Loading...

Mr.Ram Chander vs Registrar Cooperative Society, … on 30 March, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mr.Ram Chander vs Registrar Cooperative Society, … on 30 March, 2011
                       CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                           Club Building (Near Post Office)
                         Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                Tel: +91-11-26161796
                                                         Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000215/11740
                                                                 Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/000215
Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                            :       Mr. Suresh Singh
                                             Jharkhand Nagar,
                                             Near Shishu Gyan Mandir
                                             PO Hehal Distt. Ranchi

Respondent                           :       Ms. Sarojini Rane
                                             Public Information Officer & RPFC-II

Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan,
14, Bhikaji Cama Place
New Delhi – 110066

RTI application filed on : 09/11/2010
PIO replied : Not mentioned.

First appeal filed on                :       Not Available
First Appellate Authority order      :       26/11/2010 & 07/01/2011
Second Appeal received on            :       21/01/2011

Information Sought:

The present RTI application pertains to receipt of copy of original answer sheets of two students. The
roll no. of the both the students are JH/076 and DL/0162. The roll no. of the applicant is JH/076.

Reply of the Public Information Officer
Answer sheets of the appellant were sent after the order dated 26/11/2010 of the First Appellate
Authority FAA stating that the answer sheets be supplied only of the candidate seeking them and not
others.

Reasons for First Appeal:

Not available

Order of the First Appellate Authority:

Disposed off, as copies of answer sheets of the applicant were supplied.

Ground of the Second Appeal:

Reply was unsatisfactory

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present
Appellant: Mr. Suresh Singh on video conference from NIC-Ranchi Studio;
Respondent: Ms. Sarojini Rane, Public Information Officer & RPFC-II;

The Appellant had asked for a photocopy of his own answersheet as well as of on other person.
The PIO states that the answersheet of the Appellant has been provided but the answersheets of other
candidates has not been provided since the department does not have adequate man powers and
facilities. The RTI Act has been made by Parliament and all PIOs have to provide information as per
the act. Unless any specific exemption of Section-8(1) of the RTI Act applies information has to be
provided. Not providing information on the claim that facilities are not available is a denial of the
fundamental right of citizens. The PIO is warned to ensure that unless any information is exempt under
Section-8(1) of the RTI Act it has to be provided within the 30 days period mandated in the RTI Act.
The PIO will represent to the head of the department in case she feels that she does not have adequate
resources.

Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO is directed to provide attested photocopies of the answersheets sought by
the Appellant before 05 April 2011.

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
30 March 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (RP)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information