CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000942/10157
Appeal No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000942
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Complainant : Mr. Dinesh Aggarwal
715, Gali Malin,
Hathras - 204101, Uttar Pradesh.
Respondent : Mr. Uday Bakshi
Public Information Officer & Regional PF Commissioner -II
Employee’s Provident Fund Organisation
Regional Office, Nidhi Bhawan, Sec-5,
Jagriti Vihar, Meerut – 250004,
Uttar Pradesh.
RTI application filed on : 24/10/2009 PIO replied : Not replied First appeal filed on : Not appealed Complaint filed on : 11/02/2010 Complaint received on : 02/03/2010 Complaint notice sent on : 16/07/2010 Hearing notice sent on : 21/10/2010 Hearing held on : 25/11/2010 Information Sought:
The Complainant wanted to know the reference of the letter received from the PIO on 19/10/2009 and
further sought a copy of order of the disposal of cases related to Bharat Corporations and Bharat Overseas.
Reply of the PIO:
Not replied.
Ground of the First Appeal:
Not appealed.
Ground of the Complaint:
Non-receipt of proper information from the PIO within the stipulated time under RTI Act.
Submission received from the Complainant:
(After the complaint notice was sent on 16/07/2010)
The Complainant vide his letter dated 16/08/2010 informed the Commission that the reply received from
the on 07/10/2010 was not related to his complaint.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Complainant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. Satya Pal, APFC on behalf of Mr. Uday Bakshi, PIO & RPFC-II;
The Respondent admits that no information had been sent initially to the Complainant in response
to the RTI application of 24/10/2009. He claims that some information about these matters were sent
before the RTI Application has been made.
The Respondent Mr. Satya Pal claims that information has finally been sent to the Complainant on
10/08/2010 by speed post no. 404211. The Respondent claims that the PIO who was responsible at the
time of RTI application was Mr. V. Sagar the then PIO & RPFC.
Decision:
The Complaint is allowed.
The information has been sent to the Complainant.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by Mr. V.
Sagar the then PIO & RPFC within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the then 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.
Mr. V. Sagar the then PIO & RPFC will give his written submissions showing cause why penalty should
not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) before 20 December 2010.
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
25 November 2010
(For any further correspondence in this matter, please quote the file number mentioned above.) (GJ)
CC:
To,
Mr. V. Sagar the then PIO & RPFC through Mr. Uday Bakshi, PIO & RPFC;