CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No.2872/ICPB/2008
F. No. PBC/2008/063
October 6, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 18
[Hearing at Chandigarh on 24.9.2008 at 12.45 p.m.]
Appellant: Mr. Sunil Dutt Sharma
Public authority: Post Graduate Inst. of Medical Education & Research
Mr. H.R. Sharma, CPIO
Prof. Vinay Sakhuja, Appellate Authority
Parties Present: For Respondent:
Mr. H.R. Sharma, CPIO
Appellant not present.
DECISION
The appellant as a President of P.G.I. Employees Union, Chandigarh has
requested information under RTI Act by his letter dated 5.9.2007 addressed to
CPIO, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh
(“PGIMER”) requesting information pertaining to case referred to Central
Vigilance Commission and cases referred by Central Vigilance Commission to
Director, Vigilance, PGIMER for conducting investigation, and providing a copy of
the investigation report made by the CVO, PGIMER, and action taken report in
the cases where certain irregularities have been proved. The CPIO vide letter
dated 20.9.2007 informed the appellant his application under RTI Act would not
be entertained since he has filed this application as President of a Union and
Union/associations cannot be treated as citizen under section 3 of RTI Act.
Therefore he could not entertain his application. However, he had advised the
applicant in case if he files his application in individual capacity it will be
entertained. Since the appellant is not satisfied with the reply given by the CPIO
he has filed this appeal before the Commission on 8.10.2007. In the appeal he
has stated the CPIO has provided the same information to another appellant
whereas it has been denied to him malafidely and therefore action should be
taken against the CPIO. Comments were called for from the CPIO, which was
received from CPIO on 28.3.2008. This case was taken up for hearing on
24.9.2008, which was attended by the CPIO in person. The appellant did not
attend the hearing.
DECISION:
2. I have gone through the RTI application as well as replies received in this
connection. It is a fact the CPIO has not provided information to the appellant
1
since he has used official pad of the Union and he has concluded Union Office
bearers as such cannot be treated as ‘citizen’ under section 3 of the RTI Act and
therefore he could not provide the information. The same information has been
sought by another official of the PGIMER in his individual capacity, which was
provided to him. When the appellant has filed second appeal before the
Commission and when the Commission has called for his comments, the
PGIMER has come across with the decision taken by the Commission by which
the Commission has taken a consistent view in respect of companies, firms,
association of firms, directors, partners, office-bearers of trade-union respectively
can seek information under RTI Act in the name of the company, firm and the
association of firm even though these entities may not be construed as citizen in
terms of RTI Act. This is with a view to ensure that the beneficial provisions of
RTI Act are not denied on restricted definition based on which the CPIO has
informed the appellant that he can provide the information after the payment of
fees for which the appellant has not responded till date. Therefore, there is no
denial of information on the part of the CPIO nor he has refused information
malafidely. Since he has interpreted the RTI application as per the definition of
section 3 and at a later date he has come across with the decisions taken by the
Commission and therefore he has come forward to provide the information.
Therefore, I consider the CPIO has disposed of the application satisfactorily and I
close the appeal. Since the appellant has not responded in either way and if he
feels this he should receive information free of cost he has to provide proper
justification to the CPIO why this information should be given to him free of cost.
Without that he is not entitled for this information. I, therefore, reject the appeal.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Mr. H.R. Sharma, CPIO, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education &
Research, Nehru Hospital, PGIMER Chandigarh, Sector-12, Chandigarh-
160012
2. Prof. Vinay Sakhuja, Appellate Authority, Post Graduate Institute of
Medical Education & Research, Nehru Hospital, PGIMER Chandigarh,
Sector-12, Chandigarh-160012
3. Mr. Sunil Dutt Sharma, President, PGI Employee Union, (Group B, C & D
Employees), Sector-12, PGIMER, Chandigarh.
2