Central Information Commission
CIC/PB/C/2008/537/AD
Dated January 19, 2009
Name of the Appellant : Mr.B.R.Manhas
Bhagwan Singh Building,
F-301, Lado Sarai,
New Delhi 110 030
Name of the Public Authority : Nehru Memorial Museum &
Library
Background
1. The RTI request was filed on 7.3.08 with the CPIO, Nehru Memorial
Museum and Library seeking the 11 point information with regard to the
Bal Mela organized by NMML in November 2007. The information sought
pertained to the:
i. Quarterly Action Plan for 2007-2008 of the NMML for annual plan
allocation by the Ministry of Culture figuring the organizing of the Bal
Mela.
ii. Complete budget estimate and programme of action prepared before
organizing the Bal Mela.
iii. Names of persons with their bio data appointed as consultants for Bal
Mela, total amount of honorarium paid to them, copy of decision of the
selection committee, names of candidates considered and approval of
the Chairperson and the Executive Council for the same.
iv. The postal address and telephone number/s of the Chairperson of the
NMML.
v. List of activities; copies of letters sent to various firms calling for
quotations and advertisements issued for outsourcing work of Bal Mela
and copies of letters received from different agencies for different
work.
vi. Date of opening of quotations in front of the bidders and list of bidders
with the rates quoted, in terms of requirements as prescribed by the
Central Vigilance Commission.
vii. Total expense incurred in organizing the Bal Mela including complete
break up of the expenditure details with all the items.
viii. Total expenditure on printing posters, number of posters printed,
sold, total amount received out of such sale, number of posters gifted
with names of persons who were gifted and total balance in the hand.
ix. Details of the dinner organized by JNU in connection with the Bal Mela
qua the list of invitees, copy of quotation of rates for providing dinner,
total amount spent on the dinner [including on serving of liquor if
any], approval, if at all, sought from the competent authority for
organizing such dinner.
x. Whether the objectives as envisaged in the Memorandum of
Association of NMML provide for organizing such Bal Mela.
xi. Copy of the memorandum of Association of the NMML.
xii. Details relating to the number of stalls set up in the Bal Mela, money
realized from the stalls by way of rent [if at all],in the event no money
was realized information as to whose decision was it to allow
commercial activity free of cost in the premises of Teen Murti House.
The appellant further sought information of copy of approval, if sought,
from the competent authority and if not sought the reason thereof.
Furthermore information pertaining to the ownership of Teen Murti
House and the monthly rent paid by NMML [if any] to the concerned
owner of the premises.
2. The CPIO replied on 23.4.08 informing that all three RTI applications
filed by the appellant had been received on 10.3.08 were forwarded to
the Administration requesting for supply of information as well as the
relevant files. However, CPIO had not been supplied with either the
required documents or the files even after the expiry of thirty days
despite a reminder sent to Administration.
3. The Appellant filed an Appeal invoking Section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005
on 10.5.08 before the CIC. The CIC vide its letter dated 08.08.08
sought comments from the respondents.
4. The respondent/CPIO submitted the written submission dated
01.09.08 detailing the various correspondences exchanged by the
CPIO with the OSD [Admn.] & Director, NMML. The CPIO explained in
his rejoinder having forwarded the RTI complaint received by his office
on 10.03.2008 to the Administration Division on 11.03.08. This was
followed up by a reminder letter dated 01.04.08 addressed to the CPIO
and another letter dated 07.04.08 addressed to the Director who is
also the First Appellate Authority. The OSD [Admn.] vide his
communication dated 08.04.08 asked the CPIO to inform the Applicant
“to deposit the requisite fees for supply of photocopies of information
sought”. However the subsequent correspondences dated 09.04.08 &
11.04.08 exchanged between the CPIO, OSD [Admn.] and the Director
[First Appellate Authority] only indicated their internal difference of
opinion with respect to the onus of the supply of the information. The
CPIO in his submissions further narrated that such exchange of
correspondences with the other officials of NMML was followed by
appointment of 5 more CPIOs thereby restricting and removing him
from the area of work handled by the answering respondent. The
similar chronology of events was also narrated by the OSD [Admn.] in
his communication dated 28.08.08 addressed to the CIC.
The CPIO in his submissions further narrated that such exchange of
correspondences with the other officials of NMML was followed by
appointment of 5 more CPIOs thereby restricting and removing him
from the area of work handled by the answering respondent.
Upon receipt of the CIC notice, the answering respondent was
informed through the OSD [Admn.] vide communication dated
28.08.08 that the information as sought by the appellant had already
been supplied to him.
5. The Appellant in his Rejoinder dated 10.09.2008 addressed to the
CIC submitted categorically that incomplete information had been
furnished to him in response to his RTI application dated 07.03.08 vide
a communication dated 22.07.08 which is well after a delay of 100
days. Hence the appellant seeks redressal of his grievance in as much
as the respondents have deliberately provided incomplete and belated
information with ulterior motives and are liable to be penalized for the
said action.
6. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner,
scheduled the hearing on January 19, 2009.
7. The CPIO Mr. N. Balakrishnan, Mr. N. Balasubramanian, OSD [Admn.],
Smt. Mridula Mukherjee, the Director & Appellate Authority, NMML and
Mr. Bhuwan Kr. Jha RA-cum-Project Coordinator represented the
Public Authority.
8. The Appellant Mr. B R Manhas was present during the hearing.
Decision
9. The Respondents while placing their arguments submitted the appeal
filed by the appellant on 10.05.08 and received by the Appellate
Authority on 16.05.08. The communication dated 30.06.08 from the
office of the Respondent informing the appellant that the Director had
already instructed the OSD [Admn.] to supply the
information/documents as sought by the Appellant; followed by the
Respondent’s office letter dated 22.07.08 enclosing therewith the
detailed paragraph-wise reply issued by the Respondents addressed to
the Appellant was also submitted during the hearing today. The
Appellant on the other hand submitted his tabular paragraph wise
comments to the said response of the respondents before the
Commission during the hearing.
10. The arguments put forth by the First Appellate Authority was mainly
on the point that they were not in receipt of the Rejoinder of the
Appellant rebutting/commenting on their response dated 22.07.08 and
hence they could not reply to the query of the Appellant nor provide
the required additional information.
11. In view of the facts as were revealed from the aforementioned
submissions of the parties, it emerges that the Respondents could not
supply the information to the complete satisfaction of the appellant
since they were not in receipt of the comments of the appellant
indicating his dissatisfaction. It is apparent from the records and the
submission made hereinabove that the appellant had simultaneously
filed the Appeal under Section 19 before the First Appellate Authority
and the Appeal under Section 20 before the CIC on 10.05.08, the
Respondent Public Authority never got the chance to furnish the
additional information or meet the queries/comments of the appellant.
Hence the Commission is of the opinion that the Appellant may now
file his tabular form of comments in an appropriate manner addressing
the same to the CPIO/AA and seek the redressal by way of supply of
information from the Respondents. Since both the Appellant and the
Respondent are agreeable to explore the possibility, the Commission
taking a lenient view of the alleged delay caused in furnishing of
information by the Respondent Public Authority, hereby directs that
that the matter be remanded back to the First Appellate Authority for
an amicable settlement by furnishing of all requisite information by the
Respondent as sought by the Appellant within a period of 20 days from
the receipt of this order.
12. In the event that the appellant is still dissatisfied with the information
supplied to him by the Public Authority/respondent/NMML herein, he
shall be free to approach the Commission to seek remedy under
provisions of the Section 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005.
13. Appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer
Cc:
1. Mr.B.R.Manhas
Bhagwan Singh Building
F-301, Lado Sarai
New Delhi 110 030
2. The CPIO
Nehru Memorial Museum & Library
Teen Murti House
New Delhi 110 011
3. The Appellate Authority
Ministry of Statistics and
Programme Implementation
Sardar Patel Bhawan
Sansad Marg
New Delhi 110 001
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC