Central Information Commission
Deepak Kumar vs Housing And Urban Development ... on 4 October, 2022
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग ,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या/Second Appeal No.: CIC/HUDCO/A/2021/139312
Deepak Kumar .....अपीलकताग /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Under Secretary-(RTI Section),
Housing & Urban Development
Corporation Limited, HUDCO Bhawan,
Core-7-A, India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
...प्रनतवािीगण/Respondents
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 15.02.2021
CPIO replied on : 25.03.2021
First appeal filed on : 01.07.2021
First Appellate Authority order : 19.07.2021
Second Appeal received at CIC : 20.09.2021
Date of Hearing : 04.10.2022
Date of Decision : 04.10.2022
सूचना आयुक्त : श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 4
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information:
• PIO furnished reply, vide letter dated 25.03.2021, as under:
• Dissatisfied with the response received from PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal, vide letter dated 01.07.2021.
• The FAA vide order dated 19.07.2021 held as under:
• Written submission has been received from CPIO/HUDCO vide letter 28.09.2022, as under :Page 2 of 4
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Appellant: Represented by Adv Chandra Bhushan and Adv Pragya Priya Respondent: Mr J.P. Nahar, CPIO/HUDCO.
Written submission received from CPIO/HUDCO vide letter 28.09.2022, has been taken on record for perusal.
Representative of Appellant stated that reply provided by the PIO was incomplete and not satisfactory. He further requested the Commission to direct the PIO to provide complete information as sought in the instant RTI Application.
PIO submitted that appellant had not sought for specific information and thus, they were unable to ascertain the exact agenda of minutes of meetings that appellant desires. He further submitted that disclosure of minutes of the meetings would harm the commercial and competitive confidence of the company.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their written submission along with annexures, dated 28.09.2022, to the Appellant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, observes that the reply furnished by the Respondent is not meticulous. In the Page 3 of 4 given circumstances the Commission deems it fit to direct the concerned PIO, to revisit the instant RTI Application and provide a revised fresh reply as sought in the RTI application. The Respondent to redact the information which is exempted under RTI Act. Thus, the Respondent shall provide a revised fresh reply to the appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO.
In case relevant information, as sought in the instant RTI Application, pertains to some other Branch/Department, then the PIO should procure and provide the same to the Appellant. In doing so, PIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the appellant.
No further action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणतसत्यानपतप्रनत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 4 of 4