ORDER
Brief Facts:
1. Shri Bibhav Kumar, Delhi applied to the PIO, Delhi University, on 13.12.2005 under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act for Information pertaining to the operation and maintenance of the Canteen in South Campus of the Delhi University. At the time of application, the Requester had given his address as 85-C, DDA Flats Harinagar, New Delhi. He filed the Appeal with the first Appellate Authority on 17- 01-2006 against deemed refusal. On 23-01-2006 the Appellant intimated the Appellate Authority the change of his address as C/o Kabir, E-169, Shanti Marg, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi. The Appellant was also reportedly in touch with the PIO. On 21-02-2006 some officer writing for the PIO without giving his name or phone number informed the Appellant that the information was not admissible and therefore denied. On the same date another letter was sent to the Appellant on behalf of the PIO that the information being asked for in your said letter on behalf of an institution is not admissible in terms of Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Dissatisfied with the response of the Public Authority, the Appellant filed an Appeal with the Central Information Commission on 16-3- 2006. Notice was accordingly issued on 11-05-2006 for the hearing on 5-06-2006.
2. A bench comprising Dr. O.P. Kejariwal and Dr. M.M. Ansari, Information Commissioners heard the matter. The Appellant appeared in person. The CPIO, Shri A.K. Dubey, neither attended nor was there any intimation from him.
Decision:
3. The Appellant alleged that the PIO had malafidely denied the information. The Commission could not agree with the PIOs contention that the information was sought on behalf of an institution. The Appellant had applied in his own name and had only given his address as that of an NGO for the purpose of correct delivery of post. He had informed the PIO about the change of address. Thus merely giving the address of an NGO does not imply that the institution was asking for the information. Writing of two letters to the Appellant on the same day denying information on flimsy grounds seems to be a hasty action on the part of PIO to invent reasons for denial of information and is clearly malafide in intention. His making inquiries about the status of Kabir was only a clumsy attempt to cover up his delay. The application for information was dated 13.12.2005. The information was to be supplied or denied within 30 days i.e. by 12.1.2006 under Section 7(1) of the Act. Not only the information was denied but even the reply was sent on 21.2.2006 i.e. 38 days after the stipulated date.
4. The Commission hereby directs the PIO, University of Delhi, to supply the Appellant the information asked by him in his application dated 13.12.2005 within 15 days and report compliance within 21 days of the issue of this letter.
5. This order should also be considered as notice to the PIO under first proviso to Section 20 Sub-section (1) of the RTI Act 2005 and he is directed to explain within 21 days from the date of issue of this order as to why a penalty of Rs. 250 per day may not be imposed upon him for the period till the information or a reply was sent to him, in violation of provisions of Section 7 of the Act.
6. The matter is further posted for hearing on 26th July, 2006. Shri Bibhav Kumar, Appellant and Shri A.K. Dubey, CPIO, University of Delhi are directed to appear in person on the date of hearing.