Information about Maulana Azad Education Foundation - Appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply as the documents provided to him were not certified - CIC warned the PIO and directed to resend the documents in the form of certified copies
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Copy of the particulars submitted on the format by the Islamic Educational and Welfare Trust in response to MAEF letter Ref F. No. XIII/66/MAEF/MISC/2010 dt. 04/04/2011 signed by the Section Officer, MAEF.
2. Trust registration certificate and TRUST deed.
3. Proposal submitted by the TRUST.
4. Inspection report submitted for the consideration before the Board of MAEF.
5. List of Members of TRUST (i.e. Trustees) when application for the grant was submitted by the Trust.
6. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO has not certified the documents provided.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply as the documents provided to him were not certified. The CPIO submitted that the reply was given by the then CPIO. He further explained that non disclosure of the information was due to being related to third party.
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the appellant had not claimed any additional documents and whatever were given to him by the then CPIO was only needed to be certified. It is also relevant to mention here that Sec 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; (ii) of the RTI Act reads as follows:
(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to (ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records;”
The plea of the present CPIO that the relevant documents sought by the appellant is personal information of third parties was also unsubstantiated and in fact was contrary to the action taken as the records were provided, but were not certified copies.
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to resend the documents in the form of certified copies, to the appellant within 3 days from the date of receipt of the order. The then PIO, Shakeel Ahmed is issued a strict warning for not providing certified copies of the documents on time resulting in delay. A copy of this order shall be served to the then PIO, by the present CPIO under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Citation: Shahnawaz Anwar v. Maulana Azad Education Foundation in Decision no.: CIC/MAZEF/A/2018/634380/03192, Date of Decision : 19/03/2020