CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001063/11861
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/001063
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr.Ajay Singh Gaur
Advocate, 3, Prayag Street,
D. P. Road, P.O. Kachahari,
Allalabad 211002
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi
Vishwavidyalaya,
Mahatama Gandhi Kashi Vidyapith,
Varanasi- 221002, Uttar Pradesh
RTI application filed on : 07/12/2009
PIO replied : 11/12/2009 & 21/12/2009
First appeal filed on : 06/02/2010
First Appellate Authority order : Not mentioned
Second Appeal received on : 23/04/2010
Notice of hearing sent on : 07/03/2011
Hearing held on : 05/04/2011
Information Sought:
1. List of teachers engaged for teaching in the Department of Library Science as Part Time, Ad- hoc or
full time teachers since July 2006 to June 2008 along with their time duration and status of
engagement/ appointment.
2. Has Mr Akhandanand Shukla delivered lecture from July 2006 to June 2008 to the B.Lib. I.Sc. or
M.L.I.Sc. or both class in the Department of Library Science.
3. Give the detail of lectures (date wise number of delivered lectures and class) delivered by Mr
Akhanand Shukla from July 2006 to June 2008.
4. Payment detail (Number of lectures, Amount paid, and cheque detail-numbers, dated, bank with
branch) against the delivered lectures of Mr Akhandanand Shukla from July 2006 to June 2008.
5. Photocopy of the pages of account register where Mr Akhandanand Shukla has received the
amount/cheques against the said period July 2006 to June 2008.
Reply of the PIO:
The PIO on 11/12/2009 sent a letter to the Third Party Mr. Akhandanand Shukla to get his approval
for supply of the information.
The PIO on 21/12/2009 informed the PIO that a vigilance inquiry is going on in the matter and hence
the records are now with Vigilance Department. Hence information cannot be provided.
First Appeal:
The PIO has not provided the information as sought.
Order of the FAA:
Not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided the information. Moreover the FAA has also not taken any action on the
first appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing. However, neither party appeared. From a
perusal of the papers it appears that the PIO has not given any information to the appellant. The PIO
has not claimed any exemption under Section-8(1) of the RTI Act. If some of the records are with the
Vigilance Department the PIO should have taken the assistance of the concerned officers under
Section-5(4) and provided the information. The PIO appears to have written to the third party Mr.
Akhandanand Shukla asking for objections if any to giving the information but there is no evidence to
show that the third party objected. Besides the information sought by the Appellant does not fall in the
category which would invite the provisions of Section-11 of the RTI Act. Since these are records of
the public authority. Even if the third party had objected the PIO will have to justify denial of
information as per the provisions of Section-8(1) of the RTI Act. No claim of exemption of
information appears to have been made. In view of this the information would have to be provided.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information to the appellant before 30 April
2011.
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 appears 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. 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 present himself before the Commission at the above address on 05 May 2011 at 10.30am
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.
If there are other persons responsible for the delay in providing the information to the Appellant the
PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing and direct them to appear before
the Commission with him.
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
05 April 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SM)