Amrita Bhattacharjee filed an RTI application on 3rd June 2022 to know the names and dates of registration of all the individuals listed on the Register of Residents of Auroville Foundation.
“Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO (Central Public Information Officer, Auroville Foundation), the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 05.08.2022.
“Due to non-receipt of any order from the First Appellate Authority who is the Secretary, Auroville Foundation, the Appellant appealed to the Central Information Commission.
The appellant was absent during the hearing despite notice but representatives of the CPIO, Auroville Foundation attended the hearing through video conference on 12th February 2024. The day after the hearing, Commissioner Smt Anandi Ramalingam issued the following order (excerpt):
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing respondent 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, thus violating the provisions of the RTI Act. 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 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.
“Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any reply from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 19.09.2022.”
“Due to non-receipt of any order from the First Appellate Authority” who is the Secretary, Auroville Foundation, Deepika Kumaravel appealed to the Central Information Commission.
Nearly a year later, the CPIO, Auroville Foundation "replied vide letter dated 07.09.2023 and the FAA disposed of on 05.10.2023.”
Representatives of the applicant and the CPIO attended the hearing through video conference on 12th February 2024. The day after the hearing, Commissioner Smt Anandi Ramalingam issued the following order (excerpt):
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that there was a delay in providing a reply to the RTI application, however, the appellant was satisfied with the reply provided by the respondent. The respondent is however, cautioned to exercise due care in future to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished within the stipulated time as per provisions of the Act failing which penal proceedings under Section 20 shall be initiated.
The full CIC Orders on the above two RTI Appeals are available at these links:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pmiUqyIsXUTLpzC4e3jyhxclS3Wi9oRv/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v3ay1r3bahOaKUyg8PZVqeJ9muagnie8/view?usp=sharing
Previous articles on RTIs filed in 2022 for which CIC orders were issued are available on this blog. The purpose and powers of the RTI Act are given in the first article (Parvesh Debuka) dated 26th July 2024.
Articles covering the RTIs filed in 2023 for which CIC orders were issued on appeal will appear subsequently.