Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000616
Dated June 2, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Ms.Poonam Dabas
Name of the Public Authority : Doordarshan
Background
1. The Applicant filed a RTI application dt.14.12.09 with the PIO, Prasar Bharati seeking the following
information:
i) the number of awards won by Shri E.Krishna Rao, NC, DD, Hyderabad
ii) Names of the programmes for which he won these awards
iii) When were these programmes produced
iv) Details of the technical staff of Doordarshan involved in the production of these
programmes.
v) To inform the date of shooting and editing of these programmes.
vi) When and where were these programmes telecast. To indicate the date and time of
telecast and the channel on which they were telecast.
vii) How much expenditure was spent by the M/o I&B and Prasar Bharati to send Shri E.Krishna
Rao to collect these awards
viii) How many countries did he visit to collect these awards
ix) How much did he earn as award money? In what currency was the award received? Has
the award money been deposited with the GoI and when?
Dr.P.Madhusudhan Rao, CPIO, DDK, Hyderabad replied on 7.1.10 furnishing detailed point wise
information. Not satisfied with the reply, Applicant filed an appeal dt.10.2.10 with the Appellate
Authority seeking the following clarifications:
i)The information provided against point 1 regarding 5 international awards and 4 national awards
won by Mr. Krishna Rao is contradictory to the Press Release issued by DD dt.9.10.09. It has not
been clarified what happened to the long list of other awards claimed in the Press Release.
ii)Though reply to point (i) states that five international awards have been won, six awards have been
listed in the reply provided
iii)The reply at ‘g’ states 2009 Only proposal. Can a proposal get an international award
iv)Details of technical staff involved in the production of “Gods Own Crops”
v)What is the amount Mr. Krishna Rao has won for various awards and in which currency? Has the
award money been deposited with Prasar Bharati or was he allowed to keep it. If so under what
provision and rules.
The Applicant also sought additional information not sought in the RTI application. On not receiving
any reply, the Applicant filed a second appeal dt.12.3.10 before CIC stating that undue publicity and
professional awards have been claimed to have been conferred on Shri Rao in Official Press Release
by Prasar Bharati resulting in undue advantage to him where service promotions are concerned.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for June 2,
2010.
3. Dr.P.Madhusudhanrao, CPIO, DDK, Hyderabad, Ms.Supriya Sahu, Director (BC), Dr.S.K.Grover,
Appellate Authority, DG:Doordarshan Ms.Shahnaz Yusufzai, DDP, Ms.Manjusha, S.O and Shri
Sanatan, DDA, DG:Doordarshan represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Appellant submitted that correct and complete information were not provided against points 1, 3,
4, 7 and 8. She stated that against point 1, while the information has been provided for only four
International awards details against one are missing. She also wanted to know why the information
provided by the CPIO was about the awards was different to that given in the Press Release. The
Respondents submitted that information provided by the CPIO is correct and that there was a
typographical error in the Press Release. Hence, the Commission directs that with regard to point 1,
the missing details of one International award may be provided by the CPIO. And an affidavit be
furnished by the CPIO to the Commission with a copy to the Appellant stating that information
furnished by the CPIO in respect of the number of awards against point 1 is correct. In view of the
doubts expressed by the Appellant with regard to information provided against points 7, 8, the
affidavit may also include the fact that information provided against these points is correct. The log
sheets against point 4, although not sought by the Appellant either in the RTI application or in the first
appeal may be furnished to her keeping her interest in mind. The Appellant may also be allowed to
inspect the relevant files on a mutually convenient date and time and be provided with attested
copies of documents she requires free of cost .
6. The affidavit should reach the Commission by 2.7.10. The inspection should also be completed by
2.7.10. The Appellant is directed to submit a compliance report to the Commission by 9.7.10.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Poonam Dabas
Doordarshan Bhawan
R.No.510, Mandi House
TowerB
Copernicus Marg
New Delhi
2. The PIO
M/o Information & Broadcasting
‘A’ Wing
Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
M/o Information & Broadcasting
‘A’ Wing
Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi
4. Officer incharge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC