CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000001/6934Adjunct-I
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000001
Complainant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar
B-26, IIT Campus
Kharagpur, West Bengal-721302
Respondent : Mr. A. Patra
Public Information Officer &
Assistant Registrar (Audit)
Indian Institute of Technology
Kahragpur, West Bengal-721 302
Background
:
The complainant had filed a RTI application with the PIO, IIT , Kharagpur on 04/10/2009
asking for certain information. On not having received the information within the mandated time
of 30 days, he filed a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act with the Commission.
On this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the PIO, IIT, Kharagpur on 01/01/2010
with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant and further sought an explanation
for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
Commission’s Order dated 22/02/2010:
The Commission allowed the Appeal on the basis of a letter dated 02/02/2010 from the
PIO, IIT, Kharagpur to the Commission. It was stated therein that information has been provided
to the Complainant vide letter(s) dated 06/01/2010 and 01/02/2010. Further the PIO had given a
written explanation for the delay in providing the information. However, the explanation did not
appear reasonable to the Commission.
Facts leading to the show cause hearing on 19/03/2010:
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
appeared that both 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. It appeared that the PIO’s actions attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action of
Section 20 (1) and (2).A show cause notice was therefore issued to the PIO vide Commission’s
decision dated 22/02/2010 with a direction to serve the same to such person(s) who are
responsible for this delay in providing the information, and direct them to be present before the
Commission along with the respondents.
Relevant Facts During the Show Cause Hearing on 19/03/2010:
“The following were present.
Complainant: Mr. Rajeev Kumar;
Respondent: Mr. A. Patra, Public Information Officer & Assistant Registrar (Audit);
Mr. T. K. Mukherjee, OSD; Mr. T. K. Ghosal, Registrar and FAA;
The RTI application was received by the PIO on 06/10/2009. PIO states that he sought
the assistance of Dr. V. C. Vivekanand, Dean & Professor of Law, Rajiv Gandhi School of
Page 1 of 4
Intellectual Property under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act on 07/10/2009. He sent a reminder on
16/11/2009 to Dr. V. C. Vivekanand to provide the information. The PIO states that on
23/11/2009 Prof. S. Motilal forwarded an Email with a request to cross check the data with
Account Section but the PIO could not open the attachment with the email. After this Dean Prof.
V. C. Vivekananad sent the information on 06/01/2010 which was forwarded to the
Complainant. This information did not provide the actual honorarium paid to the people which
has been originally sought in the RTI Application thus partial information was provided. On
15/01/2010 since the Complainant complained about receiving incomplete information the PIO
requested account section to provide the information and gave a reminder on 01/02/2010 to the
Assistant Registrar Accounts. On 01/02/2010 the amount of honorarium paid to those who
worked in RGSOIPL was provided to Mr. Rajiv Kumar of 48 pages. However, Prof. Rajiv
Kumar points out that this list does no tally with the list earlier provided to him in terms of
names. In the first list Justice Pratap Ray and Mr. Anjan Sen have been mentioned but there
names do not occur in the list showing the honorarium paid. There is a very large number of
names to whom honorarium has been paid which do not occur in the first list. The PIO is asked
to explain these anomalies and give the complete list to the Complainant before 30 March 2010.
From the statement of the PIO it appears that Prof. V. C. Vivekanand was guilty of not
giving the information within the time of 30 days, since his assistance was sought under Section
5(4) by the PIO. Further the PIO knew that the amount of honorarium paid was not supplied to
him and that he should have sought the assistance of the Account Department atleast on
06/01/2010 when he forwarded the list to the Complainant. However, he sought the assistance of
the accounts department on 15/01/2010. Information from a computerized accounts system about
amount paid to people whose names are known should be available within minutes. Yet it is
claimed that the Accounts Department took 15 days and a reminder from the PIO to give this
information. The Commission recommends to the Director of IIT, Kharagpur to train people
within IIT who are dealing with RTI and setup some proper system where people understand
what information is to be given and how can be obtained.
Prof. Rajiv Kumar pointed out to the Commission that Dr. T. K. Ghosal has during the
discussions told Prof. Rajiv Kumar “that by doing this you are cutting your hand”. Prof. Rajiv
Kumar feels that this is a threat. Dr. Ghosal states that it was not intended as a threat.
Adjunct Decision:
The PIO is directed to explain these anomalies and give the complete list to the
Complainant before 30 March 2010
The Director of IIT, Kharagpur is recommended to train people within IIT who are
dealing with RTI and setup some proper system where people understand what information is to
be given and how can be obtained.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the deemed PIO Prof. V. C. Vivekanand within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the deemed 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 deemed 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.
Page 2 of 4
Prof. V. C. Vivekanand will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 19
April 2010 at 4.00pm 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.”
Relevant Facts emerging during Showcause Hearing on 19 April 2010:
Complainant: Mr. Rajeev Kumar;
Respondent: Prof. V. C. Vivekanand, Dean, Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law
(IIT- Kharagpur);
Prof. V. C. Vivekanand has given written submissions in which he has clearly stated that
the RTI application was not received by his office on 06/10/2009 as stated by the PIO. He also
states that he received the RTI application only on 16/11/2009 and he gave the information on
23/11/2009. Prof. V. C. Vivekanand states that he had written on 06/01/2010 to the PIO
mentioning that the information was provided on 23/11/2009 and he states that he again gave the
information duly authenticated. The Respondent also states that the actual amount of honorarium
and other payments is dealt by central accounts department and that this information can only be
provided by the accounts department. He clearly had no role to play in giving information about
the amounts paid to visiting faculty.
He has also submitted to the Commission a letter written by him on 15/03/2010 to the PIO
stating that he had received the RTI application only on 16/11/2009 and sent the information on
23/11/2009. He has clearly mention that though the “office of the PIO has received the RTI
application on 04/10/2009 but for reasons best known by the PIO’s office my office was
intimated only on 16/11/2009.” He has also stated that though he had given the information to
the PIO on 23/11/2009 the same was not sent to the information seeker till 06/01/2010. He has
mentioned in this letter that he should be informed if his presence was required during the
Commission’s hearing on 19/03/2010. The Respondent has sent copies of this letter to the
Director(IIT Kharagpur) and Dr. T. K. Ghosal, Registrar and FAA. The Respondent also alleges
that one Mr. Narayan Chandra Sarbajna (Assistant – Legal Office) had entered the Respondent’s
office at 09.10AM on 17/03/2010 and forcefully searched the drawers to access the seal of
RGSOIPL. He alleges that after procuring the stamp Mr. Sarbajna affixed the stamp on some
papers. He has complained to the Registrar IIT Kharagpur about this on 17/03/2010. He states “a
notice from the PIO was to be issued on 08/03/2010 to come and appear before the office of the
CIC on 19/03/2010. By a note I requested whether I should come along with the respondents or
to travel for office work which was fixed earlier. Dr. Ghosal the Registrar and Respondent in this
case called me on telephone to inform me that RGSOIPL or myself have not delayed any
information and hence would like to apologize for issuing the notice, further he said he will
represent himself and I can travel as per my program. I come to understand from the order that
Respondent had suppressed the fact of my detailed note given on 15/03/2010 and have
implicated me for the delay.” The respondent states that the PIO at the time of the RTI
application was Dr. T. K. Ghosal. It is evident that the statement of the Respondent Prof.
Vivekanand given to the Commission today and the statements of Mr. A. Patra, Public
Information Officer & Assistant Registrar (Audit), Mr. T. K. Mukherjee, OSD and Mr. T. K.
Ghosal, Registrar (FAA) given before the Commission on 19/03/2010 are contradictory. The
Commission is indeed distressed at the fact that the truth is not been revealed before the
Commission.
Page 3 of 4
The Commission will not be able to come to any conclusion in this matter unless Mr. A. Patra,
Public Information Officer & Assistant Registrar (Audit), Mr. T. K. Ghosal, Registrar (FAA) and
Prof. V. C. Vivekanand are present together before the Commission. It is clear that the truth has
not been told before the Commission. The Commission is inquiring into the veracity of the
statements of Mr. A. Patra, Public Information Officer & Assistant Registrar (Audit), Mr. T. K.
Ghosal, Registrar (FAA) and Prof. Vivekanand. The Commission therefore summons all the
three officers to come before the Commission to give evidence so that the Commission can
decide who is liable for the penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act on 24 May 2010 at
4.00PM. All there officers are directed to appear before the Commission on 24 May 2010 at
4.00PM.
Prof. Vivekanad informed the Commission that he will be leaving IIT Kharagpur on 28/04/2010.
In view of this the Commission directs Mr. T. K. Ghosal, Registrar IIT Kharagpur to ensure that
the Air Ticket for coming to Delhi and going back is provided to the Prof. Vivekanad. If Prof.
Vivekanand is not given the Air Ticket he will inform the Commission before 15 May 2010 and
the Commission will assume that Mr. T. K. Ghosal and Mr. Patra are accepting the statements
made by Prof. Vivekanad before the Commission.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
19 April 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(SP)
CC:
To, 1) Prof. V. C. Vivekanand, Dean Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal-721 302 2) Mr. T. K. Ghosal, Registrar and FAA Indian Institute of Technology Kahragpur, West Bengal-721 302 Page 4 of 4