Central Information Commission
R. K. Mittal vs Department Of Health & Family Welfare on 25 July, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOHFW/A/2024/645278.
Shri. R. K. Mittal. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.
Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025
Date of Decision : 23.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.07.2024
PIO replied on : 01.08.2024
First Appeal filed on : 12.08.2024
First Appellate Order on : 12.09.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 14.10.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.07.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"Kindly provide copy of report dated 07.06 2024 of committe under chairmanship of Dr VK Fal, member fiTi looking after implementation and preparedness of NEXT in cave information is denied, Kindly provide exact clause number of RTlact under which it is denied Kindly note that providing exact clause number of exemption is mandatory under RTI act in case information in denied"
The CPIO, Under Secretary vide letter dated 01.08.2024 replied as under:-
"2. In this connection, you are informed that the Committee under Chairmanship of Dr. V.K. Paul, Member NITI was constituted to examine the matter relating to implementation/preparation of conducting the NEXT exam. The process of the recommendation by the Committee is still under process. Since, the issue may require the consideration of Higher Authorities and till the action is completed on the issue, the sharing of information may not be feasible as it may hamper the decision making."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.08.2024. The FAA, vide order dated 12.09.2024 replied as under:-
Page 1
"2. On perusal of records produced before the Appellate Authority, it is found that CPIO informed vide letter dated 01.08.2024 against his RTI application of that the recommendation by the committee is under consideration by higher authorities and till the action is completed on the issue, the sharing of information may not be feasible.
3. Since, the action of the CPIO, MEP appears as a bonafide and there was no action noticed by the undersigned which indicates that the CPIO refused access to information requested.
4. Accordingly, first appeal dated 12.08.2024 stands disposed off."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant/Complainant: Not present Respondent: Not present Both the parties remained absent despite due service of hearing notice.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission expresses displeasure over the non-attendance of PIO during the hearing of instant cases. Accordingly, the PIO is hereby directed to file a written explanation justifying the said conduct.
Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The second appeal is disposed of, accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)