Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Jagdev Singh vs Jammu And Kashmir High Court on 20 April, 2022

                                 के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली,
                               ली New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/101916
                                         CIC/UTOJK/C/2020/115361
                                         CIC/JKHCS/C/2020/119748
                                         CIC/JKHCS/C/2020/123388

Shri Jagdev Singh                                     िशकायतकता  /Complainant
                                                          ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                VERSUS/बनाम
PIO                                                   ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
   1. Asstt. Commissioner (General) Jammu
   2. Additional      District      Development
      Commissioner, Jammu
   3. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir,
      Srinagar

Date of Hearing                      :   19.04.2022
Date of Decision                     :   20.04.2022
Chief Information Commissioner       :   Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal/complaint:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
    Case     RTI Filed     CPIO reply    First appeal     FAO         2nd Appeal
    No.          on                                                  Received on
101916      11.09.2019         -        23.09.2019         -        10.01.2020
 115361 29.03.2016             -             -             -        01.06.2020
 119748 05.06.2020             -              -            -        20.07.2020
 123388 26.06.2020             -              -            -        18.08.2020
  Information sought

and background of the case:

(1) CIC/UTOJK/A/2020/101916 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2019 seeking information on the following:-
Page 1 of 5
Having not received a response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.09.2019 which was not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging during the hearing Both the parties remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation. Shri Ramesh Chandan, FAA and Addl Dy Development Commissioner, Jammu appearing in CIC/UTOJK/C/2020/115361 stated that Shri Rakesh Kumar Dubey, Assistant Commissioner (General), Jammu is the concerned CPIO in the instant matter.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the documents available on record, the Commission finds that no reply has been provided to the Appellant. The Respondent was not present during the hearing to apprise the Commission about the factual position in the matter. Thus, the Commission directs Shri Rakesh Kumar Dubey, Assistant Commissioner (General), Jammu to examine the RTI application and provide a point wise response to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 31.05.2022 under intimation to Commission. Shri Dubey is also directed to show cause to the Commission as to why penal action as per Section 20 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 should not be initiated against him for not complying with the timelines prescribed under the Act.
With the above direction, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
(2) CIC/UTOJK/C/2020/115361 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 29.03.2016seeking information on following:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied due to non receipt of any information, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Page 2 of 5
Facts emerging during the hearing The Complainant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.
The Respondent represented by Shri Ramesh Chandan, FAA and Addl Dy Development Commissioner, Jammu participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that the RTI application under consideration herein was not received by them and no first appeal was filed by the Complainant. He also stated that similar issues have been heard and adjudicated by a predecessor bench of the Commission in CIC/UTOJK/C/2020/114656 decided on 29.06.2020.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission observes that the instant case is a Complaint where the Commission is only required to ascertain if information has been denied with a malafide intention or unreasonable cause and thereafter initiate penal action, if required. In the present instance, the Respondent claims to have not received the RTI application. The Complainant was not present to contest the submission of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission in the instant Complaint which stands dismissed accordingly.
(3) CIC/JKHCS/C/2020/119748 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated05.06.2020seeking information on following:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied due to non receipt of any information, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from the Respondent dated 16.04.2022 and the same has been taken on record.
Page 3 of 5
(4) CIC/JKHCS/C/2020/123388 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 26.06.2020 seeking information on following:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied due to non receipt of any information, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission has been received from the Respondent dated 16.04.2022 and the same has been taken on record.
Facts emerging during the hearing The Complainant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.
The Respondent represented by Shri Basid Manzoor Keng, Advocate participated in the hearing through video conference. He stated that in both these matters replies were provided vide letters dated 11.08.2020 and 08.10.2020 respectively. He admitted that there was some delay in replying to the RTI applications but attributed the same to the administrative difficulties faced due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent, the Commission observes that point wise information in accordance Page 4 of 5 with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 have been provided to the Complainant in both the matters albeit with a delay which is condoned based on the explanation provided by the Respondent's representative during the hearing. Thus, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Complaint which is dismissed accordingly.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5