CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000028/SG/9126
Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2009/000028/SG
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Chandra Saini
S/o Mr. Prabhu Dayal
Village – Milak Noukhreed Teh Swar
District – Rampur, U.P
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Sub – Regional Office
2nd Floor, Khurana Complex,
Opposite Judges Courts, Nainital Road,
Haldwani, Uttrakhand – 263141.
RTI application filed on : 04/07/2009 PIO replied : 27/07/2009 First appeal filed on : 13/10/2009 First Appellate Authority order : Not enclosed Second Appeal received on : 26/10/2009 Information Sought
The Appellant sought information regarding National Security Firm-
• Has the mentioned company been registered with the PF in Haldwani? If yes, please provide the
registration number and the address of the head quarters of the company.
• Certified copy of the list of officials who have been given PF accounts in the past one year?
• Has a PF account been maintained under the Appellant’s name through the company? If yes, then
please provide the PF no. and the amount of money deposited in the account.
• What actions are taken against the mentioned firm if the mentioned firm is not registered by the
appellant?
• If the head of the mentioned company has not deposited the PF amount of its Employees in their
respective accounts, then what actions are taken against him?
Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)
The information sought by the appellant was denied on the ground that it was not information as defined
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and was also covered by the exemption of Section 8(1)(j).
Grounds for the First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory Information provided by the PIO.
Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
No order passed by the FAA.
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory Information provided by the PIO and No order passed by the FAA.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
Both the parties were given an opportunity for hearing through Video Conference. However, neither party
appeared. From a perusal of the papers it appears that the denial of information by the PIO was bad in law.
The PIO has not given any reasoning as to how the information sought would be exempt under Section
8(1)(j). The Commission also does not see how the PIO contends that what is being sought is not
information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The information about whether a firm has been
registered with the department or not is certainly information which would be available on the records.
Whether a firm has deposited PF or not would again be a matter of record. Hence the PIO’s contention
that the information sought is not information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act appears to be
motivated by a desire to deny the information to the appellant.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information as per the records to the appellant
before 20 September 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 is apparent that 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 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.
He will present himself before the Commission at the above address on 08 October 2010 at 2.30pm
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
30 August 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(YM)