CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000731/11312
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000731
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar
R/o B – 26, IIT Campus
Kharagpur, WB – 721302
Respondent : Dr. A. Patra
Public Information Officer & Assistant Registrar
Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, West Bengal – 721302
RTI application filed on : 04/10/2009
PIO replied : 16/11/2009
First appeal filed on : 26/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order : not mentioned.
Second Appeal received on : 19/03/2010 Notice of Hearing sent on : 27/12/2010 Hearing held on : 05/02/2011 Information Sought
One copy each of all the communications, personal and officials, received from — individuals.
public/government officials and others — in hard-copy as well as through emails. and the action taken
report (ATR) including responses and tile notings — contents and name and designation of the officer
making the response/noting — which were handled by III Kharagpur’s Administration (including
Chairman, Board-of-Governors. Director, Deans, and Registrar) related to the matter of SEE 2006.
starting from June 2006 till day.
a. Kindly include all those communications also for which even no action was taken and which
were related to JEE 2006.
b. However, kindly do not supply those communications, which were received with request for
supply of information under RTI Act.
Reply of the PIO
“With reference to the above, it is hereby informed that there is no JEE-2006 related communications,
personal and official available in the office files except the communications received under RTT Act.
The Institute has noted the contents as mentioned hereunder in your RTI Application dated
04.10.2009:”
First Appeal:
The information provided by the PIO is delayed and misleading and incorrect.
Page 1 of 3
Order of the FAA:
Not mentioned.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The Appellant is aggrieved with the information supplied by the PIO. He believes the same is
incomplete and incorrect and delayed. The FAA has also not taken any decision on the appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar;
Respondent : Dr. A. Patra, PIO & Assistant Registrar; Brig, A. K. Joshi, Consultant; Mr. Rajan Kr.
Sarkar, Visiting Law Officer;
The Appellant had sought information about all the communications relating to JEE-
2006 and the then PIO after 44 days replied that there are no communications relating to JEE-2006.
The appellant has alleged that false information was given to him. He has produced before the
Commission a communication from Mr. Puran Singh, Director MHRD address to the Director IIT
Kharagpur, another communication from Mr. Yatendra Kumar, Under Secretary. MHRD dated
07/07/2008 addressed to IIT Kharagpur and four replies to Rajya Sabha on the issue of JEE-2006. The
Respondents agree that these are communication which would be covered by the query sought by the
Appellant but are unable to explain why the then PIO Dr. T. K. Ghosal gave such false answer. The
Commission is surprised pained and horrified at this complete falsehood to which the PIO of one of
India’s leading education institutes has resorted to.
It appears to the Commission that false information has been given knowingly by the then PIO
Dr. T. K. Ghosal. IIT Kharagpur has asked Fox Mandal & Associates to represent it in this case and
the three respondents who have come are clueless as to why false information has been provided.
Public money and interest could have been better served if Dr. Ghosal who is officiating registrar had
appeared before the Commission in this matter.
The Appellant states that he will be satisfied if he receives all the information which he has
sought in the offices of Chairman Board of Governors, Director, Chairman-JEE and Registrar.
The Appellant also informed the Commission that he has been threatened, harassed and
victimized by the Director, Deans and the Registrar of IIT Kharagpur since he is filing RTI
applications and exposing certain wrong doing.
Mr. Rajan Kr. Sarkar, Visiting Law Officer states that he denies these allegations and states
that there have been no threats issued to Prof. Rajeev Kumar.
The Commission directs Additional Superintendent of Police, Kharagpur to ensure that proper
security is provided to the Appellant Prof. Rajeev Kumar after making an assessment of the threats
that Prof. Rajeev Kumar states he has been receiving. If any physical harm comes to Prof. Rajeev
Kumar the Police will be held responsible for not having performed their duty.
The Commission also requests Chairman, Board of Governors, IIT Kharagpur to inquire into
the allegations made by Prof. Rajeev Kumar and take appropriate action if required.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
Page 2 of 3
The present PIO Dr. A. Patra, Assistant Registrar is directed to provide the
complete information to the Appellant before 01 March 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of supplying false information by the then PIO Dr. T. K.
Ghosal.
From the facts before the Commission it appears that the PIO is guilty of supplying false information.
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.
The then PIO Dr. T. K. Ghosal will present himself before the Commission at the above address on
17 March 2011 at 11.30am alongwith his written submissions showing cause why penalty should not
be imposed on him as mandated under Section 20 (1) and disciplinary action should not be
recommended against him as per Section 20(2) of the RTI Act. He will also bring the information
sent to the appellant as per this decision and submit speed post receipt as proof of having sent
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
05 February 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (AM)
CC;
To,
1- Additional Superintendent of Police
Kharagpur, West Midnapore,
West Bengal
2- Chairman
Chairman, Board of Governors,
IIT Kharagpur,
Kharagpur, West Bengal
3- Dr. T. K. Ghosal
Officiating Registrar & the then PIO
IIT Kharagpur,
Kharagpur, West Bengal
Page 3 of 3