Principal of Delhi's Aditi Mahavidyalaya was fined Rs5,000 for delay in complying orders of the CIC to display information as mandated under Section 4 of the RTI Act. This is the 31st in a series of important judgements given by former Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi that can be used or quoted in an RTI application

Taking a serious note of delay in complying with its order, the Central Information Commission (CIC), levied a penalty of Rs5,000 on a Principal of a college. While giving this important judgement, Shailesh Gandhi, former Central Information Commissioner asked the Chairman of governing body of the college to recover the amount from the salary of the Principal.

“As per the provisions of Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act 2005, the Commission finds this as a fit case for levying penalty on the Dr Kalpana Bhrara, Principal.  Since there has been a delay in complying with the order of the Commission, the Commission is passing an order to levy a penalty of Rs5,000,” the CIC said in its order issued on 24 November 2009.

Delhi resident Rajeel Lala, on 12 November 2009, filed a complaint about Aditi Mahavidyalaya and alleged that the College has not displayed the information as required under Section 4 of the RTI Act. The Commission had sent a demi-official letter on 28 May 2009 to remind the Principal regarding this obligation under Section 4 of the RTI Act.

The Commission again sent reminder letters in this regard to the College on 12 August 2009. In this letter it was stated that if Section 4 of the RTI Act remained un-implemented, the Commission would be constrained to use the powers under the RTI Act and initiate proceedings against erring institutions.

The Commission after perusing the website of the College, found that it had not met its obligations with regard to suo moto disclosures under Section 4 and in view of its repeated violation of the law and refusal to pro-actively disclose the details as per Section 4 of the RTI Act, decided to institute an enquiry under Section 18 (2) of the Act. The CIC then issued a show cause notice to the Principal.

During a hearing on 24 November 2009, the Principal, in a letter stated that some part of Section-4 is to be hosted on the website and that the Section-4 compliance will be put up on the website in the next three months.

According to observation of the Commission on 23 November 2009 on the website of the college the following had been found:

1. No link for RTI

2. Name and contact details of PIO is not given

3. No contact detail provided in the directory

4. No info about budget is provided

5. Updation has not been done for a long period

During the hearing, the respondent brought a hard copy of the manuals for Section 4, which again did not give any details on the budget of the College.

Mr Gandhi said, in spite of repeated reminders, the College does not appear to be willing to meet the Section-4 requirements of the RTI Act. He then imposed a fine of Rs5,000 on the Principal while asking her to fully comply with direction of Section 4 before 30 December 2009 and sent a compliance report.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Decision No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001566/5669Penalty-1

https://ciconline.nic.in/cic_decisions/SG-24112009-10.pdf

Complaint No. CIC/SG/C/2009/001566

Complainant                                                : Rajeev Lala,

                                                                          JNU, New Delhi- 110067

Respondent                                                   : Dr Kalpana Bhrara

                                                                           Principal,

                                                                           Aditi Mahavidyalaya,

                                                                           Auchandi Road,

                                                                           Bawana,

                                                                           Delhi- 110039