Appellant stated that Mr. Anil Kumar has three different dates of birth and three different names in the office & sought verification of his certificate issued by CBSE - CIC: Provide a certified copy of the certificate & pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/-

FACTS

2. The Commission vide order dated 02.12.2015 held as under :

“ 5. Appellant stated that he wanted verification of certificate of Mr. Anil Kumar, as he is allegedly involved in Rupees Four hundred crore scam. He stated that Mr. Anil Kumar has three different dates of birth and three different names in the office. PIO replied that only the concerned department can seek verification of any candidate for such purpose. The appellant also wanted to know whether CBSE had issued certificate to Mr. Anil Kumar or not.

6. CPIO claimed that the issue of certificate of Mr. Anil Kumar is third party information, and personal information, hence it cannot be disclosed. The Commission notices that the CPIO did not respond to the request. He should have answered this request within 30 days from the date of receipt of the RTI application. During Video Conference, the CPIO suggested the appellant to pay Rs. 250/- for verification of documents. He also claimed that as per weeding out policy of the Board, application forms are preserved only for 10 years. The matter concerned is for the year 1977, therefore it was weeded out.

7. The appellant said that he had paid Rs. 250/- to the CBSE, but there was no reply. The appellant claimed that Mr. Anil Kumar has three names at different departments, obtained two appointments, misrepresented the public authority and facing several criminal charges. He said that Mr. Anil Kumar was also removed from the service of Northern Railways.

8. The appellant wanted to know whether CBSE had issued certificate in favour of Mr. Anil Kumar. It is a simple request, which should have been answered by the CBSE. The Commission directs the respondent authority to provide certified copy of the certificate and any other information available in the form of document, along with application form or annexure, if not weeded out as per policy of the CBSE, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. If any particular person is suspected to be malafide, it is duty of public authority to verify the certificates and provide copy of the same to assist in investigation. If any citizen is seeking to know whether any certificate was issued to a person, who is suspected of misrepresentation, such information cannot be denied by the CBSE.

9. The Commission directs CPIO of CBSE to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for not responding to the RTI application, for not refunding the amount of Rs. 250/- which was deposited by the appellant on the advice of CPIO, and for not providing any information about verification, even after collecting fee for the same, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

10. The Commission also directs the respondent authority to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/ to the appellant as cost of delay and denial of information etc”.

Decision:

3. The officer represented stated that they have given the reply to the appellant. He stated that they have never asked the appellant to pay Rs. 250/- for verification, because verification is to be done by the concerned department. Having heard the submissions and perused the records, Commission directs respondent authority to verify the papers related to demand of Rs. 250/- for verification and pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant and furnished copies of records concerning to weeded out of files/records to the appellant within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order. Compliance report of above direction shall be submitted to the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.

(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Ashwani Kumar v. CBSE, Ajmer in Case No. CIC/RM/A/2014/001350SA