CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building, Opposite Ber Sarai Market,
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067.
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No.CIC/SG/A/2009/003155/6344
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/003155
Appellant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Mamagain,
Patwari Cum Ameen,
H.N.B. Garhwal University Srinagar,
Distt.- Pauri Garhwal,
Uttaranchal
Respondent : Prof. H.B.Thapliyal, Registrar
Public Information Officer
H.N.B. Garhwal University
Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal,
Uttarakhand-246174
RTI application filed on : 27/08/2009
PIO replied : Not mentioned
First Appeal filed on : 07/10/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 15/10/2009
Second Appeal Received on : 15/12/2009
Information sought:
Appellant sought information regarding action taken by the University on letter No.
99/xxiv(6)/2009 dated 12/02/2009 of Education Section-6, Uttarakhand administration in
which Under Secretary to Governor and administration were directed to take action after
proper examination. The Appellant had also sought inspection of the relevant
correspondence in compliance to the said order.
PIO’s Reply:
Not enclosed.
Grounds for First Appeal:
Information not provided.
Order of the First Appellate Authority:
PIO was directed to provide information as per RTI Application.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
No information provided despite the FAA’s order.
Decision:
It appears that no information has been provided to the appellant. Even after the order of
the First Appellate Authority on 18/11/2009 no information was provided to the
appellant. Hence it appears that the FAA’s order has also not been implemented.
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the appellant
before 30 January 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 complete 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. He has
further refused to obey the orders of his superior officer, which raises a reasonable doubt
that the denial of information may also be malafide. The First Appellate Authority has
clearly ordered the information to be given.
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 9 February 2010
at 4.00pm 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.
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
11 January 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)Rnj