Dharmesh Vikramsinh Jadeja v. Auroville Foundation

केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission

बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067 नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/AFOUN/A/2022/656907 Dharmesh Vikramsinh Jadeja .....अपीलकताग/Appellant VERSUS/बनाम

Public Information Officer Under RTI,

Section Officer-(RTI Section), Auroville Foundation (Ministry of Education), Auroville Foundation Bhavan, Administrative Area, Town Hall, Auroville, Viluppuram-605101 (Tamil Nadu).

प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया

Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya Information sought:

The Appellant sought following information:

1. A Information, including where available policies and conflicts of interest registers, explaining how conflicts of interest are managed by the Auroville Foundation in selecting contractors for the Crown Road Works. This covers potential conflicts in relation to:

a) the provision of services; and

Page 1 of 4

b) materials including paving material and other construction and landscaping material.

2. Information regarding how conflicts of interest regarding awards of contracts for the Crown Road Works are made transparent to the Secretary of the Auroville Foundation.

3. Information regarding current and intended awards of contracts for service and materials for the Crown Road Works to members of the Secretariat, Working Groups and their Sub Groups and Services (such as, for example, Housing Board and Housing Service) and their friends and family. This includes to units and business both within and outside of Auroville associated with the persons specified.

4. Provide copies of contracts and memorandums specifying to whom contracts have been awarded for the Crown Road Works.

5. Information regarding how the Secretary of the Auroville Foundation discharges her duty to ensure, in relation to the Crown Road Works, that decisions are solely taken in the public interest and that "public resources [are used] efficiently, effectively and economically."

• Dissatisfied with no response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 25.08.2022.

Grounds for Second Appeal:

The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The following were present: -

Appellant: Present along with Advocate Suchit Narayan

Respondent: Mr. Anshuman Basu (Asst. Account Officer) (PIO) The Appellants has submitted that he has not received the information till date. He further submitted that under the Auroville Foundation Act, the Respondent Public Authority is bound to maintain & store requisite information and hence they are supposed to have such documents as sought by him in his RTI Application. He stated that the Institute is embroiled in mis-management and corruption, and other activities against the Laws of the Union of India. He further requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to furnish the relevant information. Upon queried regarding the delay in furnishing the reply to the instant RTI Application, the PIO stated that the Under Secretary was the Nodal officer and he was under Suspension from 14^thApril 2023 and retired on 31^stJuly 2023 due to which RTI Applications were not transferred by the Nodal officer within stipulated time frame. Further they have received the new login credential for the RTI portal and they in the process of furnishing reply to all the RTI Applications.

Page 2 of 4

Decision:

Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the then PIO in not having provided appropriate reply to the RTI Application till date. Accordingly, PIO is directed to provide available and relevant information sought in the RTI Application to the Appellant free of cost within 15 days of receipt of this order and send a compliance report of the same to the Commission. Further, PIO must make sure that any third-party information or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 shall not be disclosed to the appellant while providing the said reply.

Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the then CPIO (designated official at the time of receipt of the instant RTI Application) in not having provided any reply on the RTI Application within the stipulated time frame of RTI Act. Now, Commission was unable to procure the name of the then PIO, therefore Commission directs then CPIO (as stated above) through the present CPIO to send his/her written submissions to justify as to why action should not be initiated against him/her under Section 20 of the RTI Act for the gross violation of its provisions. In doing so, if any other persons are also responsible for the omission, the then PIO shall serve a copy of this order on such other persons under intimation to the Commission and ensure that written submissions of all such concerned persons are sent to the Commission. The said written submission of then PIO along with submissions of other concerned persons, if any, should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया)

Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त)

Authenticated true copy.

(अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत)

Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर)

Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)

Page 3 of 4

011-26180514

Copy to be served through present PIO to:

Then PIO,

Public Information Officer Under RTI, Section Officer-(RTI Section), Auroville Foundation (Ministry of Education), Auroville Foundation Bhavan, Administrative Area, Town Hall, Auroville, Viluppuram-605101 (Tamil Nadu).

--(For taking note of the adverse remarks of the Commission and complying with the directions)—

Page 4 of 4