CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000133/SG/13243
Complaint No. CIC/SM/C/2011/000133/SG
Relevant facts emerging from the Complaint:
Complainant : Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha,
Flat No.113, Type-IV,
CGO Quarters, I-Belvedere Estate,
Alipore, Kolkata- 700027
Respondent : Mr. A. K. Haldar
PIO & Administrative Officer,
National Library, Belvedere,
Kolkata-700027
RTI application filed on : 12.07.2010
Reply of the PIO : No reply
Complaint filed on : 07.02.2011
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
The Complainant filed a RTI application dated 12.07.2010 with the Administrative Officer, National
Library, Kolkata, seeking information regarding his complaint vide letters dated 12.04.2010 and
18.05.2010, against Saibal Chakraborty- Lower Division Clerk, Iswar Lal Sharma- Library Clerk, K.
Sudhakar- Library & Information Assistant and Subrata Ray- Library & Information Assistant,
National Library, Kolkata for consequent action upon theft, deliberate interference in discharge of
Govt. duty, unauthorised possession of Office file, criminal act of physical assault and threat.
Information sought was as follows:
1. Whether the competent Authority of the National Library lodged complaint/FIR against above
mentioned officials? If yes, then copy of the FIR, and if not then the reasons for not doing the
same.
2. Whether his application on the above matter dated 18.05.2010 addressed to the Secretary,
Ministry of Culture, New Delhi was forwarded by the National Library? If yes, then photocopy
of the same. If not, then reasons for not forwarding.
3. Photocopy of the Letter(s) from Ministry and other Office on the aforesaid matter received in
the National Library and its reply sent by the National Library.
The complainant did not receive any reply from the PIO/Administrative Officer even after lapse of 30
days.
Aggrieved by the delay, he made an appeal to the First Appellate Authority on 13.08.2010. He was
provided a memorandum dated 13.10.2010 in response to his appeal, wherein he was provided with
the copy of the office order no. 849, dated 11.10.2010, setting up an Enquiry Committee to look into
the untoward incident involving the people he has queried about. He was also provided with the
photocopies sought by him in regard to his correspondence with the Ministry of Culture, New Delhi.
However, the complainant found information furnished misleading and incomplete and approached the
Central Information Commission for the same.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Complainant: Absent;
Respondent : Mr. A. K. Haldar, PIO & Administrative Officer;
The Complainant had sought fairly simple information by his three queries. The respondent is
not able to show any information which may have been provided to the Complainant. The respondents
are showing different papers but are not able to establish how these are information regarding the three
queries sought by the Complainant. It is evident that information has not been supplied to the
Complainant and the respondents state that an inquiry committee has been formed. Effectively the
respondent is stating that no FIR has been filed and this is the information that should have been
provided to the Complainant as regards query-1. If there were any reasons for not filing the FIR this
should have been provided. As regards query-2 the PIO was only expected to inform the Complainant
whether his application of 18/05/2010 had been forwarded to the Secretary Ministry of Culture or not.
Similarly quert-3 was very simple.
Decision:
The Complaint is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to all the three queries to
the Complainant before 15 July 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which
raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate
Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given.
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 03 August 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
04 July 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SB)