Central Information Commission
Ravikant Attri vs Delhi State Industrial And ... on 29 July, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सच
ू ना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मनु नरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DSIDC/A/2021/130051-UM
Mr. Ravikant Attri
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.
MCD Property Tax Building,
IIIrd Floor, Old, Ring Rd, Block L, Lajpat Nagar III,
Lajpat Nagar, Delhi-110024
प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.07.2022
Date of Decision : 29.07.2022
Date of RTI application 13.02.2021
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 01.05.2021
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 28.07.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 03 points, as under:-
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission. Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Aksh Arora (Representative) present in the hearing, Respondent: Mr. P.K Aggarwal (Executive Engineer) present in the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding the civil work executed in the flat of Mr. Pradeep Saini in last 3 yrs by DSIIDC through Pramod Aggarwal etc. He further stated that the information he received was not from the CPIO (Chief Engineer) rather from deemed PIO i.e Mr Parmood Aggarwal (Executive Engineer) against whom he had sought the information. He said a person can't be a judge in his own case, which was against the RTI Act's objectives of transparency and accountability. He said the CPIO is making mockery of the provisions of RTI act 2005 and indulging in only a formality and giving misinformation. He requested the Commission to direct the public authority to furnish satisfactory information under the signature of Chief Engineer.
The Respondent submitted that vide letter dated 12/3/2021 and 18/08/2021 they had furnished a reply as per the provisions of RTI Act. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by Appellant and the Respondent the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has not been furnished by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the Commission directs the Respondent Authority to re-examine the RTI application and furnish a correct and detailed revised reply to the Appellant under the signature of Chief Engineer, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित एवं सत्याभित प्रभत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] निनाक ं / Date: 29.07.2022