CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. 415, 4th Floor,
Block IV, Old JNU Campus,
New Delhi - 110067
Tel : + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2008/00209/1921
Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2008/00209
Complainant : Mr. S.C Mathew
46, 1st Main, Ganganagar Extn.
Bangalore-560032
Respondent : Assistant Secretary & P.I.O.
Council for the Indian School Certificate Exams
Pragati House, 3rd Floor, 47-48,
Nehru Place, New Delhi - 110019
Facts
arising from the Complaint:
Mr. Rajendra Singh Bhatti, had filed a RTI application with the PIO on 18/07/2008
asking for certain information. Since no reply was received within the mandated time of 30 days,
he had filed a complaint under Section 18 to the Commission. The Commission issued a notice
to the PIO on 05/01/2009 asking him to supply the information and sought an explanation for not
furnishing the information within the mandated time.
The Commission has neither received a copy of the information sent to the complainant,
nor has it received any explanation from the PIO for not supplying the information to the
complainant. Therefore, the only presumption that can be derived is that the PIO has deliberately
and without any reasonable cause refused to give information as per the provisions of the RTI
Act. His failure to respond to the Commission’s notice shows that he has no reasons for the
refusal of information.
Decision:
The Complaint is allowed.
The PIO will send the complete information to the complainant before March 20, 2009.
The PIO’s action clearly amounts to denial of information without any reasons. The PIO is
therefore, asked to submit a written explanation showing cause as to why penalty should not be
imposed and disciplinary action be recommended against him under Section 20 (1) & (2) of the
RTI Act before March 25, 2009.
If the information has already been supplied to the complainant, furnish a copy of the
same to the Commission with your written submission.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
February 23, 2009
(For any case correspondence pertaining to this decision, mention the complete decision number.)