Central Information Commission
Gurnam Singh vs Revenue Department on 28 June, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/REVDP/A/2021/612393-UM
Mr. GURNAM SINGH
....अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
Revenue Department
5, Sham Nath Marg, Prema Kunj, Civil Lines,
Delhi-110054
प्रनतिािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 27.06.2022
Date of Decision : 28.06.2022
Date of RTI application 25.01.2021
CPIO's response 28.01.2021
Date of the First Appeal 12.02.2021
First Appellate Authority's response 04.03.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 04.04.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points, as under:-
The CPIO, Dept. of Power, vide letter dated 28.01.2021 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 28.01.2021directed the PIO (Power) to send a copy of Appeal to PIO, Revenue Department for further necessary action.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Gurnam Singh present in the hearing, Respondent: Absent The Respondent remained absent during the hearing. Despite its continuous efforts, the Commission was not able to contact the Respondent.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding an electricity subsidy scheme for victims of 1984 anti Sikh Riots etc. He further stated that the reply which had been furnished on 28.01.2021is not in accordance with the information sought in the RTI application. 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.
The Respondent was not present to contest the submissions of the Appellant. DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Appellant, 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 to re- examine the RTI application and furnish a correct and detailed revised reply to the Appellant, 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) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित एवं सत्यापित प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के. राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] दिनांक / Date: 28.06.2022