CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002364/9518
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/002364
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Karbhari Lahanu Garje,
Gauriputra, 144/4318, Ground Floor,
Kannamwar Nagar-2, Vikhroli East,
Mumbai- 400083
Respondent : Public Information Officer & RPFC- II,
Employees Provident Fund Organisation,
Vardan Commercial Complex, 6th Floor,
M.I.D.C Road, No. 16, Wagle Estate, Thane,
Mumbai- 400 604
RTI application filed on : 23/11/2009
PIO replied on : Not enclosed
First Appeal filed on : 29/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 11/01/2010
Second Appeal received on : 23/08/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought information regarding action taken on the letter no.
MH/PF/BAN/RPFC(C)/Misc./Thane/12 dated 31/12/2003, applicability of PF Scheme to
Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff of Day/Night School in the sates of Maharashtra and
Bhim Jyoti Vidyalaya and Saraswati Naight School, whether the rules as annexed by the
Appellant was referred while applying the PF Scheme, whether the employees could
simultaneously claim the PF and Pension Scheme, report regarding actual disbursement
of pension and PF amount to the employees of said schools, report regarding periodical
calculation of ` 1134074 and relevant copy in this regard and copy of several reports and
letters.
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO):
Not enclosed.
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Non- receipt of the information sought from the PIO within the stipulated time.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
The FAA observed that the letter from the PIO informing the Appellant about xerox
charges for forwarding the copies of the information sought was not forwarded to the
Appellant within a reasonable period of time. The FAA directed the PIO to provide xerox
copies of the documents desired by the Appellant free of cost and the xerox charges of
the documents provided to the Appellant shall be borne by the ACPIO.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
No information was provided by the PIO despite the order of the FAA.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. The FAA has
given a clear order dated 11/01/2010 directing the PIO to provide xerox copies of the
documents desired by the Appellant free of cost and that the xerox charges of the said
documents be borne by the PIO. The Appellant has he been provided with the
information requested for despite the order of the FAA. The Commission therefore
directs the PIO to provide the information requested for by the Appellant. Denial of
information to an Appellant under the RTI Act can only be done if what is sought is not
“information” as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act or is exempt under Section
8(1) of the RTI Act. The PIO has neither claimed that it is not “information” nor has he
claimed that it is exempt under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
The Appeal is allowed. The PIO is directed to provide the complete information
requested by the Appellant before October 20, 2010.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the PIO is guilty of not
furnishing information within the time specified under Section 7(1) by not replying
within 30 days as per the requirement of the RTI Act. He has further refused to obey the
orders of the FAA, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may
also be mala fide. The FAA has clearly ordered the information to be given. It appears
that the actions of the PIO attract the penal provisions of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. A
show cause notice is being issued to him and he is directed to 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 November 24,
2010 at 12:00 pm along with his written submissions showing cause why penalty should
not be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act. 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 and for not
complying with the order of the FAA, the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the
show cause hearing and direct them to appear before the Commission with him.
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 the RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
September 27, 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(GJ)