Date of Hearing : 01.12.2021
Date of Decision : 02.12.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 10.04.2019 PIO replied on : 13.05.2019 First Appeal filed on : 15.05.2019 First Appellate Order on :-
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : -
Information sought and background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 10.04.2019 seeking minutes of meeting of Selection Committee dated 14.11.2017 for selection of Director of Pasteur Institute of India, Coonoor.
The CPIO vide letter dated 13.05.2019 furnished the minutes of the Selection Committee Meeting held on 24.11.2017.
But dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal 15.05.2019 which was not adjudicated.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties were present and heard through video conference. The Complainant stated that he had sought the minutes of meeting
1
of Selection Committee dated 14.11.2017, as mentioned by the Respondent in their counter affidavit dated 23.10.2018 submitted in the Delhi High Court case Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6924/2018. But the Respondent had provided minutes of meeting held on 24.11.2017. Hence, he had to approach the Commission to seek correct information.
Responding to the Complainant's plea, the Respondent averred that the meeting of the Selection Committee was actually held on 24.11.2017, while due to a typographical error it was mentioned as 14.11.2017 in the Counter Affidavit, filed before the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi. When it came to the Respondent's notice, the typographical error was duly notified to the Advocate for Central Government Standing Counsel vide letter dated 17.11.2019, copy whereof has been placed on record before the Commission. The Respondent further stated that a copy of the document indicating the rectification of the typographical error has been duly sent to the Complainant yesterday.
Decision
The facts which emerged during the course of hearing reveal that information furnished by the PIO was not incorrect and was based on records available. However, the records pertaining to the rectification of the typographical error which has been sent only recently, ought to have been sent earlier. The Respondent is cautioned to observe the mandated timeline of apprising the information seeker with correct information, well in time, without waiting for a hearing notice from the Commission.
In the given circumstances, it is noted that there has been no deliberate concealment or malafide denial of information by the Respondent. Hence, no further action is warranted under the RTI Act.
The case is disposed off accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्द्हा)
Chief Information Commissioner(सचूना आयकु्त) Authenticated true copy
(अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत)
S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. चिटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535
2