Saurabh Dikshit vs Department Of Defence on 29 March, 2023

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Saurabh Dikshit vs Department Of Defence on 29 March, 2023

Bench: Vanaja N Sarna

                            क य सुचना आयोग
                    CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग
                            Baba Gangnath Marg
                        मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
                        Munirka, New Delhi-110067

                                        File no.: - CIC/MODEF/A/2022/642616
In the matter of
Saurabh Dixit
                                                            ... Appellant
                                        VS

Central Public Information Officer
Ministry of Defence
Dy. Director General Canteen Services,
Integrated HQ MoD (Army)
Quarter Master General's Branch,
West Block - III, 2nd Floor, Wing - III,
R K Puram, New Delhi - 110 066
                                                            ...Respondent

RTI application filed on                       :   30/11/2021
CPIO replied on                                :   24/12/2021
First appeal filed on                          :   10/12/2021
First Appellate Authority order dated          :   22/12/2021
Second Appeal dated                            :   03/08/2022
Date of Hearing                                :   29/03/2023
Date of Decision                               :   29/03/2023

The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone

Respondent: Brig Tamojeet Biswas, CPIO with Lt. Col. BS Punia and Col DK Bhatia- Present over intra-VC Information Sought:

The appellant has sought the following information:

1. How many bottles of different brands of rum, vodka, whisky, brandy and beer have been consumed by the Army, Air Force, Navy in year 2020?

2. What is the amount of quota for serving servicemen and ex-servicemen?

3. At what cost does the Army, Air Force, Navy procure each brand of alcohol and at what cost it is sold to the soldiers?

4. And other related information.

Grounds for filing Second Appeal:

The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant requested for condonation of delay in filing of the second appeal without explaining the reasons for delay. On being queried by the Commission on the reasons for not filing the second appeal on time, he failed to give any explanation. To the dismay of the Commission, he remarked, "I am not from Pakistan, therefore, you cannot dismiss my case on technical grounds." He also relied on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India regarding extension of limitation period.

The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply given vide letters dated 24.12.2021, 10.01.2022, 19.01.2022. The written submissions of the CPIO, RTI Cell, IHQ of MoD dated 28.03.2023 were received and taken on the record of the Commission.

Observations:

The Commission at the outset adjudicated the aspect of limitation period in filing of the instant case before getting into the merits of the case. The Commission took into consideration, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, titled, In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation which was relied upon by the appellant. The relevant portion of the said order is as follows:

"....It is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings."

Therefore, the benefit of the limitation period expired on 28.02.2022 and the fresh period of limitation began w.e.f. 01.03.2022. In the instant case, the limitation period as per the Section-19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 expired on 01.06.2022 and the appellant preferred the instant appeal on 03.08.2022. Therefore, the Commission concluded that the appeal was time barred.

Since the appellant neither sought condonation of delay nor gave any reasonable explanation that could have been considered as a sufficient cause thereby preventing him from filing second appeal after the stipulated time mentioned under Section-19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission cannot condone the delay in the instant case.

The Commission advised the appellant to refrain from using untoward and inappropriate language during the hearings.

Decision:

In the absence of any sufficient cause preventing the appellant from filing the appeal in time, the Commission considers it appropriate to treat the instant case as time barred under Section- 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. The instant second appeal being time barred is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission