Central Information Commission
Kamaljeet vs Office Of The Additional Distt. ... on 26 September, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/ADDDM/A/2023/128222
Kamaljeet .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
O/o the SDM (Kapashera),
Distt - South West, Old Terminal Tax
Building, Kapashera, New Delhi - 110037 ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 17.09.2024
Date of Decision : 25.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.02.2023
CPIO replied on : 23.03.2023
First appeal filed on : 27.03.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 19.05.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 13.06.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.02.2023 seeking the following information:
"Report of SDM regarding availability of Govt's land as per our letter dated 18.01.2023 to D.M/D.C. Kapashera."Page 1 of 5
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.03.2023 stating as under:
"कमलजीत पुत्र लेट श्री स हिं राम R/o VPO घुमनहे ड़ वाबत गवननमेंट की ननशानदे ही के िंदर्न में कहना है ककिः प्रार्थी कक ी र्ी कार्न -ददव पर आकि कार्ानलर् (Tehsil - Kapashara आकर ददर्े गर्े पत्रो पर की गई कार्नवाही का current-Status का अवलोकन कर कता है व कार्ानलर् में उपलब्ध म्बन्धधत ररकॉर्न का र्ी अवलोकन कर कता है ।"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.03.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 19.05.2023, held as under:
"This order shall dispose of the appeal filed by Sh. Kamaljeet, Appellant. During the proceeding held on 11.05.2023, Sh. Kamaljeet, appellant was present, DA(RTI) was present on the behalf of PIO/SDM(Kapashera).
On perusal of records placed in the file, the PIO has not provided the reply of RTI. But during hearing the appellant is submitted that he has received the reply of his RTI. And the appellant is not satisfied with reply. Therefore, the PIO/SDM(Kapashera) is hereby directed to provide the fresh and complete reply/ information, as per records available, to the appellant within 15 days of receipt of the order without fail.
The appeal is disposed of with above observations/direction."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Absent Respondent: Absent Both the parties remained absent despite service of notices.
Decision:
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, noted that the respondent vide letter dated 23.03.2023 Page 2 of 5 offered inspection of relevant records related to the queries raised in the RTI application. However, the appellant did not avail the same as per the records. Both the parties remained absent despite notices. In the absence of the appellant, it could not be ascertained as to whether he availed offer of inspection of records.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the respondent is directed to facilitate inspection of the records relating to the information sought in the RTI application once again, on a mutually decided date and time and provide photocopies of the documents selected by the appellant, as per the provisions of the RTI Act/Rules. The information as enjoy exemptions under the RTI Act may not be allowed giving a detailed cogent reason in the true spirit of the RTI Act. The above directions shall be complied with, within a period of three weeks' time from the date of receipt of this order.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the Commission admonishes the conduct of PIO for not appearing before the Commission despite notice and for non- compliance of the FAA's order. Such an act of the PIO only shows his casual approach towards the RTI Act and disregards the proceedings of the Commission. Hence, PIO is cautioned to be careful in future and appear before the respective bench failing which penal action may be taken against him/her as per the provisions of RTI Act.
In addition to the above, a pertinent issue emanating from the instant case and similar cases dealt by this bench in the recent past is that while replying to the RTI applications and disposing First Appeals, the designated PIO's and FAA's of almost all Public Authorities under the respondent department, are only scribbling their signatures and are not giving their names, official designations and their official telephone numbers and email ID's which is violation of instructions on the subject.
In this regard, the Commission finds it pertinent to refer its own judgment dated 02.07.2012, passed in Second Appeal No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000971, wherein it has been held as under:
"9. CPIO is directed to provide full and complete information regarding expenditure incurred on all types of gifts including coats at the Page 3 of 5 above-mentioned conference to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of the order. Furthermore, commission notes that while replying to the applicant vide letter dated 31 March 2011 the former CPIO has not given his name and has only scribbled his signature which is eligible and does not give out the identity of the CPIO.
10. CPIO is directed to ensure that his name is clearly written below the signature in future."
The Commission would also like to refer an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2015, bearing Ref. No. 10/1/2013-IR, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, regarding format of giving information to the applicants under the RTI Act, wherein following observations have been made which are as under:
"It has been observed that different public authorities provide information to RTI applicants in different formats. Though there cannot be a standard format for providing information, the reply should however essentially contain the following information:
(i) RTI application number, date and date of its receipt in the public authority.
(ii) The name, designation, official telephone number and email ID of the CPIO.
(iii) In case the information requested for is denied, detailed reasons for denial quoting the relevant sections of the RTI Act should be clearly mentioned.
(iv) In case the information pertains to other public authority and the application is transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, details of the public authority to whom the application is transferred should be given.
(v) In the concluding para of the reply, it should be clearly mentioned that the First Appeal, if any, against the reply of the CPIO may be made to the First Appellate Authority within 30 days of receipt of reply of CPIO.
(vi) The name, designation, address, official telephone number and e-mail ID of the First Appellate Authority should also be clearly mentioned."
Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act In view of above, an advisory, is issued to Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of NCT Delhi, to take note of the aberration of RTI Act being manifested in the Respondent public authority's office and issue a direction to their PIO's and FAA's to write their names, designations, official telephone numbers along with email id, while replying to the RTI Applications and First Appeal in future, in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005.
Page 4 of 5The Principal Secretary, Administrative Reforms Department, Government of NCT Delhi, is also directed to sensitize their officials regarding the provisions of RTI Act by way of training workshops etc. and putting in place a coherent system of checks and balances. In pursuance of the aforesaid advisory, the PIO is directed to place a copy of this order before their competent authority for taking appropriate action.
The First Appellate Authority to ensure compliance of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, O/o the ADM (South West), Old Terminal Tax Building, Kapashera, New Delhi - 110037 Sh. Anil Kumar Singh, Administrative Reforms Department 7th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat I. P. Estate, New Delhi 110002 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)