CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000451/11480Adjunct
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000451
Complainant : Mr. Anil,
C-2, Pipal Wala Mohalla, Badli Extension,
Delhi - 110 042
Respondents : Mr. Brijesh Patil,
APIO,
Mahatma Gandhi Antarashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya,
P.O. Manas Mandir, Gandhi Hill, Wardha,
Maharashtra - 422001
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
The Complainant had filed an RTI application with the aforementioned Respondent on 29th January 2010
asking for certain information. On not having received any information within the mandated time the
Complainant filed a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission. On this basis, the
Commission issued a notice to the Respondent no. 2 on 7th January 2011 with a direction to provide the
information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation for not furnishing the information
within the mandated time.
The Commission has neither received a copy of the information sent to the Complainant, nor has it
received any explanation from the CPIO for not supplying the information to the Complainant.
Therefore, the only presumption that can be made is that the CPIO has deliberately and without
any reasonable cause refused to give information as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Failure on
the part of the CPIO to respond to the Commission’s notice shows that there is no reasonable cause
for the refusal of information.
The Right to Information is a fundamental right of the citizens and disposal of requests under the
said legislation ought to be undertaken with utmost seriousness and responsibility. It is the
responsibility of the CPIO to ensure that the information reaches the applicant within the time
period prescribed by the act.
Furthermore, on perusal of the website of the Respondent Public Authority it has been observed that the
Respondent Public Authority has not met its obligations under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act,
2005. As per Section 4 of RTI Act, public authorities were under an obligation to make certain suo moto
disclosures by 13 October 2005. These Disclosures are mandatory and are crucial to ensure transparency
and accountability in institutions. This would reduce the load of RTI Application being filed with each
institution as information would be freely available to citizens and they would not have to apply for it.
Decision dated March 15, 2011:
The Complaint was allowed.
“In view of the aforesaid, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide the complete information with regard to
the RTI Application dated 29th January 2010 to the Complainant before 30th March 2011 with a copy to
the Commission.
The issue before the Commission is of not providing the requisite information by the CPIO within
30 days, as required by law.
From the facts before the Commission, it appears that the CPIO has not provided the correct and complete
information within the mandated time and has failed to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act. The
delay and inaction on the CPIO’s part in providing the information, amounts to willful disobedience of the
Commission’s direction and also raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may be malafide.
The CPIO is hereby directed to present himself before this Commission on 11th April 2011 at
12.00 PM along with his written submissions to show cause why penalty should not be imposed and
disciplinary action recommended against him under Section 20 (1) and (2) of the RTI Act. Further,
the CPIO may serve this notice to any other official(s) who are responsible for this delay in
providing the information, and may direct them to be present before the Commission along with
him on the aforesaid scheduled date and time. The CPIO shall also bring proof of seeking assistance
from other officials(s), if any.
Furthermore, the Commission by the powers vested in it by Section 19 (8) (a) of the RTI Act,
hereby directs the following:-
1. Manuals under section 4 (1) (b) of the RTI act shall be uploaded on the website of the
institute under the link ” Right to Information” and a hard copy shall be kept at a suitable
location for perusal by the general public.
2. A sign board of appropriate dimension shall be installed, mentioning the Name(s), designation(s),
contact details including the office address/room number, availability hours and telephone
numbers of the Central Public Information Officer(s), Central Assistant Public Information
Officer(s) and First Appellate Authority, as the case may be, who have been notified under the RTI
act 2005 (in case of a change of CPIO or Appellate Authority, the sign board will be updated
within ten days of the said change.) Information regarding the requisite fees to be paid under
various provisions of the RTI Act 2005, modes of payment and the office where such fee will be
accepted. Information regarding Information Handbook/manuals published under section 4 (1) (b)
of the act; their location and time when they can be accessed should be also mentioned on the
board. The exact link/URL to the page on the website of the college/ department where the
information handbook can be viewed will also be mentioned. No acronym/abbreviation should
be used. This information shall be inscribed both in English and Hindi, and shall be installed at a
location having maximum public view. This will be maintained by the head of the public authority/
head of institution as the case may be, or the officer(s) so directed by him in writing, so long as the
RTI act is in force.
The above should be done by the 20th of April 2011.
The Vice Chancellor, shall send a report of compliance of the above directions to this Commission by
25th April 2011. The report may be sent to rtimonitoring@gmail.com, with a copy to the complainant.”
Relevant facts emerging at the show cause hearing held on April 11, 2011:
The following were present:
Respondent: Mr. Brijesh Patil, APIO.
The Respondent stated that the RTI application was received on 29/01/2010. However, information was
provided to the Complainant only on 08/04/2010. Thereafter, the same information was sent once again on
receipt of the Commission’s notice dated 07/01/2011 as well as the Commission’s order dated 15/03/2011.
The Commission observed that the information provided vide letter dated 08/04/2010 was satisfactory.
However, the Respondent was unable to produce any proof of dispatch (i.e. proof to the effect that the
letter dated 08/04/2010 was in fact sent to the Complainant) before the Commission.
The Commission noted that the RTI application was filed on 29/01/2010 and the complete information
should have been provided before 01/03/2010. Instead information was sent only on 08/04/2010 i.e. after a
delay of more than 30 days. The Respondent stated that the Complainant had filed a writ petition before
the Bombay High Court in March 2010 and Mr. B. S. Mirge, the then CPIO was occupied with the same
and therefore, there was a delay in providing the complete information. The Commission was not satisfied
with the submissions of the Respondent.
Adjunct Decision:
In view of the aforesaid, the Commission hereby directs Mr. B. S. Mirge, the then CPIO to present himself
before this Commission on May 16, 2011 at 2:30 pm along his written submissions to show cause why
penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action recommended against him under Section 20 of the
RTI Act. Further, he may serve this notice to any other official(s) who are responsible for the delay in
providing the information, and may direct them to be present before the Commission along with him on
the aforesaid scheduled date and time. He shall also bring proof of seeking assistance from other
officials(s), if any.
If the Complainant or Respondent wishes to participate in the hearing by teleconference/
videoconference, a request can be sent to the Under Secretary and Deputy Registrar of the Commission
at least 10 days in advance. The Commission will try and arrange for the videoconferencing. The
Participant will have to go to a NIC studio which is situated at most District Headquarters.
Further, Mr. Brijesh Patil, APIO is directed to once again provide the complete information to the
Complainant before May 10, 2011. Mr. Brijesh Patil is directed to send a copy of the proof of dispatch
with Mr. B. S. Mirge to the Commission at the show cause hearing to be held on 16/05/2011.
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
April 11, 2011
CC: Mr. B. S. Mirge, PRO,
(The Then CPIO),
Mahatma Gandhi Antarashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya,
P.O. Manas Mandir, Gandhi Hill, Wardha,
Maharashtra - 422001
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(ANP)