delhi
4. Officer incharge, NIC