Central Information Commission
Chandrakant C Shah vs Paradip Port Trust on 24 July, 2018
क यसूचनाआयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबागंगानाथमाग
Baba Gangnath Marg,
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली -110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Tel: 011 - 26182593/26182594
Email: [email protected]
File No: CIC/PPTRS /A/2017/131530
In the matter of:
Chandrakant C Shah
.....Appellant
Vs.
CPI, CPIO & Dy. Chief Engineer
Paradip Port Trust, Paradip Port- 754142,
Odisha Dist- Jagatsinghpur. .....Respondent
Dates
RTI application : 27.01.2017
CPIO reply : 23.02.2017
First Appeal : 11.03.2017
FAA Order : 26.04.2017
Second Appeal : 05.05.2017
Date of hearing : 12.07.2018
Facts:
The appellant vide RTI application dated 27.01.2017 sought information
on two points;
1. Action taken on his complaint.
2. Current status of Deep Drought Coal Berth. ( DDCB, BOT project )
The CPIO replied on 23.02.2017. The appellant was not satisfied with the
CPIO's reply and filed first appeal on 11.03.2017. The First Appellate Authority
(FAA) vide order dated 26.04.2017 disposed of the first appeal. Aggrieved with
the non-supply of the desired information from the respondent authority, the
appellant filed second appeal under the provision of Section 19 of the RTI Act
before the Central Information Commission on 05.05.2017.
Grounds for Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
1
ORDER
Appellant : Present
Respondent : Shri S.C. Bishnoi,
Deputy Chief Engineer cum APIO,
Paradip Port Trust
During the hearing, the respondent APIO submitted that they had
provided the requisite replies vide their letters dated 23.02.2017 enclosing there with another reply dated 09.03.2016 and the First Appellate Authority (FAA)'s order dated 26.04.2017. The replies furnished to the appellant are just and proper and hence the case might be dismissed.
Since the reply dated 09.03.2016 was not available in the case record, the respondent PIO was asked to read the same over the VC facility. He was intimated to send a copy of the same to the Commission through e-mail for record.
The appellant submitted that he was not satisfied with the reply received from the respondent.
On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that proper reply was not provided to the appellant on point nos. 1 and 2 of the said RTI application. A more comprehensive reply should have been provided to the appellant as all the sought for information is eminently disclosable under the relevant provisions of the RTI Act i.e. details of action taken on his complaint in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc. should have been provided to the appellant by the concerned respondent authority earlier.
Be that as it may, since no desired information was provided to the appellant in the present case, the respondent CPIO is directed to provide revised point wise reply as discussed during the hearing complete in all respects to the appellant as available on record in the form of certified true copies of the documents sought e.g. note sheets, letters, correspondences, e-mails etc.(legible copies), free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act within 15 days of the receipt of 2 the order. For this purpose, the concerned CPIO/PIO, can take assistance of any other office/department u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act.
The respondent CPIO is further directed to send a report containing the copy of the revised reply and the date of despatch of the same to the RTI appellant within 07 days thereafter to the Commission for record.
With the above observation/direction, the appeal is disposed of. Copies of the order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya] Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (A.K.Talapatra) Dy. Registrar 3