Central Information Commission
Mrrajender Kumar vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation on 26 June, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/KY/C/2015/000059
Appellant : Shri Rajender Kumar
S/o. Shri Om Prakash Jangra
Juan-2, Sonepat, Haryana-131024
Public Authority : The PIO
DMRC, Metro Bhawan, Fire Bridge Lane,
Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-01
Date of Hearing : 26.06.2015
Date of Decision : 26.06.2015
Presence:
Appellant : Shri Rajender Kumar
PIO : Sh. Rajneesh Pandey, Sr. DGM/HR
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 17.12.2013, the appellant sought information on the 6 issues. II. PIO, vide its response dated 29.01.2014, has provided the information to the appellant. III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 11.02.2014, as desired information not provided. IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), Order is not on record. V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 04.04.2015, are contained in the Memorandum of Appeal.
HEARING Appellant as well as respondent appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION
1. During hearing of the appeal, it is submitted by the appellant that his so called complaint may be treated as a second appeal. On this appellant has also given his handwritten letter dated 26.06.2015, requesting thereby that his complaint be treated as a second appeal & not complaint. Thus, it is being dealt with as second appeal and not as complaint.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 17.12.2013, sought information from the respondents on six issues. Respondents, vide their response dated 29.01.2014, provided the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 11.02.2014 before the FAA, who could not take up the same for its disposal for the reasons best known to him.
3. Apart from above, it is admitted by Sh. Rajneesh Pandey, Sr. DGM/HR that the appellant's FA was disposed of by learned FAA but due to over sight and inadvertently, it could not be conveyed to the appellant. He has also shown the draft letter of FAA's order, found in the relevant official file.
.......2 -2-
4. The Commission heard the submissions made by appellant as well as respondents at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 17.12.2013, respondent's response dated 29.01.2014, and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
5. The Commission is of the considered view that it is a fit case to be remanded back to learned FAA with a direction to dispose of the Appellant's FA filed on 11.02.2014, in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act 2005, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission. As such, the case is remanded back.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Prakash) Deputy Registrar The PIO DMRC, Metro Bhawan, Fire Bridge Lane, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-01 Shri Rajender Kumar S/o. Shri Om Prakash Jangra Juan-2, Sonepat, Haryana-131024