Central Information Commission
Chandranshu Mehta vs Sangeet Natak Akademi on 21 September, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीयसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SANAK/A/2021/156084-UM
Mr.Chandranshu Mehta
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
D.S.(Publication) Sangeet
Natak Akademi Rabindra
Bhavan, Feroze Shah Road,
New Delhi-110001.
....प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 09.09.2022
Date of Decision : 21.09.2022
Date of RTI application 19.09.2021
CPIO's response 18.10.2021
Date of the First Appeal 23.10.2021
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 27.12.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on following points:
Page 1 of 3The CPIO vide letter dated 18.10.2021 furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. 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. Chandranshu Mehta, present in the hearing, Respondent: Mr. Ankur Acharya, D.S Publication, present in the hearing.
The Appellant while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought a Copy of the correspondence on the Recognition accorded by the SNA to the Scheduled Castes/Tribes Employees Welfare Association (Regd.) under the Central Civil Services (CCS) [Recognition of Service Associations (RSA)] Rules, 1993 etc. He further stated that an improper reply was furnished by the Respondent which could not fulfill his purpose. He alleged that without Page 2 of 3 any government approval the respondent had allowed a bogus SC/ST Employees Welfare Association under which the office bearers filed fake complaints based on vendetta and even marked copies of these complaints to other government department including PM office. Therefore, he said he wants to know the details of the fake Association. 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 submitted that vide letter dated 18.10.2021 they had furnished a reply as per record available in their office. He further stated that the Association is a valid and registered. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the Appellant, he said. The Appellant countered the claim of the Respondent and stated that he had confirmed from the labour Commissioner office that the above said Association has not been registered.
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, 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, on all points of the RTI application, 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 date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. For the redressal of his grievance, if any, the Appellant may approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणतएवंसत्याद्वपतप्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 21.09.2022 Page 3 of 3