Central Information Commission
Himanshu Jaisawal vs Transport Department Delhi on 28 October, 2022
Author: Uday Mahurkar
Bench: Uday Mahurkar
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/TDDEL/A/2021/141540-UM
Mr. Himanshu Jaisawal
....अपीलकताा/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
1. O/o The Dy. Chief General Manager (H. Qrs.),
Delhi Transport Department
Scindia House, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 110001
2. Delhi Transport Department,
RTI Branch,
5/9, Under Hill, Road, Delhi - 110054
प्रततिादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.10.2022
Date of Decision : 28.10.2022
Date of RTI application 21.06.2021
CPIO's response Not on record
Date of the First Appeal 26.07.2021
First Appellate Authority's response Not on record
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 01.10.2021
ORDER
FACTS The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 04 points, as under:-
Dissatisfied due to non-receipt of any response from the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. 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: Absent Respondent: Mr. K.A Zaidi, DY. Manager (DTC) and Mr. S.K Johri, Sr. System Analysts (Transport Dept.), present in the hearing.
The Appellant remained absent during the hearing.
The Respondent Mr. K.A Zaidi while reiterating the contents of the RTI Application stated that he had sought information regarding Car details of a third party. He said the information sought pertained to the Transport dept. and the RTI application was duly transferred to them on 28.06.2021. The Respondent Mr. S.K Johri, submitted that the RTI application of the Appellant was not received in their office and therefore, no reply has been furnished on it. He apologized for the same. However, he said the information sought is third party information.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission by the Respondent dated 18.10.2022 which is taken on record.
The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent. DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the Respondents, 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 CPIO/ Mr. S.K Johri, Sr. System Analyst, to furnish a suitable reply to the RTI application of the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 15 days from the 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 Commission cautions the CPIO to be careful in future while dealing with the RTI application so that reply to the RTI application is provided within stipulated time frame and the provisions of the RTI Act are complied with in letter and spirit.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) (Information Commissioner) (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणणत एिं सत्यावपत प्रतत) (R. K. Rao) (आर. के. राि) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 / [email protected] ददनांक / Date: 28.10.2022