CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Near Post Office
Opp. Ber Sarai Market, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110067.
Tel : + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000320/3502
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000320
Complainant : Mr. Ramesh Kumar
C/o Dr. Rajesh Tiwary
C/c-89, P.C. Colony, PS Kankarbagh
P.O. Kankarbagh, Distt- Patna, Bihar
Respondent 1 : Public Information Officer,
Indira Gandhi National Open University
Maidan Garhi, New Delhi
Respondent 2 : Dr. Ram Chandra
Regional Director
IGNOU Regional Centre
2nd Floor, BISCOMAUN Tower
West Gandhi Maidan,Patna- 800 001
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
Mr. Ramesh Kumar had filed a RTI application with the PIO at the Indira Gandhi
National Open Univeristy, Maidan Garhi, New Delhi on 24/01/2009 asking for certain
information. Since no reply was received within the mandated time of 30 days, she had filed a
complaint under Section 18 to the Commission.
The Commission issued a notice to the PIO on 16/04/2009 asking him to supply the
information by 11/05/2009 and sought an explanation for not furnishing the information within
the mandated time. The Respondent 1 has informed the Commission vide letter dated 14/05/2009
that, “Sir, I would like to clarify that Student Evaluation Division had advised the IGNOU
Regional Director at Patna (who is also a PIO and dealing with the subject) on 18th March, 2009
to forward the requisite information to the complainant. A copy of this communication was sent
to the complainant also. It appears that, the Regional Director, Patna has not been able to do the
needful within the mandated time.”
Decision:
The Complaint is allowed.
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 respondent2 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 raises a reasonable doubt that
the denial of information may also be malafide. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the penal
provisions of Section 20 (1).
The PIO is directed to give written explanation to show cause why penalty should not be
levied on him under section 20 (1) of the RTI act, for defying the provisions of the Act.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
May 29, 2009
(Please refer to the above mentioned decision number in case of any further communication)