Rajasthan University fined Rs 10,000 for not giving information.

The Times of India: Jaipur; Fri Apr 29 2011,

JAIPUR: The Rajasthan Information Commission (RIC) has slapped a fine of Rs 10,000 on the Rajasthan University (RU) for not giving information to an application filed under the Right To Information (RTI) Act by Kamal Tonk, an activist of the Suchna Ka Adhikar Manch, Rajasthan.

Commissioner of the (RIC) T Srinivasan in his order dated April 6 states, "I find the Rajasthan University guilty for the delay in providing the information and impose a fine of Rs 10,000 on him. The said amount must be deposited within 30 days by demand draft to the secretary of the Rajasthan Information Commission."

"Moreover the university must within 21 days send the reply point by point and in correct words by registered post. Therefore, the appeal in this form is accepted," the order adds. In his application to the RU, Tonk had on March 18, 2010 enquired on what action had been initiated under Section 4 (1)(b) of the RTI Act. The Section 4 (1) (b) requires every public authority to publish within 121 days from the enactment of the RTI Act a statement of the boards, councils, committees and other bodies consisting of two or more persons constituted as its part or for the purpose of its advice as to whether meetings of those boards, councils, committees and other bodies are open to the public, or the minutes of such meetings are accessible for public.

However, when no information was forthcoming for Tonk even after a substantial period, he filed an appeal to the first appellate authority of the university. But even that failed to elicit a response. It was then that the second appeal was filed by Tonk to the commission.

In his order Srivivasan says that on July 2, 2010 a notice was sent to RU on the appeal against it but to no avail. Even a reminder was sent on September 13 but in vain and thereafter another registered notice was sent under Section (20) 1 of the RTI Act which was again not taken seriously.

"In the first hearing on February 3, 2011 the university was represented by Narendre Kumar Sharma who had been asked to be present for the second hearing on April 6, 2011 but it is clear that he is absent and as a result of his callousness the petitioner has been unable to get the information even today," he states.

Tonk has in his appeal to the RIC sought the required information while also wanting the university be punished for non-compliance of the Act.