Central Information Commission
2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110 066
Website: www.cic.gov.in
Decision No.4282/IC(A)/2009
F. Nos.CIC/MA/C/2009/000216, CIC/MA/C/2009/000217
CIC/MA/C/2009/000218
Dated, the 10th August, 2009
Name of the Appellant: Shri. CMA Ramesh Moreshwar Joshi
Name of the Public Authority: The Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of
India (ICWAI)
i
Facts
:
1. Both the parties were heard on 7/8/2009.
2. The appellant has asked for certain information through separate
applications dated 5/12/2008 and 5/2/2009. He has alleged that the CPIO of the
respondent has not furnished the information. Hence, these complaints before
the Commission.
3. During the hearing, the appellant pleaded for imposition of penalty u/s
20(1) of the Act, and award of compensation for unnecessary harassment to
him. The CPIO pleaded for grant of at least three weeks’ time for providing
complete information to the complainant.
Decision:
4. The appellant has asked for huge information through different
applications. Since he did not receive any response from the respondent, he has
submitted three separate complaints before the Commission.
5. The complainant is advised to prepare and re-submit a comprehensive
list of required information to the CPIO, who should furnish a point-wise response
within one month from the date of receipt of fresh application. If any information
is to be refused u/s 8(1) of the Act, the grounds for doing so should be clearly
indicated for review, if necessary, by the Commission.
i
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get.” – Mahatma Gandhi
1
6. The complainant should ensure that the required information is clearly
specified as per Section 2(f) of the Act, which requires that the information should
be available in any material form.
7. The RTI applications dated 5/12/2008 and 5/2/2009 have not been replied
within the stipulated period of 30 days. The CPIO is held responsible for violation
of section 7(1) of the Act. The CPIO should therefore show cause as to why
penalty @ Rs.250/- per day, up to a maximum of Rs.25,000/-, u/s 20(1) of the
Act, should not be imposed on him for deemed refusal of the information without
any reasonable cause. The President of the respondent or its nominee should
also indicate as to why a suitable compensation u/s 19(8)(b) of the Act should not
be awarded to the appellant for unnecessary harassment in seeking the
information.
8. The explanations sought for as above under para-7 should be submitted
within one month from the date of issue of this decision. The CPIO and the
President or his nominee should appear for a personal hearing in the matter on
23rd September 2009 at 12.45 p.m., failing which penalty would be imposed and
compensation would be awarded as per the provisions of the Act. The appellant
may also be present.
9. With these observations, all the complaints are disposed of.
Sd/-
(Prof. M.M. Ansari)
Central Information Commissioner ii
Authenticated true copy:
(M.C. Sharma)
Assistant Registrar
Name & address of Parties:
1. Sh. CMA Ramesh Moreshwar Joshi, 208 Bee Jumbo Darshan Society,
Kol Dongari Road 2, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400 069.
2. Sh. Sudhir Galande, CEO & CPIO, The Institute of Cost and Works
Accountants of India, 12 Sudder Street, Kolkata – 700 016.
3. The Appellate Authority, The Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of
India, 12 Sudder Street, Kolkata – 700 016.
4. The President, The Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India, 12
Sudder Street, Kolkata – 700 016.
ii
“All men by nature desire to know.” – Aristotle
2