CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003089/10562
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003089
Relevant Facts
emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Anju
100/26, Sant Nirkari Colony,
Delhi-9
Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav
Public Information Officer & RPFC-II
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation
Ministry of Labour, Govt. Of India,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Plot # 28,
Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi-110052
RTI application filed on : 05/06/2010
PIO replied : 02/07/2010
First appeal filed on : 19/07/2010
First Appellate Authority order : 06/10/2010
Second Appeal received on : 02/11/2010
Information Sought:
The Appellant had sought information regarding the particulars of the initial investigation report with
respect of Sant Nirkari Mandal records. The query is as followed:
1. Kindly provide with the authorities involved in the initial investigation of Sant Nirkari Mandal.
Also the names and other details of such Authorities.
2. Mention the time period for the investigation to take place after the complaint was filed.
3. Provide with the number of departments in Sant Nirkari Mandal as provided in the records of
investigation. Also the number of employees in every department.
4. As per the records, kindly mention the working hours of the employees. Also, provide the names
and details of the employees who have funds, etc. deposited.
5. Mention the action, if any, taken against the departments of the above mentioned after the
complaint had been filed. Also provide with reports of any such actions.
6. provide with the address of Head Quarters of Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation.
Reply of the PIO:
PIO replied that the information sought is in the form of question, thereby no information can be
henceforth provided.
First Appeal:
Unsatisfactory reply given by the PIO.
Order of the FAA:
The PIO was ordered to furnish information to the appellant within 20 days.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
Unsatisfactory information provided by PIO to the appellant after an uncalled for delay.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present
Appellant : Absent;
Respondent : Mr. S. P. Puri, Accounts Officer on behalf of Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Public Information
Officer & RPFC-II;
The respondent shows that after the order of the FAA he has sent the information to the Appellant
by speed post receipt no. ED457654981IN on 07/10/2010 and this has been delivered on 08/10/2010. It
appears that the information has been provided to the Appellant. The PIO is warned not to refuse
providing information on flimsy grounds that a question has been asked. Refusal of information can only
be permitted it is covered under the exemptions of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Appeal is disposed.
The information appears to have been provided.
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
22 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (PBR)