Central Information Commission’s 2nd show cause notice to Secretariat, Auroville Foundation

This article covers the Central Information Commission (CIC) hearing and order on Nityanand Jayaraman’s RTI. A link to the previous article covering Parvesh Debuka’s RTIs and background information on the Right to Information Act is given at the end. Articles covering the remaining RTIs of 2022 and those from 2023 for which CIC orders were issued will appear subsequently.   

 

Nityanand Jayaraman filed an RTI application on 20th May 2022 requesting a copy of the report of the special audit conducted - at the request of FAMC, Auroville on the Kalpana Housing Project - by chartered accountant P. Prabakaran. Nityanand also wanted to know if any action was taken on the report and if so, requested for all the related documents/information. 

 

As no reply was received from the CPIO, he applied to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) who is the Secretary, the Auroville Foundation, on 9th July 2022. As again no order was received from the FAA, he appealed to the Central Information Commission on 15th November 2022.

Central Information Commission, New Delhi

Hon’ble Commissioner Smt. Anandi Ramalingam of the CIC heard the representatives of both the applicant and CPIO on 12th February 2024 and issued the following order the next day 13th of February 2024:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that a period of over two years had elapsed and the reply to the RTI application has not been provided by the respondent. During the hearing, the Commission enquired the respondent regarding a reply to the RTI application. The respondent was not able to submit a proper reply before the Commission. It also raises a reasonable doubt that the denial of information is with mala fide intent. In view of this, the Commission directs the Registry of this Bench to issue show cause notice to present CPIO as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed upon him / her as per section 20 (1) of RTI Act for not responding to the RTI application and remining absent in the hearing. The present PIO is under obligation to serve copy of Page 2 of 3 Page 3 of 3 this order on the CPIO and secure his explanation. All the written explanations must reach the Commission within four weeks. Meanwhile, the respondent is directed to provide proper reply/information to the RTI application, specifying the correct exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, wherever applicable, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.

A copy of the full CIC Order dated 13th February 2024 on Nityanand Jayaraman's RTI Appeal is available at this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16BUs5AEa8AEkOQ6DweQR1rHSn-M_cqT0/view?usp=drive_link

Previous article related to this subject:

Central Information Commission show cause notice to Secretariat, Auroville Foundation for “evasive and misleading” replies to RTI applicant