Central Information Commission
Deeksha Trehan vs Ministry Of Railways on 5 June, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/RK/A/2016/000193/MP
Appellant : Ms. Deeksha Trehan, Haridwar
Public Authority : MSME, New Delhi
Khadi & Village Industries Commission (KVIC),
Mumbai
Date of Hearing : May 29, 2017
Date of Decision : June 1, 2017
Present:
Appellant : Shri Raj Hans Trehan, on behalf of the appellant -
through VC
Respondent : Shri Samar Nanda, Deputy Secretary - at CIC
Shri A.P. Chauben, Asstt Director from Mumbai -
through VC
RTI application : 17.08.2015
CPIO's reply : 28.08.2015, 06.10.2015, 06.11.2015
First appeal : 17.10.2015
FAA's order : 28.11.2015
Second appeal : 09.01.2016
ORDER
1. Ms. Deeksha Trehan, the appellant, sought the certified copies of proposal submitted by Haldwani Khadi Cluster for 2007-2012 for SFURTI Scheme under KVIC; report submitted by Haldwani Cluster at the end of SFURTI Scheme in 2012; handbook on revamped Scheme of Fund for Regeneration of Traditional Industries (SFURTI), published by Directorate of SFURTI, KVIC and certified copies of the proposal submitted by Gandhi Ashram, Dehradun, for revamped SFURTI in 2015.
2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) transferred the appellant's RTI application u/s 6(3) of the Act, to the CEO, KVIC, as the information sought by the appellant pertained to KVIC, which was a separate 'public authority' under the RTI Act, 2005, for providing information to the appellant, directly. The CPIO, KVIC, vide reply dated 06.10.2015, advised the appellant to deposit the requisite fees, so as to enable the CPIO to provide the available information to the appellant, towards photocopying charges. The appellant deposited the requisite fees on 30.10.2015 vide demand draft which was received by the CPIO, KVIC on 6.11.2015 and the CPIO provided the available information on the same day. In the meanwhile, due to delayed response from the CPIO, KVIC, the appellant, approached the first appellate authority (FAA), MSME for non-receipt of information from the CPIO and requested the FAA to provide the desired information/documents. The FAA again forwarded the appellant's appeal to CEO, KVIC, Mumbai, for providing the requisite information to the appellant, directly. Aggrieved with the delayed response of the CPIO and FAA to her RTI application and first appeal, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission and requested the Commission to impose penalty upon the CPIO for delayed reply alleging it to be a deemed refusal of information as well as to award costs to the appellant incurred by her in pursuing the matter before the public authority.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant's representative sought refund of expenses incurred by the appellant for obtaining the information along with the compensation for the mental agony caused to her, since there was delay on the part of CPIO, KVIC Mumbai, in providing information to the appellant, beyond the stipulated time period. He admitted to have received the desired information.
4. The respondent stated that the original RTI application was received in Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises seeking certain information regarding SFURTI scheme under KVIC which was then transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to CPIO, KVIC Mumbai vide letter dated 28.08.2015 since, at Ministry level, the proposals for SFURTI were only examined at the SSC level after the same was forwarded by the nodal agencies. In this case, the proposal was not received in the Ministry from any nodal agency including KVIC and the information was only held by KVIC in this regard. The CPIO, KVIC received the appellant's application on 14.09.2015. Subsequently, the CPIO vide letter dated 06.10.2015 requested the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs. 340/- so as to enable him to provide the requested information running in 170 pages, towards the document charges. The appellant deposited the requisite fees on 30.10.2015 vide demand draft which was received by the CPIO, KVIC on 6.11.2015 and desired information was provided to her on the same day and therefore, available information on all the points of appellant's application was provided to her within the stipulated time period.
5. On hearing both the parties and perusing the available records, the Commission observes that available information, as per the records, has been already provided to the appellant by the CPIO, KVIC Mumbai. The Commission further observes that in view of Section 7(3)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005, there was no delay on the part of the CPIO in furnishing the information to the appellant from the date of deposit of requisite fees by her and hence, no costs can be awarded to appellant regarding the expenses incurred by her in obtaining the information. The Commission, therefore, finds no merit in the submissions of the appellant's representative as the CPIO had duly followed the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and also advises the appellant to send his RTI application to correct CPIO for timely response to the appellant, in future. The Commission upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to:
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises, Under Secretary, Enterprises, Deputy Secretary, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 011 Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi - 110011 Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Ms. Deeksha Trehan, CPIO & Link Officer, Chandralok, Near Vanprastha Aashram, RTI Department, O/o Commissioner, Khadi & Village Industries, 3, Irla Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai, Jwalapur, Haridwar, Maharashtra - 400 056 Uttarakhand - 249 407