Information was not provided by the Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Waqf and FAA’s order was also not complied; PIO abstained from hearing - CIC issued a SCN to the present PIO and the then PIO for imposing penalty u/s 20 (1) of the RTI Act

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.01.2023 seeking the following information:

“1. Arulmigu Sundaramooorthy Vinayagar and Muthumariamman, temple Nonankuppam was under the control of Hindu Religious Institution, who as constructed a building in RS.NO. 35/1 of Manavelli Revenue Village, Nonankuppam, Puducherry. Whether the construction was approved or not. Kindly furnish copy of the relevant documents respectively.

2. Whether R.S.No. 35/1 of Manavelli Revenue Village, Nonankuppam, Puducherry was belongs to Arulmigu Sundaramooorthy Vinayagar and Muthumariamman temple, Noanankuppam, Puducherry or not. Kindly furnish copy of the relevant documents respectively.

3. Details regarding auction conducted by Nonankuppam Arulmigu Sundaramooorthy Vinayagar and Muthumariamman temple administrators. Kindly furnish copy of the relevant documents respectively.

4. On 11.01.2023 Arulmigu Sundaramooorthy Vinayagar and Muthumariamman temple administrators conducted a Public Auction. Whether the said Auction was permitted by the Hindu Religious Institution, Puducherry or not.”

Having not received any response from the PIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.05.2023, held as under:

“Therefore, the views of the Public Information Officer-cum-Superintendent Hindu Religious Institutions is directed to provide all available information on record in respect of RTI application dated 30-01-2023 within 5 days to the appellant from receipt of this Order.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.”

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

The following were present:-

Appellant: Present through video conference.

Respondent: Absent.

The appellant inter alia submitted that information sought was not provided by the respondent despite order of the FAA.

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the appellant and perusal of the records, note that over a period of one and half year has elapsed, and the information sought has not been provided by the respondent till the date of hearing. The FAA’s order was also not complied with by the PIO. The PIO remained absent despite service of hearing notice which was viewed seriously by the Commission.

It is noted that PIO has not made any efforts to respond to the RTI application even upon receipt of hearing notice of the Commission. In the absence of the PIO, the reasons for non-response to the RTI application and non-compliance of the FAA’s order could not be ascertained. In view of the above, the present PIO and the then PIO (as on 30.01.2023) are show caused to explain as to why maximum penalty under section 20 (1) of the RTI Act should not be imposed upon each of them for not providing the information and for not appearing before the Commission despite notice. The present PIO is given responsibility to serve a copy of this order as well as show cause notice to the then PIO and secure his attendance on the next date of hearing and also submit their written explanations. All the written explanations (from both the PIOs) must reach the Commission within four weeks.

In addition to the above, the present PIO is directed to provide a point-wise reply/information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: J Natarajan v. Department of Hindu Religious Institutions and Waqf, File No: CIC/UTPON/A/2023/129660; Date of Decision : 03.10.2024