CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001419/8519
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001419
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. A.P. Majeed Khan
Chairman,
Noorul Islam College of Engineering,
Kumarakovil,
Thuckalay-629180.
Kanyakumari District.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
RPFC-II, Sub-Regional Office,
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Ministry of Labour, Government of India
66, Water Tank Road,
Nagercoil-629001.
RTI Filed on : 14/09/2009
PIO replied : 08/10/2009
First appeal filed on : 22/10/2009
First Appellate Authority Ordered on : 13/11/2009
Second Appeal received on : 29/05/2010
Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information
Officer (PIO)
1. The authorization issued by the Central Provident Copy of notification authorizing the
Board authorizing the Asstt. Commissioner or any powers of recovery was enclosed.
other Officer in the Office of the RPFC, Nagercoil, to
exercise the powers of recovery under Section 8F of
the EPF & M.P. Act.
2. Copy of the recovery notice issued by the APFC, Copy of order dated 30/08/2009 issued
Nagercoil, to SBI, Kalkulam Branch, Thuckalay, for by the APFC, Nagercoil, to SBI,
the recovery of Rs.1,97,327/- determined as per the Kalkulam Branch, Thuckalay, for the
order dated 30/07/2009 from the account of Noorul recovery of Rs.1,97,327/- was
Islam College of Engineering. enclosed.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
The PIO furnished copy of Section 8F order but did not give the authorization/resolution issued by CPF
Board authorizing the Asst. PF Commissioner Nagercoil to exercise powers u/s 8F of the EPF and MP
Act. PIO also enclosed SO no. 796 of 4/3/1997 issued u/s 2(kb) of the Act.
First Appellate Authority (FAA) order:
The FAA observed that the complete information had been provided by the PIO. He stated that all Asst.
Commissioners and Regional Commissioners working in the state are notified as recovery officers and
a copy of the said notification has already been furnished to the appellant by the CPIO. Separate
notifications are not issued for each office. Only when powers under 8F are to exercised by officers
other than the notified officers, an authorization by the Central Board is required.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unfair disposal of the appeal by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Rajiv Rufus, Advocate representing Mr. A.P. Majeed Khan;
Respondent : Absent;
The PIO has provided the complete information and the FAA has further clarified that the
particular notification being sought by the appellant does not exist. The FAA has given the reasons why
this notification is not necessary. The appellant feels that in the absence of certain notification the
actions under taken are not as per law. This is a matter that appellant has to agitate at an appropriate
forum.
Decision:
The Appeal is dismissed.
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 of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
14 July 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ND)