Central Information Commission Judgements

Mrs. Seema Yadav vs Aiims on 16 October, 2009

Central Information Commission
Mrs. Seema Yadav vs Aiims on 16 October, 2009
              Central Information Commission
                                                            CIC/AD/A/2009/000885

                                                             Dated October 16, 2009

Name of the Appellant                    :        Mrs. Seema Yadav

Name of Public Authority                 :        AIIMS


Non compliance of Order in the instant case, dated 19 August, 2009, in the
matter of Ms Seema Yadav versus All India Institute of Medical Sciences


Background

1. The CIC decision dated 19 August, 2009 is as given below:

“……After hearing both sides, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide
the missing information including the amount spent by AIIMS to provide
security for the vehicles parked by AIIMS employees at designated
parking space, to the Applicant, by 19.9.09 and also directs the CPIO to
showcause why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day should not be imposed on
him for not providing the information within the stipulated period. The
CPIO is directed to give a written submission in person on 10th October
2009 at 10.30 am at the CIC….”

2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, heard the matter
on October 16, 2009.

3. The Appellant was not present at the hearing

4. Mr. Attar Singh, CPIO and Mr. Surjeet Singh UDC represented the Public
Authority.

Decision

5. While reviewing the case, the Commission observed that the original RTI request
was filed on 22.1.09 and that Mr. Attar Singh, CPIO, AIIMS had given his
standard interim reply that he gives to all RTI applications on 27.2.09 i.e.
that the requisite information is being collected and that the same would be sent
on a priority basis. During the hearing the CPIO averred orally and also through
his written submission dated 14.10.09, while producing before the Commission
copies of relevant communication, that information was sought from the Deputy
Chief Security Officer of AIIMS, who is the custodian of the information, on
29.1.09 and reminders sent to him on 9.2.09 and 24.2.09 without any success.
As per his submission, in response to the Appellate Authority’s Order dated
4.3.09, 11 reminders were again sent by the CPIO to the Security Officer (copies
of communication submitted to the Commission) and it was only on 14.7.09 that
the Security Officer replied stating that one Mr. Deepak Kumar has been asked to
supply the information at the earliest. However, as is evident from the Applicant’s
appeal to the Commission, no reply was thereafter furnished by the CPIO to the
Appellant as Mr. Deepak Kumar too failed to provide the information till 16.9.09.
The information was provided to the Appellant only on 16.9.09 (8 months after
the RTI request was received), after receiving the CIC’s showcause notice to Mr.
Attar Singh, dated 19.8.09 which was endorsed to the concerned security officer
on 2.9.09, followed by a reminder on 10.9.09. The CPIO complained of non-
cooperation from various officers of Sections/Units of the Institute, who are the
custodians of various information.

6. In the light of the above observation, holding both the Deputy Chief Security
officer and the Security Officer are held responsible for the delay in furnishing the
information under Section 5(5) of the RTI Act, the Commission directs that both
the officers showcause why a penalty of Rs. 250/- per day should not be imposed
on them for not furnishing the information within the period stipulated in the RTI
Act, depite repeated reminders. The explanations to be handed over personally
to Mr. G. Subramanian, Asstt. Registrar CIC by 30 October, 2009.

7. The Commission is also troubled by the flippant attitude of the CPIOs of different
Units/Sections and also of other Officers of AIIMS towards the RTI Act, as is
evident from the frequent delayed responses to RTI requests by them in a
number of cases, and hence directs the Director/Appellate Authority to inform
such custodians of information that malafidely denying or delaying furnishing of
information or knowingly giving incorrect, incomplete or misleading information
or destroyed information will invite a penalty as per provisions of Clause 20(1) of
the RTI Act.

8. The complaint is accordingly disposed of.

(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:

(G.Subramanian)
Asst. Registrar
Cc:

1. Ms. Seema Yadav
H.No. 129/3
Ayurvigyan Nagar
New Delhi -110049

2. Mr. Attar Singh
CPIO-RTI
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
(Legal Cell)
Ansari Nagar
New Delhi

3. The Appellate Authority – RTI
Dept. of Pharmacology
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Ansari Nagar
New Delhi

4. Prof. Ramesh C. Deka
Director
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Ansari Nagar
New Delhi

5. The Dy. Chief Security Officer
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Ansari Nagar
New Delhi

6. The Security Officer
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Ansari Nagar
New Delhi