Copy of communication from PESB relating to extension of tenure of CMD EdCIL was sought - PIO stated that order for extension has been issued by the Technical Bureau - CIC: provide a copy of the extension order issued by the Technical Bureau
1. Vide RTI dt 26.11.11, appellant had sought copy of communication from PESB relating to extension of tenure of Ms Anju Banerjee, CMD EdCIL.
2. An appeal was filed on 13.12.12, as no information was provided.
3. AA vide order dt 14.3.13, stated that information relating to vigilance clearance is not available with the CPIO and transferred the appeal and copy of application to Under Secretary (Vig) for supplying the requisite information. Shri KS Mahajan, Under Secy/CPIO(Vig) vide letter dt 5.6.13, provided a response.
4. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. Appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the response provided as in his RTI he has sought a copy of vigilance clearance issued to Ms Anju Banerjee, which has not been provided. It was further submitted that there has been inordinate delay as his RTI was filed on 26.11.11 and CPIO Vig had provided a response only on 5.6.13. CPIO, Vig Section submitted that communication available with them, dt 2.12.10, has already been provided to the appellant and no other information is available with them. He further clarified that order for extension has been issued by the Technical Bureau.
5. The Commission directs Shri KS Mahajan, Under Secretary/CPIO Vig, to provide a copy of the extension order issued by the Technical Bureau to the appellant within ten days from date of receipt of the order and to clarify that other than letter dt 2.12.10, no other document relating to Vigilance clearance in respect of Ms Anju Banerjee is available.
6. We also find that the RTI had been filed before the PIO MHRD on 26.11.11 and no response was provided to the appellant till 5.6.13. A show cause notice be issued to PIO MHRD, Deptt of Higher Education, TS-VII, Shastri Bhavan, as to why action u/s 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act be not initiated against him for the unwarranted delay in providing the information. His written submission should reach the Commission within three weeks from date of receipt of the order.
7. If there are other persons responsible for delay in providing information to the appellant, the PIO is directed to inform such persons of the show cause notice and direct them to provide a response to the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
Central Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri M L Gouhari v. MHRD, Deptt. of Higher Education in File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000848