CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002926/5743
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/002926/
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal
Appellant : Mr. Santosh Kumar Mamagain,
Patwari Cum Ameen, HNB Garhwal
University, Srinagar, Distt- Pauri Garhwal,
Uttaranchal.
Respondent : Public Information Officer
Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal
University, Srinagar
Pauri, Garhwal, (Uttarakhand)- 246174.
RTI application filed on : 29/07/2009
PIO replied : 20/08/2009
First appeal filed on : 01/09/2009
First Appellate Authority order : 07/10/2009
Second Appeal filed on : 05/11/2009
Information Sought
a) The seniority list of teaching staff of Garhwal University during the period 1998 to
2008-09.
b) The date of cadre creation of employees, the list of posts in the university and the
nature of reservation applicable to the university.
Reply of the PIO:
A committee has been established to look into this matter and information can only be
provided after the committee comes out with its report.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The FAA directed the PIO to provide complete information to the Appellant within 15
days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Non compliance of orders of FAA. The Appellant did not receive any reply from PIO
even after FAA’s order.
Decision:
The Commission has perused the documents submitted by the Appellant. It is clear from
the documents submitted by the Appellant that the RTI Application was received by the
PIO on 29/07/2009. The PIO replied vide his letter dated 18-20/08/2009 in which he
stated that the information was being prepared for the Appellant and that with regard to
Cadre positions, reservations and seniority list, a Committee had been constituted to
examine the matter and the information would be provided after the Committee had
reached a final decision. The Appellant then filed a First Appeal on 01/09/2009. The First
Appellate Authority passed an order dated 07/10/2009 after a holding a hearing during
which the Appellant and the PIO’s representative Mr. Chandra Lal, Asst. Registrar
(Admn.) and Mr. Harsh Lal, Asst. Superintendent (Admn.) were present. The First
Appellate Authority, Prof. M.S.M. Rawat, observed in his order that no information had
been provided to the Appellant. As the representatives of the PIO stated before him that
the information would be ready in 15 days, the First Appellate Authority directed the PIO
to provide the information to the Appellant within 15 days. He has further observed in his
decision that the order was being issued with the consent of the APIO. However, no
information was provided to the Appellant till the filing of the Second Appeal.
From the contents of the RTI Application, it is clear that the information sought by the
Appellant falls under the ambit of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Furthermore, no
exemption has been claimed by the PIO or his representatives who appeared during the
hearing of the First Appeal and neither has the First Appellate Authority made any
observation to that effect. Furthermore, it is clear from the First Appellate Authority’s
order that the representatives of the PIO had themselves agreed to provide the
information to the Appellant within 15 days. The Commission therefore directs the PIO
to provide the information to the Appellant.
The appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the complete information to the Appellant before 28
December 2009.
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 as he
has not replied within 30 days of receiving the RTI Application. He has also not obeyed
the orders of the First Appellate Authority, despite the fact that his representatives had
themselves consented to the time limit set by the Authority, which 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). A show cause notice is being issued
to him, and he is directed to 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 31 December
2009 at 11.30 a.m. along with his written submissions to show 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 and for not complying with the order of the First Appellate Authority, the PIO
is directed to inform such persons of the show cause hearing on 31 December 2009 and
direct them to appear before the Commission on 31 December 2009 along with him.
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
7 December 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.)
(RR)