CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
No. CIC/OK/A/2006/00050
Dated, the 22nd August, 2006
Name of Appellant: Shri Bibhav Kumar
E-169, Shanti Marg, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi
Name of Public Authority: University of Delhi, Delhi
ORDER
Brief Facts:
In response to Commission’s Notice No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00050 dated 31st July, 2006 in the Bibhav Kumar Vs. PIO, Delhi University case, hearing was held on 11th August, 2006. The Commission heard explanation of Registrar, University of Delhi, for delay in supply of information to Appellant. Respondents outlined steps taken to collect info from Director, South Campus of University, about canteen as it related to SouthCampus of University. There were some glitches in implementation of RTIA which now have been ironed out. There was an apparent mis-interpretation of the provisions of Act leading to a faulty decision. The CPIO presented the University’s case file for inspection by Commission to show that there had been no malafide intention in denying information. On other hand, Appellant contended that info supplied by University about affairs of South Campus Canteen on 13th July, 2006 was incomplete. Appellant further informed Commission that when he met Shri Hemant Singh, APIO & present PIO, he was threatened of dire consequences. He was directed to file a written complaint to Commission regarding this.
2. The matter was heard by bench of Dr. O.P. Kejariwal, ICr. Dr. A.K. Dubey presently AA in Delhi University appeared on behalf of Respondents & Appellant appeared in person.
Decision:
3. In order to study facts in depth Commission inspected file & documents submitted by University of Delhi, in exercise of powers conferred on it by clause (b) of sub-S.3 of S.18-RTIA. Commission noticed that info, in fact, was collected by Delhi University from South Campus on 28th Dec, 2005. The record also showed that a letter was sent by University to reported address of applicant on 9th January, 2006 seeking his correct address to enable University to send him reply. It was a subsequent development that Kabirs address which is NGO came into focus. PIO, in his judgement, thought that it was on behalf of Orgn., Kabir, & not on behalf of himself as an individual that applicant was seeking information and hence presumed that he was not entitled to seek info from PA. In fact, applicant would have received info he sought had it not been for confusion created by his change of address. The information was later supplied to applicant on 13th July, 2006 after Commission overruled PIO, Delhi University’s decision in its order of 3rd July, 2006
4. After considering carefully entire case & hearing Registrar, who appeared before Commission on 11th August, 2006, Commission is of opinion that PA has been earnest about the implementation of the provisions of the RTI Act and that there is no case for taking penal action against CPIO u/s 20 of RTIA. However, Commission directs CPIO, Delhi University, to supply to applicant remaining information i.e. copies of agreements etc. relating to canteen within 15 days of issue of this order. If applicant is still not satisfied with information, he can approach Commission for further orders.
5. The Commission ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(O.P. Kejariwal)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
Sd/-
(L.C. Singhi)
Additional Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Bibhav Kumar, E-169, Shanti Marg, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi- 110092.
2. Dr. A.K. Dubey, Registrar & Appellate Authority, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007.
3. Officer Incharge, NIC.
4. Press E Group, CIC.
No comments:
Post a Comment