CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000680/8968
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2010/000680
Complainant : Mr. Ranjeet Mathur,
A- 206, Kundanbagh Apartments,
Begumpeth,
Hyderabad- 500016
Respondent : Mr. N. B. Adurkar,
Central Public Information Officer &
RPFC- I,
Plot No. 222, Sector- 3,
Charkop Market, Charkop Poisar Road,
Kandivali (West), Mumbai- 400067
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
The Complainant filed a RTI application with the CPIO & RPFC- I, EPFO, New Delhi on 08/03/2010
through the office of Senior Postmaster, Secunderabad seeking certain information. The RTI
application was received by the CPIO, EPFO, New Delhi on 12/03/2010. The RTI application was
forwarded to the CPIO & RPFC- I, EPFO, Bandra (East), Mumbai and CPIO & RPFC- I, EPFO,
Kandivali (West), Mumbai on 26/03/2010. The RTI application was received at the office of CPIO &
RPFC- I, EPFO, Bandra (East) on 31/03/2010 and forwarded to CPIO & RPFC- I, EPFO, Kandivali
(West) on 07/04/2010 on the basis that the information sought was closely related to and held by
EPFO, Kandivali (West).
However, on not receiving the information within the mandated time, a Complaint dated 11/05/2010
was filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act which was received by the Commission on 24/05/2010. On
this basis, the Commission issued a notice to the CPIO & RPFC- I, EPFO, Bandra (East) on
25/05/2010 with a direction to provide the information to the Complainant before 19/06/2010 and an
explanation for not furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission received a letter dated 21/06/2010 from the CPIO & RPFC- I, EPFO, Kandivali
(West) stating that information was provided to the Complainant vide letter dated 16/06/2010. The
CPIO stated that the RTI application was received at his office on 26/04/2010. The CPIO asked the
concerned officer to provide the requisite information on 28/04/2010, which was followed by
reminders on 13/05/2010, 31/05/2010 and 15/06/2010.
Observations:
On perusal of the papers, the Commission observed that no information was provided in relation to
queries 2 and 5 of the RTI application. Further, the information provided in relation to query 4 does
not appear to be satisfactory. Moreover, the Commission was not provided with any documentary
evidence to justify the delay on the part of the CPIO in providing the information sought.
Decision:
The Complaint is allowed. The CPIO/ RPFC- I, EPFO, Kandivali (West) is directed to provide
specific response to queries 2, 4 and 5 to the Complainant before September 3, 2010.
Further, the issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by the
CPIO/ RPFC- I within 30 days as required by the law. From the facts before the Commission it is
apparent that the CPIO/ RPFC- I is guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under
Section 7(1) by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act. It appears that the
CPIO’s actions attract the penal provisions and disciplinary action of Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the
RTI Act. Mr. N. B. Adurkar, the CPIO/ RPFC- I, EPFO, Kandivali (West) is therefore directed to
submit a written explanation along with documentary evidence that he seeks to rely on, to show cause
as to why penalty should not be imposed and disciplinary action be recommended against him under
Sections 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act before September 18, 2010.
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
August 13, 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)(DG)