CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000784/11703
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000784
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar
12, Suman Villa, Gali No. 6,
Saraswati Colony, Baran Road,
Kota-324006
Respondent : Dr. S. L. Soni
Public Information Officer & Professor
Malviya National Institute of Technology, Jaipur
Mechanical Engineering Department
JLN Marg, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
RTI application filed on : 16/11/2009
PIO replied : Not replied
First appeal filed on : 30/12/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 19/01/2010
Second appeal received on : 22/03/2010
Information Sought:
Please provide Names of the faculty members of MNIT/MREC who have been granted Study Leave
and/or Extra Ordinary Leave (after 1.1.94), and whether the leave period has been counted for
promotion, along with other details as mentioned in proforma attached.
PIO’s reply:
Not replied.
First Appeal:
No reply received from the PIO till today.
Order of the FAA:
“The information related to Study leave during CAS has been sent to you vide letter No:298
Dt:.08.01.20l0 (Copy enclosed). Kindly ensure that you have also enclosed one Performa for seeking
information of faculty members who has been granted study leave or extra ordinary leave after 01.1.94
which is quiet long and scattered. To consolidate this information some more time is needed. The
Department concerned has been instructed to consolidate and prepare the information which will be
sent to you soon.”
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided the information. The First Appellate Authority had said that some more time
needed but not intimated the time by which it will be provided.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Dr. S. L. Soni, Public Information Officer & Professor; Mr. Anshu Saxena, Dealing
Assistant;
The First Appellate Authority (FAA) had clear stated, “To consolidate this information some more
time is needed. The Department concerned has been instructed to consolidate and prepare the
information which will be sent to you soon.” After this the Respondent states that the FAA on
05/03/2010 informed the Appellant “your application had been forwarded to the department
concerned. The department is ready to show the files with them as you are willing to inspect them
actual, but it could not be supplied to you as desired by you in the enclosed proforma, as per office
memorandum no. 11/2/2008-IR dated 10/07/2008 informed by the department. The Appellant had not
inspected the records.
It is very curious that after the FAA gave an order on 19/01/2010 stating that he had instructed the
department to consolidate and prepare information, he suddenly decided on 05/03/2010 that the
information could not be provided in the format sought by the appellant. The then PIO had also not
provided any information or given any reasons for not providing information to the Appellant. It
appears to show that the FAA did not consult any one and had no knowledge of what order he was
issuing on 19/01/2010.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as promised by the FAA to the
Appellant before 30 April 2011.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
then PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it appears 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. He has further refused to obey the orders of his superior
officer, which raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First
Appellate Authority has clearly ordered the information to be given. 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 will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 25 April 2011 at
11.30am 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.
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
26 March 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (SM)
CC:
To, the then PIO through Dr. S. L. Soni, Public Information Officer & Professor;