Central Information Commission Judgements

Mrs.Santosh Yadav vs Ministry Of Health And Family … on 9 September, 2011

Central Information Commission
Mrs.Santosh Yadav vs Ministry Of Health And Family … on 9 September, 2011
                      CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                          Club Building (Near Post Office)
                        Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                               Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                   Decision No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001394/SG/145047
                                                            Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2011/001394/SG

Relevant facts emerging from the Appeal:

Appellant                            :      Mrs. Santosh Yadav,
                                            Plot No. C 54 A, Flat No B- 805,
                                            Royal towers, Sector - 61,
                                            Noida.

Respondent                           :      Mr. S. N. Sharma
                                            CPIO & Under Secretary
                                            Nursing Division
                                            Ministry of health & family welfare,
                                            Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi

RTI application filed on             :      17/03/2011
PIO replied on                       :      13/04/2011
First Appeal filed on                :      25/04/2011
First Appellate Authority order on   :      12/05/2011
Second Appeal received on            :      31/05/2011

Sl.                      Information Sought                                     Reply of PIO
1. Please provide the copy of letter under which the designation      Concerned PIO replied that the
    of Mrs. Geeta Malik has been changed from the post of             information cannot be provided as
    superintendent to the post of PNO as per ministries order no.     it is exempted under section 8(1)
    A.11012/23/1999-N dated 28/10/2009. Inspection of the             of the RTI Act, 2005.
    relevant files may be given.
2. Kindly provide the rule under which the same has been carried      Same as response to query 1.
    out.

Grounds for the First Appeal:
Reply of the PIO was dissatisfactory as he had refused to provide the information.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
According to the order of FAA the reply of PIO was upheld.

Ground of the Second Appeal:
Information furnished by the PIO & the FAA's order was not satisfactory.

Relevant Facts

emerging during Hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent;

Respondent: Mr. S. N. Sharma, CPIO & Under Secretary;

The then PIO Mrs. Aparna Sharma, Director refused to give the information claiming
exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without explaining how Section 8(1)(h) would apply.
Consequently no information was provided. The FAA has also upheld the order of the PIO without
assigning any reasons. The Right to Information is a fundamental right of citizens and if a PIO claims
exemption from disclosure of information some justification has to be given as to how exemption
applies, failing which the penal provisions of Section 20(1) would be applied. No justification has
been offered by the respondent for the denial of information during the hearing.
Decision:

The Appeal is allowed.

The PIO Mr. S. N. Sharma is directed to facilitate an inspection of the relevant
files by the Appellant on 27/09/2011 from 10.30AM onwards. The PIO will give
attested photocopies of records which the Appellant wants free of cost upto 100 pages
related to the application.

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
09 September 2011
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number. (NS)