CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000787/4962
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000787
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Mr. Anshu Kumar,
23/47/112-A, Kidwai Nagar,
Vidya Clinic, Allapur,
Allahabad, U.P. 211006
Respondent 1 : Central Public Information Officer
University of Allahabad
Senate Hall (North) First Floor,
University of Allahabad, U.P. 211002
Complaint filed on : 07/07/2009
Notice issued on : 07/07/2009
Reply of PIO : No reply
The Complainant had filed an Appeal earlier in which the Commission had passed an order dated
22/01/2009 Decision No. CIC /SG/A/2008/00119/1230. This Appeal related to a RTI Application
dated 05/08/2008 which related to the Law Department of the University. The Commission directed
the PIO to provide information regarding the total number of seats filled in the D.Phil program on
01/07/2008 before 20/01/2009. After a show cause hearing sent by the Commission, some
information was provided by the PIO on 14/05/2009. The Complainant has alleged in his
Complaint that the information given by the PIO is wrong. He has been given the following
information:
Sl. Category Number of Seats 1 In reply to RTI no. 143/2008-09 dated 14 May 2009 80 (Eighty) Seats
number of seats for (Regular + Retired) as on ½ July
2008.
2. In reply to RTI no. 51/2009-10 dated 12 June 2009 18 (Eighteen) Seats
number of seats for (Retired Teachers) as on ½ July
2008.
3. In reply to RTI no. 264/2009-09 dated 11 June 2009 30 (Thirty) Seats
number of seats for (Regular Teachers) as on ½ July
2008.
Note: According to the Complainant the total of 2 + 3 should be equal to 80 as per the information
provided. Since this is not the case either the information provided in Point-1 is incorrect or
information on Point 2 & 3 is incorrect.
The Commission issued a notice dated 07/08/2009 directing the CPIO to send written
submissions to the Commission by 27/07/2009 to explain the discrepancy in number of seats as
alleged by Complainant. The Commission received no reply and hence issued a notice to the PIO
and the Complainant for a hearing on 29 September 2009.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing on 29 September 2009:
The following were present:
Complainant: Absent
Respondent: Absent
The Respondent is absent hence it appears that the PIO has no explanation for the discrepancy in
the information provided to the Complainant. The Commission therefore issues a summons to the
PIO under Section 18(3) of the RTI Act to appear before the Commission on 30 October 2009 at
11.00am with documents showing the number of regular seats and retired seats as on 01/02 July
2008. The PIO will also bring with him written submission explaining the difference in the figures
as alleged by the Complainant.
Decision:
The Complaint is allowed.
The issue before the Commission is of supplying false and misleading information by the PIO.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO may be guilty of furnishing false
and misleading information to the Complainant. 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 30 October 2009 at
11.00am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on
him as mandated under Section 20 (1). He is also directed to bring all the documentary evidence
with him as described above.
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
29 September 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.) ShG